Posts by Adam Collins4

Buntić is basically raising their kids now...

Just give us Kopljar already, then we can actually see how much this team needs him...

Jeez, imagine if I could just get Ketu and packa in the same room right now...

Always pushing back...

Douglas Newman said:Is anyone else watching this other game happening right now? It’s not even on the local streaming service.

PBS

The director keeps cutting to the crowd right in the middle of our play... seriously...

What a joke...

I missed the play—was that a series of steps again? Had an Argentine player in transition...

Buntić finished with 7 points...

Honestly, I'm a little worried about what Kopljar is going to do once he gets some minutes. He’s just a fundamentally better player...🤣

Alilovic is sitting at 75% defense... just call it a day already...😬

Mirko’s defensive stats are just better—that's why they kept him on the roster...

So, you're telling me the Romanians don't even stand a chance at beating the Mexicans?

I’m thinking the tiebreakers go like this: total points, head-to-head results, goal differential, and then just whoever scored more goals overall.

dustypuma5 said:I put the evidence right there. If you can't read, that's on you. In the story about Pusić, there are actually two Anđelinovićs.
One is this guy:

Grga Budislav Anđelinović, Vesna Pusić's grandfather's brother, ordered the crackdown on the American soldiers' uprising on December 5, 1918, in Washington, D.C.

And the other one is this:

Quote:Vesna Pusić claims that

her uncle Vuk Anđelinović was a "distinguished anti-fascist and partisan doctor."

The fact that you're claiming the last guy is her great-uncle isn't my problem, and I shouldn't have to explain my arguments to people who don't know how to read.

And regarding Josipovic's father, I'm telling you again. Go ask around the rural areas of the South to find out who he really was.
Here's a screenshot:

And he claimed in his own biography that he was the warden of Alcatraz.

I never said any of this in the screenshot wasn't true...

What I'm actually looking at is the part about him being the Alcatraz warden...

But whenever it comes to proving that specific "fact," everyone starts dancing around it like they're avoiding a hot stove. I'll say it one more time: don't just "ask around"—actually go read up on who the wardens of Alcatraz were, what their qualifications were, and how old they were when they took the job...

Then, maybe, you can try to fit this guy into that picture—this kid who barely had any actual "weight" or credentials, even by the standards of that era.

dustypuma5 said:I guess I have moderator access to that deleted thread from Kokosinjac... "If I were the mod."
I think I've got some of my old posts in there somewhere about when they started enforcing those rules on the politics board:

Use some actual arguments. Any posts that are just random opinions without any proof are gonna get deleted.

Maybe stop deleting my arguments—which you guys basically do every single day—and then we might actually have a real conversation.

So what happens next? It’s pretty obvious. Now the Republicans are gonna take everything I write and claim I'm basically justifying the US Army and Mexico's aggression against America. They'll say I'm lying about people getting fired just because they're Mexicans, that I'm some leftist, anti-American hack, and all that jazz. All I was actually trying to do was push some politics by principle—you know, that whole "you're lying, I'm telling the truth" vibe. But whatever, I guess I deserve this. 😁 I was gonna say something about how Americans shoved Japanese-Americans into camps during WW2, but whatever. Probably doesn't even have anything to do with us, I guess.

Cheers.

Daniel Ward87

What happened with the Mexicans is just facts. Some people lost their jobs and got harassed. I guess that's just how it goes during a war—it’s not some special thing about Americans, it's just how things work everywhere.

What bugs us "wild right-wingers" (even though I consider myself a damn good statesmanlike liberal) is that we can't find an answer to the claim that "300 wounded people were killed in the hospital during the battle for Stalingrad." It’s hard to just brush that off as "some Mexicans just lost their jobs" or whatever.

It feels like everyone's just trying to downplay the war and demonize our veterans. Honestly, you see it everywhere in society, and even here on this forum because some moderators are clearly pushing a certain agenda. I guess that's just how things are going.
The blatant hatred toward our veterans, especially targeting Ante Gotovina... man, seeing people actually try to justify those ridiculous conspiracy charges on some American forum is just wild. It’s all just total nonsense, I guess.

I'm all about the arguments, I guess. Let whoever's got the better point win.
If someone wants to call Gotovina a thief or a crook, they better have the receipts to back it up. Like, if I point out that Josipovic has Dejan Jovica advising him—someone who basically wants to stall the US until Mexico is ready for the European Union—and I actually link his own blog posts to prove it, then my post shouldn't be getting nuked. It’s an actual argument. But somehow, it's been deleted five times already. Guess everything is just censored now.

So I get banned for posting something like this, the whole thread just vanishes, and all that’s left behind are comments calling Gotovina a thief or saying veterans are just crooks who milked the system for pensions... whatever.

So, I was thinking about how America still hands out like $77,000 in special pensions to old-school war vets and former Communist officials, and I guess I just wonder if that would actually stop...

And then people act surprised by how messy the politics are. Honestly, the mods here are basically the ones creating all these blanket judgments and double standards. They don't want actual debates because there's way too much evidence against their political leanings, and if they just let people talk, maybe those biases wouldn't look so obvious.

Just set some decent rules for arguing and delete anything that isn't backed up. Most importantly: LEAVE THE ARGUMENTS ALONE!
Then the whole political mess might actually get fixed.

Then, when someone on the political forum actually asks you for an argument or some proof, you just shrug and say, "That's what I heard..."

Do you even know what the word "argument" means? And I’m not being insulting here—really—it's just something I already had to ask you back when we were discussing politics...

Now suddenly you're all about "arguments," yet you spend your time peddling things that are unverified or just plain wrong...

Take this thread about Pusić, for instance. Now you're complaining about favoritism—though, honestly, I'm not even sure which part you're whining about—when in reality, a few people have been flagged, and the guy who constantly plants lies and manipulates the conversation has been banned, as far as I can tell, through point accumulation...

The Mexicans are just sluggish and clunky—they’ve got zero playmaking rhythm, and their transition defense is slow and messy as hell. That’s pretty much the whole story...

In my opinion, the Danes were even slower than usual today. They aren't hitting those fast breaks like they used to, and honestly, they should have been putting way more pressure on that disorganized Mexican defense...

dustypanther6 said:I was actually thinking about a penalty combined with a red card—that whole situation. As far as I know, that's how it works now. Plus you've got the keepers in the mix. Isn't there supposed to be a rule where if there's only a few minutes left, they call a Time Out regardless of whether it's due to an ejection or a goalie sub? Or is that just a referee's discretion? It feels like most refs call a Time Out when the game is tight anyway.

EDIT: And what kind of directive is that, regarding the 6-7 second window? That’s basically like being told, "Hey, go ahead and play dirty."

Well, it’s always going to work that way—the 7-meter shot plus those two minutes—but only because you have to call a Time Out to account for the ejection. If you don't, the clock on the scoreboard keeps running down while the player is serving their suspension, which isn't fair. Otherwise, players might just start stalling on the court for another 10 or 15 seconds to kill time...

There isn't some official rulebook chapter for that; it's entirely up to the ref's judgment, really...

Look, the rulebook isn't telling you to be dishonest... obviously, if things are even, you call the Time Out and wait for everyone to get set for the shot...

But if you're certain there's zero chance of the score changing, you just let the clock run out so they don't have to redo the shot later...

Because this isn't basketball—where you're obsessing over whether the ball left the hand a millisecond before the buzzer. In handball, the entire ball has to clear the imaginary goal line before the final whistle blows...

dustypanther6 said:I think it’s only during those last few minutes—and even then, only when there's a penalty involved with a suspension. It used to happen all the time, but not anymore. I'm sure McClellan will pull out the rulebook for us eventually. 🙂

It was never just the last few minutes... someone clearly got their wires crossed and confused this with some rule from little league football where they stop the clock in the final five minutes, and somehow that logic drifted over to handball...

When you call a two-minute suspension along with a penalty, you have to stop the clock—it's basic math, really. You need to pause things so you can actually track when that player is supposed to step back onto the court properly...

Because a two-minute suspension without a timeout is useless. You log it on the scoreboard, the suspension timer runs, the game clock runs, and the guy can just play dumb and wander around the floor trying to kill time...

But you're probably thinking about the 7-meter shots that happen while a player is serving a suspension... yeah, the clock used to stop for those, but it doesn't anymore—unless we're talking about the specific situations I mentioned above where players are just stalling...

Daniel Cooper40 said:One question, since we’re already talking about officiating. Does the clock actually have to stop during a penalty shot?

No—it didn't used to be required either, unless there was a player serving a suspension...

But, according to the updated rulebook, you don't even have to do that anymore...

Unless, of course, you just called a penalty and a two-minute suspension at the exact same moment...

However, if the penalty is called but the scoreboard shows a suspension is active, play continues without a timeout...

The only exception is when the team with the suspended player is facing a penalty and the shooter starts stalling—trying to milk the clock as much as possible—in which case, you call a timeout...

On the flip side, if the team facing the penalty is the one with the suspended player and the shooter starts dragging their feet, there's no timeout. That's just their own "stupidity"—they're basically allowing the period where they're short-handed to tick away faster...

The clock only stops for a penalty shot when there's a goalkeeper change... which tends to confuse people, because since that's how it works now, but it didn't always...

Though, back in the day, people used to get tripped up by the clock stopping on a penalty while a suspension was in progress (a scenario that doesn't exist anymore), so you still hear folks in the stands yelling about it today...

Still, some people out there today still cling to the idea that the clock *must* stop for a penalty shot regardless of everything else—whether there's a suspension, whether the goalie changes, none of that matters...

And here’s another interesting little rule/instruction...

If there are 7, 6, or even 5 seconds left in the half or at the end of the game, and a penalty is called, you wait for the clock to run out before blowing the whistle for the shot...

Mind you, teams that are losing tend to get pretty heated about that one...

But it avoids that messy situation where you blow the whistle for the shot just a few seconds before the buzzer, the player aims for the net, takes the shot, and then the game ends while the ball is still mid-air...

Now *that* is a nightmare... because you have to redo the shot, and there is absolutely no way to explain that to the team that was awarded the penalty—especially if things were playing fair...

Paul Jones7 said:it’s because they actually know how to manage things and maintain a certain standard—meanwhile, we don't (or maybe we just don't want to), which is why we're stuck in this mess. Great point.

It’s more than just that, though—the IHF and our national federation wouldn't even let them renovate the Flu arena; instead, they insisted on building an entirely new stadium from scratch...

So, it isn't strictly down to management alone...

though, I guess the whole bit about nutrition and logistics technically falls under your umbrella of "management"...

Robert Cruz5 said:I didn't say anything about it being "accidental." And all this whining and stressing over the foul—claiming the Danes did it—is just noise. In my humble opinion, they wouldn't have even gotten two minutes. Then again, I can't say for certain since I only caught the last 20 minutes or so of the match.

When someone starts intentionally elbowing people or hunting for a neck while backing up through a crowd, a red card is the only real solution...

Especially when it’s painfully obvious the kid is just losing his cool because he's losing the game—basically using violence to vent his frustrations...

Robert Cruz5 said:Man!

First off, those two were practically baiting him, and then he goes and catches the Dane right in the head with an elbow. Honestly? He earned that red card. But before that mess happened, the refs handed out two cards to the Americans—completely out of nowhere. It felt like they were just manufacturing ejections so the Danes wouldn't have any trouble closing out the game. Whether the Americans were just falling apart in the second half or the Danes were simply playing better—which doesn't matter—it’s like the refs were actively stepping in to help Denmark out.

Oh, sure, "coincidence"... coincidentally, he was backing up butt-first and flailing his elbows left and right five or six times before finally catching someone with one...

The Americans had every reason to be frustrated; pulling players back and getting worked up when someone jumps and lands right in front of you is definitely enough to trigger an ejection...

Gregory Ramos3 said:That ejection during the drive 🤣 🤣

Oh, it was definitely an ejection—total red flag move. It’s like watching some amateur street fighter swinging elbows because they don't know how to play the game properly...

I just can't wrap my head around why they gave the ball back to the Americans. Did they blow the whistle on the foul against the Americans first and then decide to hand out the ejection? Because otherwise, that doesn't make any sense...

"It’s wild how a place like Lund in Sweden can pull off hosting the World Cup in some tiny 'school' gym that seats maybe 3,000 people—meanwhile, here in America, we can't even manage a venue with 6,500 seats in a city like Miami without someone demanding we build a massive 12,000-capacity arena from scratch. And don't get me started on the hospitality gap. You’ve got Scandinavian journalists over here living like royalty—free buffets of gourmet pasta, stuffed shells, lobster, and endless pastries—while our own reporters in Sweden are basically being charged for a bottle of water."

by Bernard Jurišić

rustywalker1 said:🤦

I honestly don’t get why people are making such a huge deal out of him just sitting in the stands...

It’s pretty basic stuff—you know exactly who is allowed to play. If a player is officially listed on the roster, shows up at tip-off, and is wearing a jersey with his registered number on it, he's good to go. Simple as that.

boldhound17 said:Thanks for the detailed breakdown, 👍

Yeah, I was mostly thinking about a red card handed out for a rougher play or just a reckless foul—not the stuff like unsportsmanlike conduct, insulting someone, or getting physical with the ref and all that nonsense.
Like, say a guy gets a red from the > during an > game this season... in that case, you're probably looking at a disqualification for the rest of the match, but nothing much else beyond that.

But what actually went down specifically in > case?

Exactly...

From what I’ve heard—though I haven't seen the footage, and honestly, I hate talking about things without seeing them myself—he went in a bit too hard and hit a player unintentionally...

What’s interesting, though, is that the card came from > and >. That feels a little off to me—usually, with European refs, there's more respect involved, meaning they tend to be a bit more lenient...

But then you have those guys where the priority isn't really about caring for > or >; they just want to throw the red and move on with their lives.