VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

TheBeautifulGame said:
Context? He's either moving towards the goal or he's isn't. The direction that he was moving would have taken him to the sideline short of the corner flag, not towards the goal.

You continue to dig a deeper hole for yourself. Best to just concede that you are in denial about what happened. He's running towards the sideline, period. For you to continue to deny this any longer out of some desperate attempt to be right would be mad.

There's a reason why VAR made the decision that they made. We don't have to like it, we don't have to agree with it, but we can certainly understand it and not be in denial about why the decision was made.
Click to expand...

He, the attacker, doesn't have to be moving towards the goal. The general direction of the play is just one of the things to be taken into account in the determination of the DOGSO.

Do you watch any football at all?

There have been two DOGSO since the Cup final, Kovacic and Martinez. In neither case was the attacker running directly at the goal, but in both cases the general direction of play was towards the goal. What does that tell you?
 
halfcenturyup said:
He, the attacker, doesn't have to be moving towards the goal. The general direction of the play is just one of the things to be taken into account in the determination of the DOGSO.

Do you watch any football at all?

There have been two DOGSO since the Cup final, Kovacic and Martinez. In neither case was the attacker running directly at the goal, but in both cases the general direction of play was towards the goal. What does that tell you?
Click to expand...
It tells me that you don't have a "feel" for the game. In those two situations, a red card was given straight away by the referee on the pitch due to clear contact with the attacker. In the case of Kova, the intent was clear. He brought him down and that was plainly visible to everyone watching and to the on field referee in order to deny a goal scoring opportunity. In that case it didn't need to be considered a denial of a goal scoring opportunity for the red card to be given. The action itself was severe enough to have him sent off promply without needing it to go through the DOGSO criteria. And if you wanna get technical, as the foul was further from the goal and wide of the goal where it occurred, he was certainly moving towards the endline, not the sideline in the case of Haaland. The closer you are to the goal the harder the angle would need to be to be moving towards the goal. That far away moving towards the endline in parallel to the sideline should be enough, one would think, to satisfy the criteria. In the case of Martinez, as we've already discussed, the red card was given seemingly due to how hard of a collision it was. It is true that the United player kicked it wide as Martinez was approaching and that he wouldn't have been moving towards the goal there either.

In both these situations there was physical contact that brought down the attacker, which presumably was, more than anything, why a red card was given. And not through VAR but via the on pitch referee. It's not as if you need to establish that any incident was a DOGSO in order for a referee to give a red card.

If the infraction was severe enough, if the collision was hard enough, if the intent to commit a bad foul was obvious enough, a red can be given without it needing to be established as a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.
 
bleuger said:
If Henderson didnt think it was a goal scoring opportunity he wouldnt have handballed it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, and I would tend to agree with you about that. But what Henderson thought in the heat of the moment is separate from what goes into the decision-making process. That is more "do the rules make sense" territory rather than what they are.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
It tells me that you don't have a "feel" for the game. In those two situations, a red card was given straight away by the referee on the pitch due to clear contact with the attacker. In the case of Kova, the intent was clear. He brought him down and that was plainly visible to everyone watching and to the on field referee in order to deny a goal scoring opportunity. In that case it didn't even needed to be considered a denial of a goal scoring opportunity. The action itself was enough to have him sent off without needed it to go through the DOGSO criteria. And if you wanna get technical, as the foul was further from the goal and wide of the goal he certainly was moving towards the endline, not the sideline. The closer you are to the goal the harder the angle would need to be to be moving towards the goal. That far away moving towards the endline in parallel to the sideline should be enough, one would think, to satisfy the criteria. In the case of Martinez, as we've already discussed, the red card was given seemingly due to how hard of a collision it was. It is true that the United player kicked it wide as Martinez was approaching and that he wouldn't have been moving towards the goal there either.

In both thesee situation there was physical contact that brought down the attacker, which presumably was, more than anything, why a red card was given. And not through VAR but via the on pitch refereee. It's not as if you need to established that any situation was a DOGSO in order for a referee to give a red card.

If the infraction was severe enough, if the collision was hard enough, a red can be given without it needing to be established as a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.
Click to expand...

One last time. You don't know what you are talking about.

DOGSO is in the LOTG, not just the VAR protocol. Referees take DOGSO into account onfield to determine the sanction after an offence has been committed.

VAR also checks every actual or potential DOGSO red card to make sure the referee's DOGSO determination is correct.

So DOGSO was reviewed in both cases. Unless you tell me Kovacic got a red card for a bit of holding, and Martinez got a red card for obstruction? In which case, I can't help you. But your therapist can.

By the way:

 
halfcenturyup said:
DOGSO is in the LOTG, not just the VAR protocol. Referees take DOGSO into account onfield to determine the sanction after an offence has been committed.
Click to expand...
A red card doesn't need to be determined to be a DOGSO in order for the red card to be given. Red cards can be given for a variety of serious offenses, including violent conduct, serious foul play, etc. I'm not disagreeing with you on this point that the referee takes that into account.

halfcenturyup said:
VAR also checks every actual or potential DOGSO red card to make sure the referee's DOGSO determination is correct.

So DOGSO was reviewed in both cases. Unless you tell me Kovacic got a red card for a bit of holding, and Martinez got a red card for obstruction? In which case, I can't help you. But your therapist can.

By the way:

Click to expand...

"A bit of holding" Ha! That's one way to put it.

In the Kova situation, the direction the opponent was headed in wasn't perhaps "directly" towards the goal but it was in the general vicinity of the goal. As in, he was running towards the endline, parallel to the sideline if you will. As opposed to Haaland who was running diagonally towards the sidelines and away from goal.

A crash course in geometry may be needed here. Shall I get a protractor?

You're preaching to the choir if you're arguing that they have been inconsistent in their application of the laws. I agreed that the United player kicked it wide which caused both he and Martinez to hard pivot towards the ball which, in effect, caused them to converge on each other. While I get why the ref would have given a red there in the heat of the moment, due the hard collision, I would also agree that they weren't running towards the goal.

So in that case, I'm not sure if I agree with the red there. I'm a little conflicted about that one and it sounds like you are too, especially considering, as I said earlier, that it wasn't even a pass forward from United but rather a backpass from Villa that fell woefully short and the United player found himself on to it. The goalie had understandably come out to try to get to the backpass which would have naturally put himself that far out.

What I would say to you is that even if the Martinez sending off didn't satisfy all the criteria for DOGSO, which it sounds like we're in agreement on, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the same criteria in the case of Haaland.

Until you can admit that Haaland was in fact running away from goal and wide of the goal and that he didn't have control, I don't think you're being completely honest as it pertains to that incident. As for the other two instances, there was harder and more deliberate contact that occurred and thus those were more deserving of a red card.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
A red card doesn't need to be determined to be a DOGSO in order for the red card to be given. Red cards can be given for a variety of serious offenses, including violent conduct, serious foul play, etc. I'm not disagreeing with you on this point that the referee takes that into account.


"A bit of holding" Ha! That's one way to put it.

In the Kova situation, the direction the opponent was headed in wasn't perhaps "directly" towards the goal but it was in the general vicinity of the goal. As in, he was running towards the endline, parallel to the sideline if you will. As opposed to Haaland who was running diagonally towards the sidelines and away from goal.

A crash course in geometry may be needed here. Shall I get a protractor?

You're preaching to the choir if you're arguing that they have been inconsistent in their application of the laws. I agreed that the United player kicked it wide which caused both he and Martinez to hard pivot towards the ball which, in effect, caused them to converge on each other. While I get why the ref would have given a red there in the heat of the moment, due the hard collision, I would also agree that they weren't running towards the goal.

So in that case, I'm not sure if I agree with the red there. I'm a little conflicted about that one and it sounds like you are too, especially considering, as I said earlier, that it wasn't even a pass forward from United but rather a backpass from Villa that fell woefully short and the United player found himself on to it. The goalie had understandably come out to try to get to the backpass which would have naturally put himself that far out.

What I would say to you is that even if the Martinez sending off didn't satisfy all the criteria for DOGSO, which it sounds like we're in agreement on, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the same criteria in the case of Haaland.

Until you can admit that Haaland was in fact running away from goal and wide of the goal and that he didn't have control, I don't think you're being completely honest as it pertains to that incident. As for the other two instances, there was harder and more deliberate contact that occurred and thus those were more deserving of a red card.
Click to expand...

You don't need a protractor, you are a protractor.

I never said Haaland wasn't running away from goal (in my opinion slightly) or that he had the ball under control when Henderson touched it. I said neither of those things are determinant in a DOGSO. They are taken into account in a subjective determination in the same way the likelihood of gaining control of the ball is. In my opinion there are other factors that carry more weight.

At the end of the day, it's a subjective decision. You and Gillett think the above mean there was no DOGSO (Gillett just the direction of play, obviously). Everyone else thinks it was a DOGSO. Nobody cares what you think. Unfortunately, what Gillett thought, and why, was important.

As for Kovacic, holding like that is a cautionable offence that happens multiple times in a match. What makes it a red card, is the DOGSO.

As for Martinez, PGMOL themselves say it was a DOGSO, so what you think doesn't interest me.

So I have answered your questions, now you answer mine. Do you now accept Henderson committed a handball offence and do you now accept that whether it was deliberate or not has no bearing on the sanction according to the LOTG? I don't care about your opinion as to whether it's harsh, or whether the rules make sense - just yes or no. No thesis this time, I won't read it. That is where we started all this nonsense after all.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You don't need a protractor, you are a protractor.
Click to expand...
If you say so.

halfcenturyup said:
I never said Haaland wasn't running away from goal (in my opinion slightly) or that he had the ball under control when Henderson touched it.
Click to expand...
Oh good. Glad you made that clear. So he is running away from goal, albeit "slighty". If he's "slighty" running away from goal, then he's certainly not running towards it, which has led them to their decision of it not being an "obvious" denial of goal scoring opportunity. You've been making the argument that they didn't follow the laws, or the guidelines, or that it clearly should have been a red card, all this jazz.

But now you're changing your tune. Slowly, but surely.

halfcenturyup said:
I said neither of those things are determinant in a DOGSO. They are taken into account in a subjective determination in the same way the likelihood of gaining control of the ball is. In my opinion there are other factors that carry more weight.
Click to expand...
OK, so in your opinion. They made a subjective determination. Guess what? That was my argument from the beginning, that it wasn't a clear red card as so many were claiming. Remember it was me who said I personally considered it a denial of a goal scoring opportunity. But I also went through the laws and the way that they were worded and made the assessment that they were well within their rights to conclude that it wasn't a "obvious" DOGSO and thus wasn't a red card.

So they subjectively came to that decision, by seeing Haaland running wide, judging that he didn't have control, etc and determined that while it was a "possible" goal scoring opportunity, that it wasn't an "obvious" one. That was why they made that decision.

OK we have several posters here include Mist saying that they "cheated" in not giving the red card, that they didn't follow the rules, etc. Clearly they did follow the rules and came to that decision through a "subjective" evaluation of the criteria. My argument is that the rules are bent lol but you don't wanna hear that, even though you're essentially making that argument. The idea that not giving a red card there was unjustifiable is what has been argued from the beginning. And I'm pointing out that, no, according to the laws, subjectively, they were well within their right to not consider it an "obvious" DOGSO and to not give a red card there.

That's what I've been saying. So it seems that we're in agreement that this is a decision that "could have reasonably gone either way". But in my humble opinion, the red card would have been harsh for a multitude of reasons and I think in the end they shouldn't have sent Henderson off. However, the problem still remains that due to all this they were unable to correct the error of handball and award a free kick, which has been the problem with what occurred all along. And what I've been arguing from the beginning, if you've been paying attention, that they shouldn't have needed to send Henderson off or determine it to be an "obvious" DOGSO in order to correct the error and give the free kick.

halfcenturyup said:
At the end of the day, it's a subjective decision. You and Gillett think the above mean there was no DOGSO (Gillett just the direction of play, obviously). Everyone else thinks it was a DOGSO. Nobody cares what you think. Unfortunately, what Gillett thought, and why, was important.
Click to expand...
Well you care enough to be having this discussing, and in the end you admit it's subjective. So why do you have such a problem with me concluding that it shouldn't have been considered a DOGSO according to the criteria? My argument is simply that Haaland was running away from the goal rather than towards it, didn't have control of it, so therefore it wasn't an "obvious" DOGSO. Was it a "possible" goal scoring opportunity? Of course. I consider it even a "probable" GSO but not an "obvious" one, an important distinction particularly because that's how the rules describe what it would need to be.

halfcenturyup said:
As for Kovacic, holding like that is a cautionable offence that happens multiple times in a match. What makes it a red card, is the DOGSO.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with you there. Also his deliberate intent to stop the opportunity, to grab on to the man and keep him from getting to the ball. That's a red card every time.

halfcenturyup said:
As for Martinez, PGMOL themselves say it was a DOGSO, so what you think doesn't interest me.
Click to expand...
We both agree that they wasn't moving towards goal. I said I'm conflicted on that one.

halfcenturyup said:
So I have answered your questions, now you answer mine. Do you now accept Henderson committed a handball offence and do you now accept that whether it was deliberate or not has no bearing on the sanction according to the LOTG? I don't care about your opinion as to whether it's harsh, or whether the rules make sense - just yes or no. No thesis this time, I won't read it. That is where we started all this nonsense after all.
Click to expand...
I've always accepted that Henderson committed a handball and that it should have resulted in a free kick. If you've been paying attention, the problem I have is that they were unable to correct the very basic error of a handball because they needed it to be a red card in order to correct it.

To review, as we've been over countless times (but you apparently still don't get) the LOTG state that it needs to rise to the level of an "obvious" denial of a goal scoring opportunity in order and an automatic red card of the offender in order for the error to have been corrected. That has been the issue all along.

Due to the fact that Haaland was running wide and "slightly" (as you say) away from goal and the fact that he wasn't ever in control of the ball, they determined it to not be an "obvious" denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

So by the letter of the law, albeit subjectively, they were well within their right to come to the decision that they did. And not giving a red card in my view was the correct "carding" decision there. However, there's still the issue of not being able to correct the basic error of a handball with a free kick which is problematic.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You don't need a protractor, you are a protractor.

I never said Haaland wasn't running away from goal (in my opinion slightly) or that he had the ball under control when Henderson touched it. I said neither of those things are determinant in a DOGSO. They are taken into account in a subjective determination in the same way the likelihood of gaining control of the ball is. In my opinion there are other factors that carry more weight.

At the end of the day, it's a subjective decision. You and Gillett think the above mean there was no DOGSO (Gillett just the direction of play, obviously). Everyone else thinks it was a DOGSO. Nobody cares what you think. Unfortunately, what Gillett thought, and why, was important.

As for Kovacic, holding like that is a cautionable offence that happens multiple times in a match. What makes it a red card, is the DOGSO.

As for Martinez, PGMOL themselves say it was a DOGSO, so what you think doesn't interest me.

So I have answered your questions, now you answer mine. Do you now accept Henderson committed a handball offence and do you now accept that whether it was deliberate or not has no bearing on the sanction according to the LOTG? I don't care about your opinion as to whether it's harsh, or whether the rules make sense - just yes or no. No thesis this time, I won't read it. That is where we started all this nonsense after all.
Click to expand...


Ha ha ha.
Bet you feel like slapping yourself now.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
If you say so.


Oh good. Glad you made that clear. So he is running away from goal, albeit "slighty". If he's "slighty" running away from goal, then he's certainly not running towards it, which has led them to their decision of it not being an "obvious" denial of goal scoring opportunity. You've been making the argument that they didn't follow the laws, or the guidelines, or that it clearly should have been a red card, all this jazz.

But now you're changing your tune. Slowly, but surely.


OK, so in your opinion. They made a subjective determination. Guess what? That was my argument from the beginning, that it wasn't a clear red card as so many were claiming. Remember it was me who said I personally considered it a denial of a goal scoring opportunity. But I also went through the laws and the way that they were worded and made the assessment that they were well within their rights to conclude that it wasn't a "obvious" DOGSO and thus wasn't a red card.

So they subjectively came to that decision, by seeing Haaland running wide, judging that he didn't have control, etc and determined that while it was a "possible" goal scoring opportunity, that it wasn't an "obvious" one. That was why they made that decision.

OK we have several posters here include Mist saying that they "cheated" in not giving the red card, that they didn't follow the rules, etc. Clearly they did follow the rules and came to that decision through a "subjective" evaluation of the criteria. My argument is that the rules are bent lol but you don't wanna hear that, even though you're essentially making that argument. The idea that not giving a red card there was unjustifiable is what has been argued from the beginning. And I'm pointing out that, no, according to the laws, subjectively, they were well within their right to not consider it an "obvious" DOGSO and to not give a red card there.

That's what I've been saying. So it seems that we're in agreement that this is a decision that "could have reasonably gone either way". But in my humble opinion, the red card would have been harsh for a multitude of reasons and I think in the end they shouldn't have sent Henderson off. However, the problem still remains that due to all this they were unable to correct the error of handball and award a free kick, which has been the problem with what occurred all along. And what I've been arguing from the beginning, if you've been paying attention, that they shouldn't have needed to send Henderson off or determine it to be an "obvious" DOGSO in order to correct the error and give the free kick.


Well you care enough to be having this discussing, and in the end you admit it's subjective. So why do you have such a problem with me concluding that it shouldn't have been considered a DOGSO according to the criteria? My argument is simply that Haaland was running away from the goal rather than towards it, didn't have control of it, so therefore it wasn't an "obvious" DOGSO. Was it a "possible" goal scoring opportunity? Of course. I consider it even a "probable" GSO but not an "obvious" one, an important distinction particularly because that's how the rules describe what it would need to be.


I'm not disagreeing with you there. Also his deliberate intent to stop the opportunity, to grab on to the man and keep him from getting to the ball. That's a red card every time.


We both agree that they wasn't moving towards goal. I said I'm conflicted on that one.


I've always accepted that Henderson committed a handball and that it should have resulted in a free kick. If you've been paying attention, the problem I have is that they were unable to correct the very basic error of a handball because they needed it to be a red card in order to correct it.

To review, as we've been over countless times (but you apparently still don't get) the LOTG state that it needs to rise to the level of an "obvious" denial of a goal scoring opportunity in order and an automatic red card of the offender in order for the error to have been corrected. That has been the issue all along.

Due to the fact that Haaland was running wide and "slightly" (as you say) away from goal and the fact that he wasn't ever in control of the ball, they determined it to not be an "obvious" denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

So by the letter of the law, albeit subjectively, they were well within their right to come to the decision that they did. And not giving a red card in my view was the correct "carding" decision there. However, there's still the issue of not being able to correct the basic error of a handball with a free kick which is problematic.
Click to expand...

No and no. You started all this by saying it wasn't a deliberate handball and so shouldn't be a red card. You were wrong that it wasn't deliberate by the LOTG and even if you were right about that you were wrong that it would have made any difference to the sanction according to the LOTG. That's where I joined this "discussion".

Then you shot off down the four DOGSO factors. We can discuss the DOGSO until the cows come home. I have consistently said it was the wrong decision and explained why, and why your justifications are either irrelevant or not determinant. You have a different opinion. That's fine, but on one side there is you and Gillett and on the other there is everyone else. I can't explain your insanity, but I can explain Gillett's.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Closer to the goal-line, sure, not closer to the goal. He's moving towards the sideline / corner flag.
Click to expand...
Your logic stream is incorrect.
You are hanging your whole viewpoint on the direction Erling was heading after the handball.

You have stated your reasons and are now entrenched. It is a classic example of what we see from refs on a regular basis when they make a mistake (or bad interpretation).

You say that your mentor told you "nobody but refs know the rules" (to paraphrase). That, there, is the root cause of why refs are lambasted so much, because non-refs know a hell of a lot about the rules, and also said rules can be interpreted in so many obscure ways to fit a refs narrative that there actually are no rules of the game.

To have an interpretation of Erling heading away from goal you must first disregard the direction the ball is moving and the players (Erling and CP defenders) are moving before the handball offence. Which direction are they heading?
Furthermore, Erling is about to enter the penalty area before the keeper slapped the ball away. Is the penalty area in the direction of goal or not?

Maybe you should check on the penalty area regulations. Why is that space deemed to be such a danger zone that if an offence occurs within it, it is automatically "interpreted" as a penalty kick?

Maybe because it is within the 'high expectation of a goal being scored' area.
So he's heading for the high goal expectation area, but is "moving away from goal", right?

I am sure your mentor also told you, at some point, that "when you fuck up, and you will, just "interpret" your way out of the situation, because nobody knows the rules, and all the rest of the refs will close ranks, anyway"

i work with sensitive information that i distribute. This information cannot be wrong. Even when it is wrong, it has to be believed to be right. If people lose faith in the information, then shit will get bad. It is the same with football laws.

Football rules must be believed to be working for all to buy into the process. Governing bodies must back the lawmakers and decision makers, otherwise the game is lost. But, that doesn't mean the rules can be manipulated to suit each contrivance.

Let me leave you with another question. If Kovacic didn't pull back the Bournemouth player but slapped the through ball away with his hand, even though the attacker was further away from gaol, even though the keeper was still to beat, even though you dont know if the attacker would have made a bad touch to push the ball wide, even if the attacking player hadn't actually touched the ball at all at that point, would he have been sent off?

We are not all as rules ignorant as your, evidently, bad mentor believes.
 
burning blue soul said:
Your logic stream is incorrect.
You are hanging your whole viewpoint on the direction Erling was heading after the handball.

You have stated your reasons and are now entrenched. It is a classic example of what we see from refs on a regular basis when they make a mistake (or bad interpretation).

You say that your mentor told you "nobody but refs know the rules" (to paraphrase). That, there, is the root cause of why refs are lambasted so much, because non-refs know a hell of a lot about the rules, and also said rules can be interpreted in so many obscure ways to fit a refs narrative that there actually are no rules of the game.

To have an interpretation of Erling heading away from goal you must first disregard the direction the ball is moving and the players (Erling and CP defenders) are moving before the handball offence. Which direction are they heading?
Furthermore, Erling is about to enter the penalty area before the keeper slapped the ball away. Is the penalty area in the direction of goal or not?

Maybe you should check on the penalty area regulations. Why is that space deemed to be such a danger zone that if an offence occurs within it, it is automatically "interpreted" as a penalty kick?

Maybe because it is within the 'high expectation of a goal being scored' area.
So he's heading for the high goal expectation area, but is "moving away from goal", right?

I am sure your mentor also told you, at some point, that "when you fuck up, and you will, just "interpret" your way out of the situation, because nobody knows the rules, and all the rest of the refs will close ranks, anyway"

i work with sensitive information that i distribute. This information cannot be wrong. Even when it is wrong, it has to be believed to be right. If people lose faith in the information, then shit will get bad. It is the same with football laws.

Football rules must be believed to be working for all to buy into the process. Governing bodies must back the lawmakers and decision makers, otherwise the game is lost. But, that doesn't mean the rules can be manipulated to suit each contrivance.

Let me leave you with another question. If Kovacic didn't pull back the Bournemouth player but slapped the through ball away with his hand, even though the attacker was further away from gaol, even though the keeper was still to beat, even though you dont know if the attacker would have made a bad touch to push the ball wide, even if the attacking player hadn't actually touched the ball at all at that point, would he have been sent off?

We are not all as rules ignorant as your, evidently, bad mentor believes.
Click to expand...
You're deeply confused. That's what Richard said!! He's the one who claimed to be a qualified ref and that his mentor said only the refs know, that supporters don't, etc, as a means to check out and claim higher ground via hubris. Now you've done yourself up by attributing that to me. Please get yourself sorted and come again.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
You're deeply confused. That's what Richard said!! He's the one who claimed to be a qualified ref and that his mentor said only the refs know, that supporters don't, etc, as a means to check out and claim higher ground via hubris. Now you've done yourself up by attributing that to me. Please get yourself sorted and come again.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. The opinion is addressed. I'm sure it will land in the correct inbox at some point.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
LOL remember he's a self admitted masochist! He clearly loves to receive pain and humiliation lmao.
Click to expand...


Ha ha.
The "pain" comes from wading through the reams of text you write justifying your wrong position.

Admittedly it's entertaining seeing people writing logical lengthy replies getting batted away by your nonsense.

Carry on.
 
lust overlord said:
Ha ha.
The "pain" comes from wading through the reams of text you write justifying your wrong position.

Admittedly it's entertaining seeing people writing logical lengthy replies getting batted away by your nonsense.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
I agree it's entertaining. But what's coming from me is not nonsense. I am taking a very logical approach here and am genuinely trying to help those along like our pain loving hard headed friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top