Ejection ...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Read his post again, just the part that you quoted. His question to the coach is followed immediately by "he has five". He is informing the coach.

Not in his original post though. There is NO mention of "he has five" in that one. Au contraire, he flatly stated that that "there is no reason to inform the coach that it's the fifth.".

You can't have it both ways. If he admits that he "misspoke", you can't blame that on people who believed what he wrote originally.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Not in his original post though. There is NO mention of "he has five" in that one. Au contraire, he flatly stated that that "there is no reason to inform the coach that it's the fifth.".

You can't have it both ways. If he admits that he "misspoke", you can't blame that on people who believed what he wrote originally.

You say misspoke. I say realized what an idiot he was and changed his story. Tomato Tomahto.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You say misspoke. I say realized what an idiot he was and changed his story. Tomato Tomahto.

I could go with that if he hadn't first said it correctly only to follow up with a misstatement.

OK, I'm done with this. tref is a big boy and can handle his own.

[Judtech]

First of all, I really want the NUTMEG t-shirt. I know it is a state pride sort of thing, but I also have a Fighting Blue Hen T-Shirt from Deleware, and who doesn't own a S. Carolina Gamecock item?!??!!!
I would go with "Coach, that's the 5th on 11, is this their sub?" If the coach gets a little snarky, I'd say something like "Well, just thought I would ask". Several times the coach will just answer YES without thinking and we can get the game restarted quicker. Then a few minutes later, the coach realizes that they wanted SOMEONE ELSE to go in then subs that player in the game.

[tref]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You say misspoke. I say realized what an idiot he was and changed his story. Tomato Tomahto.

Originally Posted by tref
"Is the sub for 11, he has 5, COACH."

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Not telling the coach, in the manner you are supposed to tell him, is ASKING, if not BEGGING for trouble.

And I'm the idiot... ok

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Not in his original post though. There is NO mention of "he has five" in that one. Au contraire, he flatly stated that that "there is no reason to inform the coach that it's the fifth.".

You can't have it both ways. If he admits that he "misspoke", you can't blame that on people who believed what he wrote originally.

Sorry, you've got the order of events wrong, it seems. He misspoke in post #47, he said to say "he has five" in post #43. I'd quote them for you, but that would border on snarky.

I put the initial confusion on tref, but let me put it this way:

We often give the benefit of the doubt to long time posters when they (meaning I) misspeak on something, based on what we know about their knowledge and history of posting. Why, then, when someone repeatedly clarifies (albeit with some serious snark) his meaning, do we zero in on one little tidbit that is, when taken in the context of the entire thread, an obvious misstatement?

Then again, if I'm wrong, it wouln't be the first crappy call I made this summer.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sorry, you've got the order of events wrong, it seems. He misspoke in post #47, he said to say "he has five" in post #43. I'd quote them for you, but that would border on snarky.

I put the initial confusion on tref, but let me put it this way:

We often give the benefit of the doubt to long time posters when they (meaning I) misspeak on something, based on what we know about their knowledge and history of posting. Why, then, when someone repeatedly clarifies (albeit with some serious snark) his meaning, do we zero in on one little tidbit that is, when taken in the context of the entire thread, an obvious misstatement?

Know what? If tref/Ch!town simply hadda said that he "misspoke" right after being questioned about post #47 instead of waiting until post #125 three days later, we might not have gone through all this crap. We could have given him the benefit of the doubt then and this thread could have died a well-deserved death at that time. And please note for the record, I sureasheck ain't the only one that took what he said on post #47 at face value. That post and his "clarifications" since then have been questioned by some other posters whose officiating knowledge I have a great deal of respect for.

And you are right. It is time for all of us to be done with this one also imho.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Au contraire.

"Jurassic Referee!, when you speak French, it drives me wild, Cara Mia!"