Your defense of anything the refs do is absolutely ridiculous. Im pretty sure a ref could come find you and punch you in the face and youd call it a "coincidence".
Now that is funny. Cause I don't know if you're talking about the OT section Or The poster you've banned multiple times yet keeps coming back.
Yes, you said that they didn't do it, but this part can easily be interpreted as saying that the refs' inaction was responsible for Nurk's injury. ...which I believe is what MM was referring to, based on the content of his reply.
Well he got hurt because they didnt put a stop to guys not letting him land. In particular Dudley but he wasnt the only guy. I know that stuff happens all the time. No Im not saying the refs “did it”, Im saying they contributed to it or at at the least increased the chances of someone getting hurt, because they were letting dangerous plays happen.
Yes, he did. I know that. I quoted that. I acknowledged that. Then, there was another part of his post--which I also quoted--which implied that while the refs didn't cause the injury, they facilitated the events that caused the injury by not responding effectively to the prior instances of Dudley behaving in the manner that did cause the injury. They are two very different statements. I don't think it's hard to compartmentalize the two.
You're really twisting things. He implied that they facilitated the event even though he said they didnt cause the injury, so that's why MM said "He's saying they caused the injury"...?
I'm twisting things? You're misquoting MM. He didn't say TBF said the refs caused the injury. He said TBF blamed the refs for the injury. Two different things. I've explained my perspective. I don't need you to agree with me. But TBF just said exactly the same thing I read into MM's post. I guess the only question would be whether or not MM intended his post the way I interpreted it and TBF clarified his. As I've said many times, I assume the best of people. But you're welcome to assume the worst of MM if you so choose.
To try to clarify. MM said I'm blaming the refs for Nurks injury. I understand why he thinks that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that the refs' inaction towards cleaning up the game contributed to it. It's the refs' job to set the tone of the game and they didn't do it, would that have changed anything? I have no idea. Again the ref "didn't" actually hurt anyone, or intend for injuries to occur. I am saying the refs are responsible for setting the tone of a game and they did a bad job all game of setting the tone to give players a place to land. Players will always do as much as they can get away with and in my opinion, the refs set the tone that was unsafe. Literally, the play before that he went down and I thought his knees might've been shot then. So do I blame them for the injury? No. I think these injuries are more prone to happen if the refs don't do their jobs well though.
TBF, your assessment is spot on. The referees need to set the tone and keep order. That game was so far out of their control that it began to get chaotic. Elbows to the nose, judo kicks, guys laying under the basket--there was zero surprise in the crowd when Nurk hit the deck. In fact, after shouting Nurk's name for a while, many turned on the refs and soon many more. Obviously the refs didn't injure Nurk and obviously you didn't say they did. What's asinine is to deny that a particular environment can have an impact on those in that environment. Fuck that game: the refs, Jared Dudley, DeMarre Carroll, all of it.
