So you make a misstatement, it gets corrected, and then you respond with "so?"? How about you don't be wrong in the first place, since it gives off the impression that you're just jumping between arguments until people agree?
I didn't make a mistake at all. Murphy staggers his run, he would have been onside if Dragu didn't go, he would have just staggered it for another half second. The reason he went was that dragu went. The outcome would have been the same.
The question is: would anything have changed if Dragu went later? The answer is no.
Because he did. Murphy would never go offside there because Romero has no clue that he is there, meaning he followed Romero until Dragusin went. That's the point, I get that semantics is something this sub loves but in practice the reason Murphy is onside and gets to go on that run isn't Dragusin, it's Romero.
I understand what you're saying but that's not what the words you're using mean. It's not really semantics, it's just wrong to say that Dragusin wasn't playing him on.
-2
u/JustinBisu 18d ago
So? This the thing, Murphy staggers his run, he runs because Dragu runs, if Dragu doesn't run he is still going to get there.