OuttaNowhereWregget--Redux

[laxagainsthumanity]

I would not have chosen two of these three much-less-than-flattering photographs. I see many photographs of players make their way onto social media that I'm sure the players (and those who eventually see them) would balk at if they had veto power.

Super high speed photography sometimes enhances details that are less than attractive. That's the best way I can put it. I think if you open each photograph and look at the details of the player being featured, you'll see what I mean.

I meant and intended no comment or criticism of the players appearance--only on the poor choice of photographs (due to high speed photography) picked by whomever has the responsibility at Notre Dame. If I was the editor, I would have rejected two of the three photographs and asked the person doing the submitting to present photographs with better composition and less distortion caused to the subjects by the high speed method of photography used. That is the whole of my intent in posting what I did earlier. If I had it to over again, I would have posted this:

"If I was the editor, I would not have chosen these photographs to showcase these players due to poor composition."

And left it at that.

Period--paragraph--end of story.

ok

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I would not have chosen two of these three much-less-than-flattering photographs. I see many photographs of players make their way onto social media that I'm sure the players (and those who eventually see them) would balk at if they had veto power.

Super high speed photography sometimes enhances details that are less than attractive. That's the best way I can put it. I think if you open each photograph and look at the details of the player being featured, you'll see what I mean.

I meant and intended no comment or criticism of the players appearance--only on the poor choice of photographs (due to high speed photography) picked by whomever has the responsibility at Notre Dame. If I was the editor, I would have rejected two of the three photographs and asked the person doing the submitting to present photographs with better composition and less distortion caused to the subjects by the high speed method of photography used. That is the whole of my intent in posting what I did earlier. If I had it to over again, I would have posted this:

"If I was the editor, I would not have chosen these photographs to showcase these players due to poor composition."

And left it at that.

Period--paragraph--end of story.

ok

There are no inconsistencies in what I wrote--your blue font enhancements to the contrary notwithstanding.

[wlaxphan20]

Personally I think their bodies look phenomenal — strong, toned, fit, healthy (as are the opponents also pictured). These women exercise 2-3 hours per day and it shows. Yes, it's hard to keep a pretty face during physical exertion. Yes, almost all women have cellulite. Yes, thighs often look undefined from certain angles during some parts of the gait cycle. None of this needs to be avoided in conversation or in social media posts. It is simply the way the human body works. These three women are absolutely beautiful athletes to watch in action. Let young girls see these photos on social media and understand that they capture athleticism and health.

Love my cellulite it keeps all the important stuff safe

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

It's a little bit wide but I could get used to this view...

[njbill]

Perhaps ONW could post a picture of himself so that the college lacrosse players on whose appearances he has negatively commented could comment on his.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Perhaps ONW could post a picture of himself so that the college lacrosse players on whose appearances he has negatively commented could comment on his.

Oh goodness no – I wouldn't want to afflict anyone with that visual!

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

This was their Super Bowl, if you please. They were dragged in three of their next four games by Carolina, Notre Dame and Maryland successively. Very puzzling how a team with all their talent could look so anemic in those three blowout losses. One would think they would've given all three of those teams a better fight.

In any event, I would love to see Duke win it all one time. That would be fun to witness.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

What a great moment that was for Boston College.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cm1xZR4LnRu ... MyMTA2M2Y=

[MDlaxfan76]

Personally I think their bodies look phenomenal — strong, toned, fit, healthy (as are the opponents also pictured). These women exercise 2-3 hours per day and it shows. Yes, it's hard to keep a pretty face during physical exertion. Yes, almost all women have cellulite. Yes, thighs often look undefined from certain angles during some parts of the gait cycle. None of this needs to be avoided in conversation or in social media posts. It is simply the way the human body works. These three women are absolutely beautiful athletes to watch in action. Let young girls see these photos on social media and understand that they capture athleticism and health.

I meant and intended no comment or criticism of the players appearance--only on the poor choice of photographs (due to high speed photography) picked by whomever has the responsibility at Notre Dame. If I was the editor, I would have rejected two of the three photographs and asked the person doing the submitting to present photographs with better composition and less distortion caused to the subjects by the high speed method of photography used. That is the whole of my intent in posting what I did earlier. If I had it to over again, I would have posted this:

"If I was the editor, I would not have chosen these photographs to showcase these players due to poor composition."

And left it at that.

Period--paragraph--end of story.

But you didn't; you posted about how the pictures made the players look "less attractive".

What does that have to do with "high speed photography"? and "composition"?
In what way are the photographs showing "distortion"?
What's wrong with the "composition"?

I see physical exertion, nothing more or less...are pictures of athletes in action supposed to make them look "attractive"?
These aren't poses...

Seriously, I don't get it.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

No shot prettier than the no-look backhander. A thing of beauty. And what camerawork!

[user1020]

It's a little bit wide but I could get used to this view...

These are cool shots. Pretty ball movement on this last one.

[Matnum PI]

I would not have chosen two of these three much-less-than-flattering photographs...

https://twitter.com/NDWomensLax/status/ ... n8V7KApS3A

I'm not following. What's less than flattering about them?

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

It's a little bit wide but I could get used to this view...

These are cool shots. Pretty ball movement on this last one.

Agreed. Won the game for them in OT to boot.

[admin]

I would not have chosen two of these three much-less-than-flattering photographs. I see many photographs of players make their way onto social media that I'm sure the players (and those who eventually see them) would balk at if they had veto power...

OuttaNowhereWregget, take a rest.

[Cletus]

[DMac]

This is a slap in the face to you Admin, ONW showing complete disregard for authority and willingness to play by the rules.
Minimally the penalty should be doubled plus time for bad behavior.

[Dr. Tact]

No shot prettier than the no-look backhander. A thing of beauty. And what camerawork!

I have always understood that a "no-look" shot is often susceptible to a Dangerous propelling foul. I am not saying that this example meets that criteria (as she may have snuck a look), but a generic "no-look" does...

Dangerous Propelling: Propelling the ball with their stick in a dangerous
or uncontrolled manner at any time. Any shot directed at or taken without
regard to the positioning of a field player is dangerous propelling.

The other call that is in play with a no-look is a dangerous follow through...it is hard to stop your crosse if you dont know where the defense is...

Dangerous Follow-Through: Following through with their stick in a
dangerous or uncontrolled manner at any time.

Again, this example doesnt jump out as having either of those fouls, it is a good example...but no-look shots often get called when the ball/stick hits a defender.

[8meterPA]

No shot prettier than the no-look backhander. A thing of beauty. And what camerawork!

I have always understood that a "no-look" shot is often susceptible to a Dangerous propelling foul. I am not saying that this example meets that criteria (as she may have snuck a look), but a generic "no-look" does...

Dangerous Propelling: Propelling the ball with their stick in a dangerous
or uncontrolled manner at any time. Any shot directed at or taken without
regard to the positioning of a field player is dangerous propelling.

The other call that is in play with a no-look is a dangerous follow through...it is hard to stop your crosse if you dont know where the defense is...

Dangerous Follow-Through: Following through with their stick in a
dangerous or uncontrolled manner at any time.

Again, this example doesnt jump out as having either of those fouls, it is a good example...but no-look shots often get called when the ball/stick hits a defender.

Twizzler!