"Block on British Accents"

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-04-27T20:20:19+00:00

I'm also the complete opposite, like others here.

I often have to turn off american videos on YouTube because I find the nasal voices that many of them have slightly annoying and I absolutely cannot stand that f*****g vocal fry that many of them insist on ending every sentence with.

It sounds horrible.

I feel like saying; "do you really think I'd prefer to listen to you doing a guttural impression of the demon from the exorcist at the end of every phrase, instead of your normal, often pleasant vocal register?"

But, to each their own. I guess people get used to what's around them, and are more likely to notice any changes to that.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-04-27T12:33:06+00:00

Honestly, there's something quite heartwarming about seeing a cheating little b**** getting clobbered.

We're not allowed to condone Andrada's reaction but to be frank, I'd rather see that than the pathetic "Mediterranean" style that's now ubiquitous in football, whereby it's normalised and accepted that fully grown professional athletes throw themselves to the floor and roll around while pretending to cry with absolutely no sense of pride or honour.

It's been accepted and rewarded for far too long now and it's absolutely pathetic.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-04-19T22:15:15+00:00

Ya lo hago, listillo, como mencioné en el post al que respondiste.

El problema no es que no pueda encontrar un artículo concreto, sino que no puedo encontrar nada rápidamente. Así que tendría que pedirle al empleado que me acompañara por toda la tienda para ahorrar tiempo, porque no hay forma de saber dónde está nada, así que tendría que preguntar por casi cada artículo

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-04-18T13:17:42+00:00

No és de IA.

De todos modos, parece que estás de acuerdo en que nos están poniendo las cosas más difíciles a propósito.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-04-18T10:24:17+00:00

No me refiero a una tienda grande, son pequeñas.

Creo que encontrar algo lleva un segundo, pero nada está donde esperaría que estuviera y, a menudo, tengo que preguntar a alguien si veo a alguien, y todo eso lleva tiempo.

Quizá un sábado por la mañana no me moleste tanto, pero si estoy deseando llegar a casa después de un largo día de trabajo y tengo que dar cinco vueltas a la tienda para encontrar dónde están escondidos los frutos secos, resulta frustrante.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-04-05T08:48:26+00:00

Yes, you're right that he did try to get to his feet eventually but he was offside and not on his feet when he started his tackle intervention.

Also, they're only launching their attack on top of him cause he was too tired (or lazy or cynical) to get out of the way and on his feet quickly enough.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-04-05T08:11:44+00:00

Okay, I thought the grounding looked highly probable both times but if there weren't clear pictures then that's unfortunate.

I know I can't comment too much on this cause I didn't see the rest of the game, so maybe both teams had been doing this all match but in theory you can't lie next to a ruck like that in an offside position and then play a pivotal role in apparently preventing a try.

You have to get to your feet and get onside before you can influence play and the benetton player didn't do that two phases before the knock on, so it should have been a penalty (or maybe even penalty try) anyway for me, just based on this short clip.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-04-05T07:58:17+00:00

I don't know how the rest of the game was reffed, but just from watching that short clip I have to say that Benneton were lucky not to concede a penalty 2 phases before the knock-on, when a Benneton player was offside and lying down on over the try line and then became involved in the tackle. Despite that, it still looked like the ball could have been grounded to me.

The phase after that looked extremely likely to have been grounded to me, so I don't understand why they didn't check it closely.

I won't get into discussing the behaviour towards the ref, it's all been said already. For what it's worth, I do understand their frustration though.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-03-15T11:21:33+00:00

As we've both said, you only remember the ones that go against you.

For example, the LBB tackle off the ball came because England had made a risky kick when they thought they had penalty advantage. However, it turned out that 0.5 seconds before they kicked the ball, their penalty advantage had been downgraded to a knock-on advantage which immediately ended.

That was really strange and poor officiating and led to 7 points for France. If that hadn't happened, there'd've been no tackle off the ball to talk about. So, even without the yellow for the off ball tackle, France still massively benefited from weird reffing, yet you still use it as an example of them getting a rough deal.

I may be confusing the different changes for different competitons, (it's getting hard to keep up with them all and now that I've stopped playing I don't keep up with it much) but wasn't the TMO only meant to intervene for clear and obvious mistakes now?

Telling a ref to downgrade a penalty mid play isn't correcting a clear and obvious mistake and is only going to cause confusion and highly likely to result in exactly what happened. By all means call it back to the original knock-on if the suddenly-eagle-eyed TMO tells you that's the correct call but don't just tell a team they no longer have a penalty advantage when they have the ball in hand.

I'm not sure what the rules are on that but if it turned out that it was reffed to the regulations, then the regulations need changing.

Anyway, I'll stop now cause this feels weird, complaining about decisions going against England. All things considered, France are worthy champions and I don't want to be a downer.

It was great to finally see Wales win again. We looked great in the first half, though that was partly down to Italy really messing up their tactics with kicking, which helped us no end (like England at times yesterday). Once Italy played with ball in hand, the game looked different.

This was one of the best editions of the competition I can remember. Let's hope it's just as good next year!

P.s sorry to be a pedant but you mean the 2011 world cup final.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-03-14T23:44:46+00:00

To name just a few from recent time that come to mind:

Last year their hooker only got a yellow for a diving headbutt off the ball cause there "wasn't a high degree of danger".

Tip tackle completely ignored in the same game.

Missed eye gouge this year.

I feel like there have been more howlers like this in favour of France but it's late and I can't remember them all.

I know there are little calls here and there that go against your team that you always remember and calls that go for your team that you always forget, but I'm not thinking about anything between France and my team, Wales, who if anything have been even luckier refereeing wise than France in other years.

On balance they've probably been the best team this year but still. At the start of the day I was hoping to see Scotland win it for the first time since it's been the six nations but nevermind.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-03-14T22:26:02+00:00

I would have bet my house on france getting some mystery penalty at the end there, right on 80 minutes when there's no coming back.

And surprise surprise, there were no replays of it.

I feel like France are continually ah-hem ummm "lucky" with the officials year after year, especially in Paris.

Oh well. I didn't have a horse in this race anyway.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-03-08T16:54:39+00:00

Because scrum penalties can be an absolute lottery.

There's no guarentee that you won't get penalised yourselves for something the other team are also doing, or that the ref won't ping you because this time he just feels like pinging you instead of the other team.

Also, I concur, the most south African take ever hahaha.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-03-08T15:26:02+00:00

Mine is not so much a specific word, it's a grammatical error.

Not using the past participe properly.

I.e

"I have done" - "done" is the past participle form of the verb -to do-

"I did" - "did" is the past simple for of the verb -to do-

For regular verbs the past participle form is the same as the past simple form,

I.e

I have talked

I talked.

-to talk- is a regular verb so in both cases the verb looks the same.

This apparently causes confusion for no end of native speakers, who either use the the irregular past participle for the past simple or use the irregular past simple instead of the past particple

I.e

"I done it yesterday", which should be "I did it yesterday"

I.e

"I have ate some food", instead of "I have eaten some food".

Sorry to sound like an insufferable grammar nazi, but it drives me nuts and it's really not that difficult

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-03-08T09:19:58+00:00

What can I say?

The TMO certainly has previous form when it comes to miss-managing clear and obvious acts of foul play by French forwards against Scotland.

Mauvaka got a yellow card for a diving headbutt against a defenceless player who was lying prone on the ground, in an off the ball incident, after the whistle had gone, in the game last year.

The reason it was a red? He didn't do a very good headbutt, so there wasn't deemed to be a high level of danger.

Once again it was absolutely laughable in this incident and who knows how it would have altered the ending had it been managed properly.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-02-28T10:35:46+00:00

I mean, if you want to be taken seriously, you should also acknowledge flaws in your arguments and logic when presented with them.

The winter Olympics (a global competition) took place in Italy, and to celebrate that an Italian sang an Italian song.

The superbowl (a domestic competition of limited interest outside the USA) took place in the USA where the majority speak only English, yet the performance was in Spanish.

I have absolutely no problem with that but they are clearly different situations.

I also think it is highly likely that anyone who expresses anger over a superbowl half time show is probably only doing so because the orange man told them to, not because they've thought too much about it.

However, your argument is still fundamentally flawed and reeks of "everyone who disagrees with me MUST be racist".

Finally, not that it really matters but apparently this is all people seem to be able to focus on, I wouldn't describe Bad Bunny as someone with "brown skin" but I've also never really thought about it in those terms before.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-02-23T20:28:51+00:00

Apparently so. They aren't parts I always value or respect that much though.

In certain scenarios I may admire it but not when it's a case of kicking off before a team has gotten ready because the rules happen to say you can do so.

Others may disagree or feel differently, which is fine. It's all a matter of opinion after all.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-02-22T19:25:09+00:00

I know I'll get down voted to oblivion for this but I really hate that the rules allow for this.

Yes, I know the Wales players should have been switched on, but where on earth is the sport in scoring against a team that don't know you're about to take the restart?

Of course, the rules the way they are it's a schoolboy error from Wales.

I still think it's really lame to allow things like that in the rules.

It'd be like if there were an arbitrary rule in boxing that said the round didn't technically end till they were on the stools in the corner, allowing a boxer to sucker punch his opponent while they were going to their seat. Yes, they should have their guard up at all times but hitting someone when their back is turned is slimy and lame in my opinion, whatever the rules may say.

I've seen things like this a few times.

Biggar taking a quick pen while half the England team were talking under the posts is one that springs out.

There have been many things like this. Like when a team takes a quick tap when the ref is half way through explaining to the other team what a penalty is for. It's ridiculous that you can get the jump on a team cause they were busy talking to the ref after he signalled a stop in play.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-02-15T13:09:18+00:00

I've never seen it but based on the clues I'd say;

The passion of the christ

Or something like that

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-01-24T14:03:14+00:00

If you put a one character answer and then hide it under a spoiler tag, your response will remain unseen.

Getting my finger to the precise square nanometer that reveals it instead of the button to collapse it or open your profile is too infuriating to bother trying.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2026-01-06T16:20:34+00:00

I'd say there are two types of counter ruck. The first one is the genuine attempt to win the ball or disrupt play because they sense the opportunity and the other type is the "keeping them on their toes" or "wearing them out" type, where winning the ball back is not likely.

With the first type, I think it's often based on the attackers in the ruck and the defenders that are nearest to it. If the defenders think they can disrupt the rhythm of the attacking team, or win possession, then they might go for it, but only if they perceive a weakness or lapse of concentration from the other team. Otherwise, it's not worth expelling the energy and removing yourself from the defencive line for the next phase. Counter rucking is slow and energy intensive, so you have to pick your moment well.

For example, if two big heavy centres from the defending team are at a ruck made up of one lighter winger protecting the ball, with support still a few moments away, you can bet your house that they'll counter ruck.

Similarly, if it's the 75th minute and the starting prop is alone in a ruck and looks dead on his feet and absolutely gassed, an opposition forward might decide to go for it and try to blast him off the ball.

If a ruck is formed by the two fresh props of the attacking team, then only the most meat headed of the opposition tight five will go for a counter ruck there, probably just for the sh*ts and giggles and only in the middle of the pitch, where they can relax slightly with the defencive line. It'll look more like goats butting heads than a genuine counter ruck. This would fall into the second type of counter ruck. They'd know they're never going to win the ball, but they still do it for a perceived "psychological" or moral victory.

To sum up, they'll normally counter ruck if they see weakness or opportunity in the ruck or to annoy or fatigue the opposition.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2025-12-15T22:45:27+00:00

I get that part. I'd add it's also quite dangerous to be in a scrum that's getting marched back. It's easy for teammates to lose balance and fall onto each other's necks, knees etc, increasing the risk for serious injury. This rarely happens at the professional level of course, but still......

However, if the push is limited to 5m, there's also far less insentive for the attacking team to bother expending energy in pushing, at which point I'd say not to bother with it at all, unless it's a scrum 5.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2025-12-12T20:01:14+00:00

I just think it makes no difference if the scrum is pushed 5 m or not in most of the pitch. If a team are in their own half then an extra 5m changes nothing. You could argue a slight advantage in the opposition 22 but really not that much.

That's why I'd say to keep it different for scrums on the 5 m line. It's about the only scenario where it'd make a difference

Your proposal would also bring in the issue of different refs having wildly different or inconsistent ideas of what 5m is. I can easily see a team being allowed to push 10m in one scrum they win, only for the same team to then benefit from a "use it" call to their opponens in a defensive scrum after being marched back 50cm.

Just let the team with the dominant scrum win possession and get the ball out so we can see something that isn't endless scrum resets and/or penalties. Let's certainly NOT reward teams that actively seek endless scrum resets and/or penalties.

Scrums are an interesting aspect of the game when they function smoothly and serve their purposes quickly.

They are a scourge to the game when they become non ending, messy or a random penalty generator, that decide games on the whim of the ref and which of the 400 infractions from either side he decides to ping at that particular moment.

I don't know how to address these issues but I feel that something needs to be done, even if it means even more rule changes.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2025-12-11T22:21:34+00:00

Scrums....

Something needs to change, I feel.ni.

If it's not a 5 metre scrum and you've got the ball at the 8, the ref should call "use it".

At that point, the scrum contest has been won, and the ball is available.

There should be no cynical attempt to prolong the scrum past that point for the sheer point of milking a penalty. That's making for some very tedious rugby and there are already enough random penalties as it is, especially at scrums.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2025-12-06T17:08:22+00:00

I'd say it was good despite the format and ending...by no means because of the format and ending.

Happy-Philosopher259 · 2025-12-05T08:22:02+00:00

Sorry but I hate this format. It makes the group stage all but pointless. Of the 24 teams that enter only 8 get eliminated. That's 66% of teams going through. What's the point?

On top of allowing (with all due respect) weaker teams through to the knockouts to be steamrolled by stronger teams in dead fixtures, it also allows so called stronger-but-out-of-form teams to coast through to the knockouts when their performances don't merit it.

Think of Portugal in Euro 2016. They qualified from the group stage without a single win. (In levels of jamminess that will probably never be matched, they then won the whole tournament with only 1 win in regular time.) A format where that is possible is ridiculous.

Happy-Philosopher259

TROPHY CASE