Footy Chick wrote:jo172 wrote:Footy Chick wrote:jo172 wrote:I'm not getting sucked in.
Anyone throwing stones is doing it right through their great big glass house.
So you're unequivocally denying that there's anything wrong with your umpire, despite him receiving the most complaints on here since Rod Moss at Unley.
another one trying to deflect by pointing out faults with everyone else.
I don't think you know what the word unequivocal means.
What you've quoted is an equivocal analysis of DJs unequivocal analysis.
The stones and glass houses comment is as equivocal as it gets.
Poor English shits me as much as poor umpiring
WTF? Why did you need to make this personal?
Questioning my knowledge of the English language is really grasping at straws, especially for someone as smart as yourself: people will usually resort to insults when they have nothing to come back with.
You are saying without question (unequivocally for those playing at home) that there is nothing wrong with your ump.
Anyone throwing stones is doing it right through their great big glass house
No,
What this exact phrase does is acknowledge imperfection on his part, but points out competition wide imperfection. This is a definition of am equivocal response.
You're now also falling into a strawman fallacy.
Regardless we can play word games all we like.
I stand by what I've said before . he is par for the course in 8/8R.
The most telling feature is that this is his 4th year umpiring but first year of complaints. People dislike the results far more than the umpiring.
Your previously expressed implicit view that crowd sourcing the moral authority of low grade umpires is an accurate insight into their morality is also absolutely beneath you.
Footy Chick wrote:I couldn't care about anyone umpires to be honest -all I'm trying to say is admit your ump isn't faultless -but you're only going to come under more scrutiny if you continue t0 show us a Mitsubishi Sigma and then try and convince us it's a Ferrari.
I challenge you to find one post anywhere about any umpire who is alleged to be flawless (or hell, even good, apart from the PAC ump, he's great).
All that has happened is criticism of one umpire has been met with criticism of the other (and as far as I can see totally along tribal lines).
Anyone alleging perfection of an umpire is kidding themselves, just as much as anyone suggesting anyone other than the PAC umpire (god bless his heart) is considerably better or worse than any other.