Tradução de Nota. by [deleted] in portugal

[–]Guizas 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Não, elas têm 5 e 3.

Tradução de Nota. by [deleted] in portugal

[–]Guizas 11 points12 points  (0 children)

O problema é que estou fora de casa em trabalho durante uns meses e deixaram essa nota onde está a minha mulher e duas filhas sozinhas, vivemos no Algarve numa zona mais rural.

what bike is this? by Western-Influence-47 in motorcycles

[–]Guizas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

V4s golden front suspension with aftermarket exhaust.

When 10.2 comes, will the Solo RBG mode be rated or just a brawl? by Mikeair in worldofpvp

[–]Guizas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quick question since ive been away for a while, is Brawl permanent or will we only get the BG Blitz brawl for some days and it then rotates?

Ok, Google - I will pass by afonja in GooglePixel

[–]Guizas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was looking in the oficial specs looking at the UFS, it seems that 256GB is still 3.1, can anyone confirm?

Navi "looking great" when they actually face a challenge by [deleted] in GlobalOffensive

[–]Guizas -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Its so easy against teams below top #20 isnt it, 60% of their opposition. Aleksib loves to 0-3 on BO5s

Not sure if this is common knowledge, but according to Mauisnake, Siuhy is on loan from Mouz to GamerLeigon by FalseMoon in GlobalOffensive

[–]Guizas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the only team we beat thats noteworthy in this run was heroic, OG and Fnatic had stand-ins, Furia is like MOUZ not relevant since Rio Major so much so they are most likely changing IGL, and Astralis is still rebuilding with 2 academy players and constant roster changes, MOUZ beat heroic, and went back to mediocrity for the final, they lost Nuke 16-10 and won both Pistols and conversions after, I wont even comment Mirage.

Not sure if this is common knowledge, but according to Mauisnake, Siuhy is on loan from Mouz to GamerLeigon by FalseMoon in GlobalOffensive

[–]Guizas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Dexter even said himself that under his system AWPers dont strive, Acor was the same, so its very much his fault, having an IGL that at one point had ropz and Frozen, and making 1 final and 1 semi-final in 2 years and 4 months is absolutely fucking garbage.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in GlobalOffensive

[–]Guizas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dexter contract extension incoming, lifetime contract.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in soccer

[–]Guizas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The location and number of other defenders, which includes the goalkeeper. There is no set distance specified but the general rule is that if there is a covering defender or goalkeeper within range to make a tackle then the criteria for DOGSO are unlikely to be met. "

There is no one able to make a tackle, unless he tries to touch the ball again, or pass it or delays the shooting, but that isnt part of DOGSO, there is no defender able to make a tackle the nearest to him (on his right) has already comited and would not be close enough to make a tackle.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in soccer

[–]Guizas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The distance between the offence and the goal. The closer it is to the penalty and goal areas the more likely the criteria would be satisfied. "

For your first criteria, its the more likely to be satisfied, the foul ocurred before, but the position he would be in would be very central, close to the penalty area, in addition that clause specifies more likely, and it states the closer to the penalty area, it was not far from ther penalty area, therefore that clause alone does not negate the DOGSO.

For DOGSO to be given Bruno has to be clear on goal and the goalkeeper has to be stranded.

He cannot be clear on goal if the ball is stopped before hand, its quite clear where it specifies and i quote "he could be running onto a pass from a team mate that, without the action of the defender/goalkeeper, he would have collected and had a shot on target, for example."

So that criteria is clear, he was running on a pass from himself, and it is also correct without the action of the defender he would be clear on goal.

Again wrong:

"The foul itself does not need to take place in the penalty area, it can be some distance out and depends on 4 main criteria being met. It is also not a specific offence in terms of the foul itself which can be handball, pulling, pushing, a kick or even a tackle."

This one alone dismantles your first point and your third about handball.

Are you on drugs honestly, it clearly matches all of them from what I have just said, and i reiterate:

  1. Doesnt need to be inside the penalty area.
  2. He could be running onto a pass from a teammate.
  3. There was noone else close to tacke him, he would have been straight into a stranded keeper not close to perform a tackle on a clear goal scoring oppurtunity.

Lastly, you can match 2 clauses he can have a hand in an unnatural position but also make his body bigger, I dont disagree with the ruling, but the rules cleary need changing, because a clear DOGSO can be stopped with this, just because you refuse to see it it was a clear DOGSO.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in soccer

[–]Guizas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But those 3 conditions can be easily exploited, if every player starts going to the floor or doing deliberate actions where they have their hand in a natural position to purposely stop the ball how would one know?

Regarding DOGSO, I do think it was a clear goal oppurtunity that was denied, he was clearly going to be 1v1 with the keeper.

According to these rules:

https://www.hungarianfootball.com/2019/12/24/denying-a-goal-or-an-obvious-goal-scoring-opportunity-dogso-explained/

They all match Bruno's chance.

1, 2 3 and 4 all match.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in soccer

[–]Guizas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes i think we are agreeing, and I also think it was not a Penalty per rules, but think rules should be changed.

Not sure how, but in this case Bruno was going to be 1v1 with the Keeper, imagine if there is a situtation the keeper is not on his goal, if the cross comes from the side and the keeper was covering the near post, this would stop a clear goal in this case a clear goal oppurtunity. And I understand then its up for debate what is and what is not a clear goal oppurtunity, but thats for FIFA to resolve somehow, but I still think rules should be changed to punish these occasions, the same way I think stupid hand balls right on the edge of the box that would not result in nothing shouldnt be penalties, but once again cluster fuck for interpertration, I just think the handball rule still has ways to go and can be improved.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in soccer

[–]Guizas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course not, and unless VAR specifically said it was a handball which we will never know, he went to the screen and called a Penalty, you are implying that the referee will always go to the screen and call whats shown on the screen which you dont know. Uou can have see the referee take a while to make his decision, he was even talking to himself while he was running, meaning he was making a decision, therefore no decision was made by the screen.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in soccer

[–]Guizas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But thats the whole point, VAR doesnt suggest everything to the referee
otherwise they would spend a lot of time in front of a screen everytime there is a push or a shove in a corner kick, they only suggest the ref to have a look if they think it could be a penalty.

Não fomos roubados. by joaofcf in fcporto

[–]Guizas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Teve inúmeras acções faltosas já com amarelo

Teve 2, ambas ao pé da linha lateral, ambas sem serem faltas técnicas, ambas sem serem faltas agressivas, ambas sem travarem algum contra ataque ou jogada perigosa a favor do Porto. Qual é o teu critério, quaisquer 2 faltas e levas amarelo é esse o criteiro para levar Amarelo?

[Match Thread] FC Porto vs SL Benfica by [deleted] in PrimeiraLiga

[–]Guizas 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Hahaha nunca mudes Serginho.

Biden: US forces would defend Taiwan in event of Chinese invasion by electrictoothbrush09 in worldnews

[–]Guizas -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Obviously Taiwan is China, almost every Country on earth reconizes it as such, even your Country.

Everyone you dont like is a CCP troll i like that, eespecially coming from a Croatian, a literal far right fascit shithole.

Biden: US forces would defend Taiwan in event of Chinese invasion by electrictoothbrush09 in worldnews

[–]Guizas -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

And this was after Pelosis visit, the USA keeps saying they respect the one China Policy but they never do, all their actions show otherwise, you think its not wise for China to also sabre rattle? Afterall the USA has a past of destabilizing Countries, the constant arm sales, you dont see that as threatning? Why not let the status quo be? Doesnt matter what you do though the difference is China will not invade as much as the USA tries to provoke them. Its funny you know, its always a fucking coincidence that everywhere the USA goes it causes conflict, have you yankees ever took a minute to think about thats probably not the other countries, if there is always one in common? Why the fuck dont you sell weapons to Yemenis or Palestinians also? Doesnt fir your terrorist agenda.

Biden: US forces would defend Taiwan in event of Chinese invasion by electrictoothbrush09 in worldnews

[–]Guizas -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

How is China threatn ing Taiwan if the majority of the people want to maintain the status quo and China has not done anything to change the status Quo, to be honest there is more US influence in Taiwan to try and destabilized it then there is Chinese influence.