It says "On the field next to me." Learn to read.

#13: Did you miss the part of my post where I called out the OP's claim as bullshit, clearly indicating not a lack of knowledge or understanding but instead a lack of belief? Even in professional soccer, there is only one referee (and up to three assistants), and the referee is the only official actually ON the field. There is no reason that kids' soccer would be more heavily officiated. Also, if there were actually three referees on the field, they sure as hell wouldn't physically be right next to each other; that would be inefficient. Finally, you're completely ignoring the fact that this situation could have happened (and probably did happen) at halftime or after the game. So... learn to read (missed my point by a longshot), learn human nature (trusting the OP's claim without thought of doubt), learn logic (assuming it happened during the game), and, if you want, learn the rules of soccer (only one referee). Did I miss anything?

I'm gonna call bullshit on you, seeing as you don't know anything about soccer. There can be 1 ref on the field with 2 linesmen, but there can also be 2 refs on the field without any linesmen. Sooo...the OP was refereeing with the girl and her grandfather was refereeing with someone else on the other field. Do you need a diagram? Do your research before you make an ass of yourself again.

#23: I guess that "learn to read" should have been directed at you, instead. Let's break that down in point form; maybe you'll find it easier to understand this time. - I said that in PROFESSIONAL soccer, the referee is the only one on the field (and before posting I double-checked the FIFA official rules 2007/2008 - is that "research" enough for you?). - Later I implied the possibility of having more than one referee on the field in a non-conventional game (such as kids' soccer) by citing the unlikely situation of having three such as in OP's post. - The two-referee configuration involves only two officials, which means it is not more heavily officiated than professional soccer. Are you with me so far? These are the points made in my post, and your suggestion of having two referees does not violate the conditions set by any of them. I was aware of it but did not mention it as it didn't seem likely; even when I was 9 years old my tiny house league had a referee and linesmen; they simply used volunteers from the crowd as linesmen. Furthermore, to have two referees on one field and one on the other DOES break the conditions set in the original post. Somehow you've managed to misunderstand both the original post and my comment. Good job on that. One "referee" was "next to [him] on the field", and the other had to have been close enough to be within speaking distance. If one of the "three referees" was on a different field, even if the fields were close enough to one another to make an out-of-bounds ball on one dangerous to the other, these conditions would still not be satisfied. I didn't consider the possibility of splitting a field in half for the REALLY young kids, each having a scrimmage at one end, but that would also not require three referees; only one per end at most. And you still completely ignored the fact that multiple referees on a field would normally not be within speaking distance of one another, nor would they stop and chat instead of actually doing their job. Congratulations! You only get two of the four suggestions I gave to the other guy! You get "learn to read", and "learn logic".

First of all, you're way over analyzing this. Secondly, you're a moron who thinks he's a genius. Third, you apparently haven't read the original post. At no point did the OP suggest that the third ref was in speaking distance. This could have taken place before the game, (he walks up to the ref he's going be working with, sees the old guy on the other field and then makes his comments to the girl) You're trying to turn this into a math problem and it just doesn't work that way.

#30: Wow, way to have finally arrived at one of my original points to #13! Let me give you a recap of what happened to get there: I jokingly suggested that the OP was probably a linesman, and #13 attempted to invalidate that by quoting that they were "on the field". One of my reasons against that being a proper counter to my suggestion was that (wait for it, this is going to sound familiar!) this didn't have to have happened during the game! And here I thought you ignored that point during your post; now I see you missed it completely - only arrive at the same conclusion later when all your other options of argument were exhausted (which was evidenced by the baseless insults), despite the fact that it works for my side rather than against it. If you honestly think that your most recent point aids your argument, you've apparently misunderstood the entire thing. I think what you're really missing here is that my very first post here, #12, was obviously not serious. Did you miss the ":P" along with everything else you missed while selectively reading my comments? There is no logic behind that one besides a vague likelihood. The problem is that #13 attempted to prove that OP was definitely NOT a linesman by virtue of the fact that he said he was on the field. My actual defense, which started at #22, has only been to prove #13 false, not to prove #12 true. One final reiteration so you might actually get it this time: I am only stating that the OP, within the bounds of his own words, was not a referee IF this situation happened during a game. ...And suggesting that someone doesn't need to be in speaking distance to speak to another person... I'm just not even going to touch that one...

Wow.. its only an FML.. no big deal, tbh, your being pretty pathetic arguing so intesly over this, because it makes you look an idiot.. admit defeat dude.

#35: I make plenty of comments in which I expect an argument; #12 wasn't one of them. Pathetic would be cowering away from direct and unprovoked verbal attacks on myself. Yes, I take too long to explain things, but I can't really be faulted for not expecting everyone I run across to have common sense. I happen to find it pathetic that you consider this argument "intense". And I realize you probably didn't read the whole thing (not that I blame you for that), but it would be more than a little bit ridiculous to "admit defeat" when my opponent has already run out of arguments.

wow... #12... get a life.

#12 is an idiot. I agree with Paolo.

Wow... such a moron infestation in here. I really should have brought some Raid. My mistake here, obviously, was trying to explain simple concepts to people who probably still group words by "dollar amounts".

#12. You aren't making points against the other people. You are making points against yourself. AND you can't read one damn thing anyone has written. How does saying it could be during halftime go against #13's post. IT DOESN"T. It has no correlation. The only thing it does is go against some of the points you have tried to make.

all I'm saying is whats the ******* point? do you have nothing better to do than argue over the internet, your not as smart as you think you are, stop talking bullshit and get a life.

#51: I can't believe how often I have to repeat myself here. I wish I could paste a diagram here or something; you might find it easier to understand. - #13 pointed out that they were on the field. Linesmen do not step onto the field. He thought that was a reasonable argument that the OP was a ref and not a linesman. - For #13 to be a reasonable argument against the OP being a linesman, it would have to have occurred during the game (obviously linesmen can step on the field when not in play), and multiple referees would have to be a possibility for a soccer game. - I proved him wrong on both of those conditions, thereby invalidating his argument. - I KNOW it probably happened outside of game time, or one of the referees was off-duty (OP didn't say they were all working at the time). That was never a part of #13's argument, it was always a part of mine. #54: The fact that you've come back to argue this is more than a little hypocritical (not to mention commenting on others' intelligence when you can't even grasp simple grammar). Are you trying to assume here that no one can find arguments fun or interesting? What do you think high school debate clubs are for?

null You are a ******* retard who can't handle being wrong. Shut the **** up.

Do you people realize you are writing essays to prove yourselves right over a stupid FML? Smh.

You hit the nail on the head, we are all idiots because of what 1 person said.

"field next to us." learn to read.