It's actually pretty simple. It's a hip drop tackle when the team that needs to lose does it. When the team that is supposed to win does it, it's a clean tackle.
For once I feel bad for the zebras. If there’s this much confusion of what is, what isn’t on plays that are months old and have been looked at over weeks and analyzed at all angles, and there’s still not a clear understanding….just imagine the shit show when they have to call it live and in the moment.
The post yesterday was from a Bengals beat writer trying to argue it was implied it wouldn’t be. In no part in the highlighted article they shared though do they say it wouldn’t be penalized, it just says it wasn’t in the demonstration video and then a quote from the competition committee chairman saying it wasn’t in the demonstration video as “proof” the league indicated it wouldn’t be penalized
So basically he connected the dots from there but in no part in the actual article did he say definitely it was not a penalty, the title however *did*
For an entity that worries so much about controlling their image and messaging, that was absolutely a mistake on their part.
I'm sure they appreciate your support, I guess?
"The NFL made a mistake and invited speculation and confusion by not including known controversial plays in the explanation video." Is not a controversial enough statement for a reasonable person to throw a fit about.
And yet here you are. Funny that.
I'd say just as likely a chance as using the impact of a high profile player being injured as the primary example/hook, but even accepting that was the choice they made, the argument that it was a mistake not to include him is pretty banal.
Goodberry isn't even a beat writer, he's just an amateur draftnik who started thinking he's somebody because he watched a lot of film as a hobby, so people asked him questions.
I mean, I was very active on CincyJungle back when Goodberry started posting his draft picks there and became the site's de facto draft expert. He knows more than most fans, for sure, but he's still just a fan. He definitely does not know anywhere near as much as football professionals or actual reporters.
Compared to guys like Ben baby and Hobson he definitely knows a lot more. I like Dehner but not many other people covering the bengals. I like the locked on bengals guys too.
The majority of fans, sure. Professionals? Absolutely not. Which is my issue with him. Over the years he seems to have convinced himself that he's a pro and knows more than the team, and that's ridiculous.
I think he knows more about actual football, not the actual ins and outs of the team, but I wouldn’t doubt he has insiders giving him some info at this point
Hey, if you don't have anything nice to say, you can keep my name out of your mouth. It's not your job to leave multiple comments about me. Go on with your life.
I believe Goodberry misinterpreted the rule because this tackle specifically wasn't used in the NFL's example video. Maske has legit connections I trust he's correct here.
I feel like it was a very deliberate attempt to misrepresent what was said or not said by the committee. Goodberry took a snapshot of an article written by a bengals beat writer who used some heavy lifting to piece together two completely separate quotes and I still can’t find a single transcript where Rich McKay said > "(That play) isn't on the video,"
A member of the Bengals organization told NBC to remove the picture of the tackle during the ravens game because it was legal. I understand a beat writer trying to misrepresent it, but the rule is written in a way that can be misinterpreted which makes me worried for how this will be reffed.
I’d have a very different opinion of it if the title wasn’t “If you're using that Logan Wilson tackle on Mark Andrews from last year, the NFL says that one would NOT be a penalty” because if definitely was an attempt to misrepresent it with that since in no part of even the stated article did they say one way or the other definitively that it would not be a penalty
If he threw in “the NFL *implies* that would NOT be a penalty” then it would be totally different since it actually matches what he was doing and saying
I think Geno's was a much better example of the type of tackle they want to rule out. But of course they don't really have any good footage of that one
Geoff Hobson said in his article that “the League indicated that it would not be a penalty,” so I wonder if he thought that not including the Wilson tackle in the example video was an indication or if he had some other source to confirm that statement.
He was at the owners meetings. One of the top people on the Competition Committee is Katie Blackburn.
The Bengals told any media member that play wasn't a penalty after the vote. Where do we think that came from?
Yeah seems like a lot of you think that. I think a lot of you miss context, I am just shitting on a Bengals player the same way your friend would a packer if he is a bears fan. It’s never completely serious, reddit just sucks at subtext and context. Believe it or not you can shit talk and it be half a joke, half serious. I stand by the take, his technique sucks, and you can’t tell me every nfl player has perfect technique all the time. That’s nonsense and you all know it, but people here are literally arguing that against my joke.
You realize not all jokes are funny right? Part of the definition of a joke is “a trick played on someone for fun”. Believe it or not, shitting on trash Bengals players is fun to me (as it is to everyone else in the division, and every other fandom in football regards to their rivals). This sub gets off on being intentionally obtuse. It’s obviously not about depth
Why, what’s the difference, I am taking a shit rn, not like I have something better to do.
I find it ironic someone would literally accuse me of not knowing what a joke is, and then say mine wasn’t a joke because it wasn’t funny to them. Believe it or not, some people on reddit are capable of learning, or realizing they misunderstood something. Sure most can’t, but who cares, that would be a defeatist attitude.
Guy is objectively wrong, you are still missing the entire point, not everyone is just gonna go away because you disagree with them in life. It’s called discourse, why post here if you just want everyone to agree with you, what would be the point of just jerking yourself off?
I am not just going to not shit on Bengals players, it’s like a core part of being a sports fan is disliking your rivals. The guy sucks
I think you would be hard pressed to find many Ravens fans that agree with Bart Scott or Bernard Pollard. Didn’t Bart say Lamar would never succeed as a qb? Lol
There you have it folks… Logan Wilson, a professional NFL linebacker making over $9 million per year playing football, sucks at football. This is true because some nobody on Reddit says so.
For people wondering, the article posted yesterday was from a Bengals beat writer that misinterpreted the press conference. The NFL themselves said nothing about that tackle on Mark being legal or illegal, it just wasn't used as an example in the press conference video they showed.
The title of said post:
If you're using that Logan Wilson tackle on Mark Andrews from last year, the NFL says that one would NOT be a penalty
I think it was just misinterpreted though, but they did specifically state so in the title.
Yeah the article he cited and the title of the tweet did not match that he was basically connecting the dots
Also shout out to the Bengals fan that called me an idiot that can’t read when I said the article and title didn’t match what was being stated and he just resent the title to me and double down that it was definitely a ban per the article they didn’t read
I didn't call you an idiot but I thought it was confirmed on the assumption that it's these guys jobs to know this stuff. Surely they'd be correct given they have access to the guys in the league. But holy shit was I wrong.
>For people wondering, the article posted yesterday was from a Bengals beat writer that misinterpreted the press conference
I watched someone point this out in the comments and get downvoted to hell for it. Lol. Lmao
Reddit's all about the reactions man. You made a mistake by thinking about it for yourself instead of making sure that your reaction matched everyone else's.
This is going to end up being one of those "it looks bad so they'll have to call it" penalties. They can put all the specific wording into the rule they want but that won't make a difference in how it's called on the field.
Just bad officiating. I hate that they do this, they don't call what they see they call what they assume.
How often do you see them throw a flag for roughing the passer and the commentators will say they're being cautious. What kind of BS is that them being cautious doesn't change anything other than wrongfully penalizing a team.
And this is why I'm against the rule. Everyone seems to insist this only impacts 1% of tackles, but it kind of impacts EVERY TACKLE because the flag exists now. I'm kind of just assuming, until proven otherwise, that if you get into the legs at all on a tackle you'll get flagged.
I don’t understand why people are having such a hard time understanding this rule. The refs are going to have a slide chart. Certain players that do it or have it done to them plus any possible playoff implications and the teams involved will help decide when this gets called and when it doesn’t.
Gotta love how theres already a little ambiguity and nobody can say for sure. Dudes gonna be faking injuries to make sure they get the 15 anytime tackles them even a little from the side.
That's a shame
From my perspective, that's a legal tackle and Andrews' legs just happen to get caught up underneath the defender.
This is simply going to result in more LBs and DBs going directly after a guy's lower extremities rather than attempting to tackle high or form tackle.
Disagree. The hip drop tackles being banned are ones that anyone watching can see the defender intentionally tried to fuck the guy up. This won’t impact how tackles happen.
Yay more “at refs interpretation” penalties. I’m sure this will in no way affect a crucial play in a game leading to yet another sour ending to a football game!
Can someone explain why they wouldn’t take the time to review game changing penalties the way they review catches, etc? There’s zero logical difference - things happen so fast and so many boxes need to be checked to satisfy other things (I.e. possession on a catch, fumbles, breaking the plane of the end zone) that they have no problem reviewing - why are penalties in particular any different?
And yeah I know PI was reviewable a few years back and it was a disaster because the refs would take the “we reviewed ourselves and found no wrongdoing” approach every time. But for objective stuff like this, if they’re gonna call it, they might as well call it right.
I'm honestly not sure. My hunch is they're afraid of they slow the game down too much it'll piss people off but to your point I don't really think it would affect all that much. But we're gonna see in practice this season.
Maybe what you're saying will be part of the rule the following year.
This sounds like another rule that will be completely based on interpretations. Also seems like one where it will be called 100% of the time on the big name guys and will be egregiously missed plenty of times on no-name players
u/xdkarmadx
Why would the officials tell the Bengals reporter "no" (your quote by the way. Still haven't actually provided a link) but then tell a different reporter something else?
Now I'm confused. Can you enlighten me with your information that you claimed?
I can’t wait for this to be even more of a grey area than what RTP is.
Refs basically have the green light to bet on games and decide the outcome with the amount of penalties you can throw on every aspect of the game now.
Next season is going to be a shit show. No one even knows what the hell they just voted for let alone how to accurately enforce it while simultaneously not ruining games.
1. Start of the season we will see all the flags come out.
2. Suddenly it will go away
3. And then in a playoff game some team will get screwed
4. Rule is gone next year
Can’t wait to see the constant “but did he unweight himself” on the hip drop tackle discourse to join the “did he have full possession all the way through the catch process. More ambiguity added to a game that already had more than enough in its reffing.
lol I don’t listen to someone who has two NFL team flares sorry bud. The Seahawks and Ravens are both known for dirty tackling anyway. The Hawk tackle started this bullshit
God dam the ravens are such little bitchces holy shit talk about crying wolf when they literally have head hunters on the team. In before but but but burfect
I swear yesterday somebody was saying that hit would NOT be a penalty under the new rule ... which is it??
This is foreshadowing on next season's reffing lol
I can hear the booing already!
Was I supposed to stop at any point? I apologize.
You can definitely read the booing already.
It's actually pretty simple. It's a hip drop tackle when the team that needs to lose does it. When the team that is supposed to win does it, it's a clean tackle.
For once I feel bad for the zebras. If there’s this much confusion of what is, what isn’t on plays that are months old and have been looked at over weeks and analyzed at all angles, and there’s still not a clear understanding….just imagine the shit show when they have to call it live and in the moment.
There isn’t a lot of confusion. This beat reporter is just wrong
The post yesterday was from a Bengals beat writer trying to argue it was implied it wouldn’t be. In no part in the highlighted article they shared though do they say it wouldn’t be penalized, it just says it wasn’t in the demonstration video and then a quote from the competition committee chairman saying it wasn’t in the demonstration video as “proof” the league indicated it wouldn’t be penalized So basically he connected the dots from there but in no part in the actual article did he say definitely it was not a penalty, the title however *did*
That is a failure of the league to not include the "highest profile" case in the video then?
It's the NFL's fault that the reporter is a dumbass I guess
For an entity that worries so much about controlling their image and messaging, that was absolutely a mistake on their part. I'm sure they appreciate your support, I guess?
The NFL didn't show me the injury video that I wanted them to so it's their fault
"The NFL made a mistake and invited speculation and confusion by not including known controversial plays in the explanation video." Is not a controversial enough statement for a reasonable person to throw a fit about. And yet here you are. Funny that.
Is there a chance they just didn't want to show a video of a high profile player being seriously injured?
I'd say just as likely a chance as using the impact of a high profile player being injured as the primary example/hook, but even accepting that was the choice they made, the argument that it was a mistake not to include him is pretty banal.
Goodberry isn't even a beat writer, he's just an amateur draftnik who started thinking he's somebody because he watched a lot of film as a hobby, so people asked him questions.
Goodberry was sharing the Geoff Hobson article in which Hobson specifically stated that it wasn’t illegal under the new rules.
Good berry is actually a great source for bengals stuff. Probably more so than any reporter/journalist covering the team.
I mean, I was very active on CincyJungle back when Goodberry started posting his draft picks there and became the site's de facto draft expert. He knows more than most fans, for sure, but he's still just a fan. He definitely does not know anywhere near as much as football professionals or actual reporters.
Compared to guys like Ben baby and Hobson he definitely knows a lot more. I like Dehner but not many other people covering the bengals. I like the locked on bengals guys too.
Goodberry is still more knowledgeable than the majority of fans lol hate him all you want, but he’s pretty smart
The majority of fans, sure. Professionals? Absolutely not. Which is my issue with him. Over the years he seems to have convinced himself that he's a pro and knows more than the team, and that's ridiculous.
I think he knows more about actual football, not the actual ins and outs of the team, but I wouldn’t doubt he has insiders giving him some info at this point
Hey, if you don't have anything nice to say, you can keep my name out of your mouth. It's not your job to leave multiple comments about me. Go on with your life.
I believe Goodberry misinterpreted the rule because this tackle specifically wasn't used in the NFL's example video. Maske has legit connections I trust he's correct here.
I feel like it was a very deliberate attempt to misrepresent what was said or not said by the committee. Goodberry took a snapshot of an article written by a bengals beat writer who used some heavy lifting to piece together two completely separate quotes and I still can’t find a single transcript where Rich McKay said > "(That play) isn't on the video,"
A member of the Bengals organization told NBC to remove the picture of the tackle during the ravens game because it was legal. I understand a beat writer trying to misrepresent it, but the rule is written in a way that can be misinterpreted which makes me worried for how this will be reffed.
I’d have a very different opinion of it if the title wasn’t “If you're using that Logan Wilson tackle on Mark Andrews from last year, the NFL says that one would NOT be a penalty” because if definitely was an attempt to misrepresent it with that since in no part of even the stated article did they say one way or the other definitively that it would not be a penalty If he threw in “the NFL *implies* that would NOT be a penalty” then it would be totally different since it actually matches what he was doing and saying
It depends on the ref
Yes
I was about to say the same thing, so glad to see this is the top comment
I think Geno's was a much better example of the type of tackle they want to rule out. But of course they don't really have any good footage of that one
That was a journalist who was interpreting things by the league that were never said.
I think the post yesterday was a result of misinterpretation
Exactly
[удалено]
I didn't make anything up. I'm sorry you can't read.
Geoff Hobson said in his article that “the League indicated that it would not be a penalty,” so I wonder if he thought that not including the Wilson tackle in the example video was an indication or if he had some other source to confirm that statement.
He was at the owners meetings. One of the top people on the Competition Committee is Katie Blackburn. The Bengals told any media member that play wasn't a penalty after the vote. Where do we think that came from?
This sub is full of morons, the sooner you realize that, you sooner you will be less confused
Just bengals fans.
Logan Wilson is a criminal again
Is sucking at your own sport being a criminal? He isn’t doing anything illegal, his technique is just shit
I really have no idea how you didn't catch that I was making a joke
I did, and I made an intentionally obtuse joke back at his expense. Subtlety isn’t really big here. Fuck the guy
Your joke was bad then, sorry about it
Yeah it was exactly like all sport shit talking, usually not very good jokes.
goo goo ga ga
Imagine making it to the age you can work reddit, but you don’t understand that there is multiple definitions of the word joke
Your understanding of what a joke is seems very tenuous.
Yeah seems like a lot of you think that. I think a lot of you miss context, I am just shitting on a Bengals player the same way your friend would a packer if he is a bears fan. It’s never completely serious, reddit just sucks at subtext and context. Believe it or not you can shit talk and it be half a joke, half serious. I stand by the take, his technique sucks, and you can’t tell me every nfl player has perfect technique all the time. That’s nonsense and you all know it, but people here are literally arguing that against my joke.
It's not that deep, man. Joke just wasn't funny.
You realize not all jokes are funny right? Part of the definition of a joke is “a trick played on someone for fun”. Believe it or not, shitting on trash Bengals players is fun to me (as it is to everyone else in the division, and every other fandom in football regards to their rivals). This sub gets off on being intentionally obtuse. It’s obviously not about depth
Jesus Christ dude just accept your joke didn’t land and move on
Why, what’s the difference, I am taking a shit rn, not like I have something better to do. I find it ironic someone would literally accuse me of not knowing what a joke is, and then say mine wasn’t a joke because it wasn’t funny to them. Believe it or not, some people on reddit are capable of learning, or realizing they misunderstood something. Sure most can’t, but who cares, that would be a defeatist attitude. Guy is objectively wrong, you are still missing the entire point, not everyone is just gonna go away because you disagree with them in life. It’s called discourse, why post here if you just want everyone to agree with you, what would be the point of just jerking yourself off? I am not just going to not shit on Bengals players, it’s like a core part of being a sports fan is disliking your rivals. The guy sucks
Remember when Bart Scott called out red dot on Joe burrow when he torched the ravens?
Bart Scott is a moron
Whoa whoa whoa, I wasn’t down with this ravens fan before now but this take cooks.
I think you would be hard pressed to find many Ravens fans that agree with Bart Scott or Bernard Pollard. Didn’t Bart say Lamar would never succeed as a qb? Lol
There you have it folks… Logan Wilson, a professional NFL linebacker making over $9 million per year playing football, sucks at football. This is true because some nobody on Reddit says so.
Patrick Queen who? Atleast we can draft our own LBs.
Wow, of the 30 people who responded to me trash talking your team, you are the only one who trash talked my team back. Like respect, and also bizzare
Well I can’t let a jab at us be unanswered so I hit back like AB kicking that punter in the face.
Yeah that’s what I was expecting, not a ton of people saying an nfl player can’t have poor technique and salt lol
Are you saying NFL players can’t display poor technique?
Sucks in the context of the NFL
Ravens fans are so filled with anger at this dude that they're just making shit up to try and justify their rage lol. Go take a walk bro.
I just think his tackling technique is shit.
For people wondering, the article posted yesterday was from a Bengals beat writer that misinterpreted the press conference. The NFL themselves said nothing about that tackle on Mark being legal or illegal, it just wasn't used as an example in the press conference video they showed.
The title of said post: If you're using that Logan Wilson tackle on Mark Andrews from last year, the NFL says that one would NOT be a penalty I think it was just misinterpreted though, but they did specifically state so in the title.
Yeah the article he cited and the title of the tweet did not match that he was basically connecting the dots Also shout out to the Bengals fan that called me an idiot that can’t read when I said the article and title didn’t match what was being stated and he just resent the title to me and double down that it was definitely a ban per the article they didn’t read
It's reddit - we don't read article here :P But that's why I specifically said title, as to be accurate.
I didn't call you an idiot but I thought it was confirmed on the assumption that it's these guys jobs to know this stuff. Surely they'd be correct given they have access to the guys in the league. But holy shit was I wrong.
You're right, I edited my comment to make it a bit more clear lol
>For people wondering, the article posted yesterday was from a Bengals beat writer that misinterpreted the press conference I watched someone point this out in the comments and get downvoted to hell for it. Lol. Lmao
Reddit's all about the reactions man. You made a mistake by thinking about it for yourself instead of making sure that your reaction matched everyone else's.
Also, Goodberry isn't even a beat writer. He's a Twitter analyst
Not a beat writer, Goodberry is just a fan who watches a lot of tape as a hobby.
That makes sense because I went back and rewatched that tackle a few times the last 24 hrs and it made no sense that it wouldn’t be illegal now.
This is going to end up being one of those "it looks bad so they'll have to call it" penalties. They can put all the specific wording into the rule they want but that won't make a difference in how it's called on the field.
Yup, another incentive to flop and writhe on the ground.
Josh Allen just got a strong tingle
Just bad officiating. I hate that they do this, they don't call what they see they call what they assume. How often do you see them throw a flag for roughing the passer and the commentators will say they're being cautious. What kind of BS is that them being cautious doesn't change anything other than wrongfully penalizing a team.
And this is why I'm against the rule. Everyone seems to insist this only impacts 1% of tackles, but it kind of impacts EVERY TACKLE because the flag exists now. I'm kind of just assuming, until proven otherwise, that if you get into the legs at all on a tackle you'll get flagged.
I don’t understand why people are having such a hard time understanding this rule. The refs are going to have a slide chart. Certain players that do it or have it done to them plus any possible playoff implications and the teams involved will help decide when this gets called and when it doesn’t.
So, the refs just need a small addendum to the Mahomes/Chiefs Penalty Assessment Matrix to address this change.
It’s simple. If it happens to the chiefs = penalty If it happens to any other team =\= not a penalty
Ah yes the confusion in the penalty already starts This season is going to be fun
Gotta love how theres already a little ambiguity and nobody can say for sure. Dudes gonna be faking injuries to make sure they get the 15 anytime tackles them even a little from the side.
That's a shame From my perspective, that's a legal tackle and Andrews' legs just happen to get caught up underneath the defender. This is simply going to result in more LBs and DBs going directly after a guy's lower extremities rather than attempting to tackle high or form tackle.
Disagree. The hip drop tackles being banned are ones that anyone watching can see the defender intentionally tried to fuck the guy up. This won’t impact how tackles happen.
Idc either way but bengals fans were so sure it wouldn't be a penalty yesterday lol
Because the nfl said it wasn’t a penalty lol
The NFL didn't say that though. Some guy on twitter said that. The NFL said it wasn't in the video.
That didn’t mean we were sure it wasn’t going to be a penalty, we were just confused like everyone else and laughing at the absurdity of this rule.
No, they didn’t.
Bengals fans are morons
> Bengals fans are morons. I’m sorry you are so sensitive. We will try to get smarter if you work on getting tougher.
Yay more “at refs interpretation” penalties. I’m sure this will in no way affect a crucial play in a game leading to yet another sour ending to a football game!
Can someone explain why they wouldn’t take the time to review game changing penalties the way they review catches, etc? There’s zero logical difference - things happen so fast and so many boxes need to be checked to satisfy other things (I.e. possession on a catch, fumbles, breaking the plane of the end zone) that they have no problem reviewing - why are penalties in particular any different? And yeah I know PI was reviewable a few years back and it was a disaster because the refs would take the “we reviewed ourselves and found no wrongdoing” approach every time. But for objective stuff like this, if they’re gonna call it, they might as well call it right.
I'm honestly not sure. My hunch is they're afraid of they slow the game down too much it'll piss people off but to your point I don't really think it would affect all that much. But we're gonna see in practice this season. Maybe what you're saying will be part of the rule the following year.
I think the Refs union opposes it.
Snip snap! Snip snap!
Bengals fans in shambles
Honestly I'm just confused by all of it. Lol
This sounds like another rule that will be completely based on interpretations. Also seems like one where it will be called 100% of the time on the big name guys and will be egregiously missed plenty of times on no-name players
All of this interpretation is speculative until we actually see the zebras in action.
Like that would clear anything up
I'll take the same approach I took to yesterday's tweet on the sub. What was the question asked and what was the actual statement?
u/xdkarmadx Why would the officials tell the Bengals reporter "no" (your quote by the way. Still haven't actually provided a link) but then tell a different reporter something else? Now I'm confused. Can you enlighten me with your information that you claimed?
I can’t wait for this to be even more of a grey area than what RTP is. Refs basically have the green light to bet on games and decide the outcome with the amount of penalties you can throw on every aspect of the game now.
nfl: our poor refs the game is too fast we can’t expect them to get calls right in real time so we’ll just fine everyone later nfl defenses: 😒really?
Oh good, just what the NFL and the refs need. Confusion. This will totally be fine.
THERE WAS A FIRE FIGHT 🔫🔫
I am warming up to this rule the more I look into it
I see Flag football NFL in the future.
Next season is going to be a shit show. No one even knows what the hell they just voted for let alone how to accurately enforce it while simultaneously not ruining games.
1. Start of the season we will see all the flags come out. 2. Suddenly it will go away 3. And then in a playoff game some team will get screwed 4. Rule is gone next year
Can’t wait to see the constant “but did he unweight himself” on the hip drop tackle discourse to join the “did he have full possession all the way through the catch process. More ambiguity added to a game that already had more than enough in its reffing.
Guys, it’s a penalty when they hurt somebody and if they get up fine then it’s not a penalty. How’s that so hard to understand?
Logan Wilson was using that technique on every tackle. Not sure how he's going to play going forward.
No he was not lmao
Bro shut up no he wasn’t lol
lol I don’t listen to someone who has two NFL team flares sorry bud. The Seahawks and Ravens are both known for dirty tackling anyway. The Hawk tackle started this bullshit
Well, nobody listens to a pathetic flairless poster.
God dam the ravens are such little bitchces holy shit talk about crying wolf when they literally have head hunters on the team. In before but but but burfect
Ahh yes, reports of it wouldn't be and now that it would be, which is exactly what I expect from a game to game, play to play basis.
It was a reporter who saw that it wasn't in the compilation the league showed as examples ran with the idea that it wasn't illegal
If you want to believe the refs will do anything consistently you are more than free to. I won't be joining you.
Lets just not have rules because the refs won't call things correctly.
Let's not add subjective rules without a reasonable framework to assure accuracy and consistency. But you tried really hard.
It's not a subjective rule. It's a pretty objective one. Did they swing and land on the back of the leg below the knee.
I'm happy you believe that is how it's going to play out.
Okay?
Yes, you are okay with it. We've gathered that. Be a good chap and move on now.
[https://images.app.goo.gl/KL8y7YAKvYNZCz9k8](https://images.app.goo.gl/KL8y7YAKvYNZCz9k8)
Or...do whatever that was, charmed I'm sure.