DC

I couldn't not wash my kneepads; they get so sweaty and stinking after a match, Becky has to wash them on their own, so having someone who didn't wash his would be a nightmare.

You gotta love the Bushwacker's stomp, especially at the Rumble when Luke stomped down the aisle, got into the ring, was dragged across to the other side, was thrown over the top to the floor and then stomped his way back up the aisle... all without breaking his stride once. [YOUTUBE]8OxBaWI5xKc[/YOUTUBE] :lol

But why should a defender not go in for any tackle where he has a chance (regardless of the odds) of winning the ball and/or stopping the attack? If a defender goes into a tackle that is 70/30 against him (and, again, they're not mathematicians and only have a split second to decide), he still has a 30% chance of coming out on top. I mean, would you rather a defender (or even just a defending player in any position) just stood back and let the attacking player go past him, just because the tackle may go wrong? I'm still waiting on an answer to the question I asked you, Boyo; if this had been the other way round and the Arsenal player had injured a non-Arsenal player, would you have reacted in the same way?

They're saying that it's not trophies overall, but only games that have "dynamic" trophies. I don't know what the difference is, but that's what's being said.

If Undertaker loses at WrestleMania, he has nothing left. A rubber match next year would probably steal the show again, but the match wouldn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. The streak has to stay, mainly because it is, for a lot of people, THE selling point of WrestleMania, even if we know 'Taker won't lose.

This isn't a leap year though, so that shouldn't have any bearing. On another note, if they do have to replace all the old 60gb Playstations, then there may also be cause for compensation with regards to any data lost as well.

Honest answer, Boyo; if that tackle had been the other way round, would you have reacted the same way or would you have defended the Arsenal player?

Sony are simply telling people that "they're working on it", which doesn't really help you when you want to play a game offline.

The Bushwackers.

He won't end the streak. HBK doesn't need to end it, Undertaker needs to have it continue as it's his selling point at WrestleMania. Imagine he does lose to Shawn; a huge part of next year's event, the one guaranteed talking point, is taken away. I still think they want to reach 20-0, with Undertaker taking on possibly the lightest schedule imaginable in his final years with the company, perhaps even limiting himself to only two or three actual (televised) matches per year.

That makes more sense. I thought you were admitting to stalking Stone and hiding outside his front door.

I too hope that WWE.COM goes to TNA. ;) By next week, this thread could hold the record for longest title ever.

I thought that was Triple H's gimmick at Elimination Chamber. :lol

Huh?

Woke up this morning, went to play Heavy Rain and saw that the time/date on the system had reset itself to 23:49 on 25/12/1999. Not only that, I can't log into PSN due to an problem with the network (Error Code: 8001050F) OR play offline games that have trophies... which includes the aforementioned game. Having had a look around, it seems virtually everyone is having the same issue at the same time. Sony say there are some maintenace issues, but, again from reading around, it seems that the exact same thing happened on the exact same day last year. I'm hoping it gets sorted soon. Anyone on here having issues?

You're still not getting it, Jay. Suddenly having a MitB winner lose when he cashes it in isn't going to really change the world. The fact that we know, with almost 100% certainty, that the MitB briefcase holder is going to win the title when he uses it is part of the appeal. Aside from RVD giving Cena advance warning, every use of the case has been a surprise and, more importantly, a successfully executed angle. There was excitement with every single one of them, the fans reacted accordingly (booing Edge both times, cheering Punk on his first one and then booing him to high hell on the second) and a memorable moment was created. I mean, let's just take the last one as an example. We all knew Punk was winning when he cashed it in, but we didn't know when that would be. The entire "WWE Universe" were almost rioting to get Jeff the championship and, at last, finally, he had vanquished Edge and reclaimed the belt after a brutal TLC match. The fans are on cloud nine, Jeff is the champion and has the look of "it was all worth it" on his face, JR's about to interview him... and then Punk's music hit. The fans go absolutely mental, I personally go apeshit at what's about to happen (especially as it was how I said Punk should cash it in) and Punk begins his turn into what we see today. Not a single thing about that entire situation was stale. Knowing that Jeff was going to lose the title he had just spent over 20mins winning back was part of the appeal and the reason Punk was booed so loudly. If you can't see why the concept simply works, then there's not really anything else that can be said to convince you.

Yes, because it's only Arsenal players that are on the receiving end of bad tackles. In all seriousness, you're normally a great poster, but when it comes to football, especially matters concerning Arsenal, you lose all sense of reasoning and become blinkered to virtually any other viewpoint.

I haven't seen the show yet (it comes on BT Vision from 3pm today), so I was unaware of the chair shot being to the back (which Storm makes no mention of), or whether the shots to Abyss are also to the back.

I doesn't matter if the chair shots were to the arse, it should still "logically" take more to put Abyss down than it does Anderson.

It happened to an Arsenal player, hence why Boyo went on a rant. Had it been the other way round, then that post wouldn't be there.

I watched Unbreakable with Richard last night, continuing his movie education, and he thought it was great.

I don't agree with this from the simple point of view that Abyss is meant to be a monster, a reinvigorated one at that, while Anderson isn't. Abyss is (billed as) 6'8" and over 300lbs, while Anderson isn't. That alone has the situation make perfect sense. It's like back when Kane was still a monster and it would take much more to put him down than anyone else on the roster. Sorry, Lance, you usually make some good points, but not with this one.

In an update, Shad was passed over for the role in favour of Bob Sapp.

Just had a quick look around and Bob Sapp got the part.

It's a combination of various things; angle at which the tackle takes place, position on the leg, pace coming in, whether the player had his foot planted on the ground, etc, etc. The worst one I can remember seeing happen as it happened was Henrik Larsson. The worst one I ever saw was David Busst's.