| stubbs7
- 26 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 582
|
| I defeated Davis, 4-0, 16-7. More details to come.
|
|
|
| carolina phil
- 26 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 1084
|
Congratulations to the winner, Billy Stubbs, who defends his Number One World Ranking.
Phil Arnold
|
|
|
| sjrbat
- 26 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 527
|
Congratulations Billy on yet another dominating win!!!
You have defeated Ehab, Danny, and Davis in the period of months.
That is an incredible feat and I really do not think can be repeated by anyone anytime soon.
Congrats again!!
Syed
|
|
|
| Davisl
- 26 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 168
|
I had a very fun trip to Chicago. As always, Billy, Karisa, Q and Dan are the best hosts and I love hanging out with them. Chicago was beautiful as always, and I am super happy I made the trip. Thanks for making my stay so great.
Congrats to Billy on defending his well deserved ranking and rating. I gave it my best, but it was not close to good enough at the moment. His offense is the best in the world right now, and he is top three in defense/transition. That's a tough combination to beat. On top of this, he and Q are working harder at improving than anyone else in the sport. Very inspiring to watch him playing and practicing at such a high level.
I had a lot of fun playing this match, we had some great on table transition point moments, and we had some off the table competitor moments that really showed how bad we both wanted to win. I'd like to thank Billy for the match.
I look forward to playing him again in the future.
|
|
|
|
| carolina phil
- 26 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 1084
|
Congratulations to the winner, Billy Stubbs, who defends his Number One World Ranking.
Phil Arnold
|
|
|
|
| stubbs7
- 26 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 582
|
Over the years Davis has turned into my biggest rival in air hockey. It's been a friendly rival, but we have played a ton of close matches and it's gone back in forth a lot, with me losing some heart breakers over the last two years to him. It felt really good to win this one :)
There were a couple arguments regarding line calls and charging that resulted in some intense moments. Thanks to Dan and Q for reffing the match!
So about the match, Davis' offense was as good as anyone's and he's definitely the fastest player out there. I was able to score quite a few cuts and RWUs at key moments against him. This is something that I haven't been able to do in the past.
I look forward to playing Davis again. Thanks for the match!
|
|
|
| Q
- 26 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 497
|
Videos of the match should be up in the next 2-3 days. You can check out our Vimeo page or here on AHW where I will link the videos to the match for easy navigation.
|
|
|
|
| Q
- 27 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 497
|
Videos are up.
http://airhockeyworld.com/video.asp?vidpk=292
https://vimeo.com/album/1852815
|
|
|
| TWeissman
- 27 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 210
|
I heard there was some disagreement at the end or something, and that Davis forfeited the last game after getting down 4-0 in points. Can we get clarification on what happened there?
Take care...
Tim
|
|
|
| Petesimple
- 27 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 319
|
Wow, just finished watching. Great match guys!
Congrat Billy on defending your title.
:)
~Pete
www.petesimple.com
|
|
|
| ajflanagan
- 27 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 509
|
Just started watching the first set. Good grief... some of Billy's shots are so fast I can't tell what they are!
Billy, after reviewing the vids, would you still call that first foul a charge? It's so borderline. I think I agree that there is a slight forward motion but it's so slight. It's mostly a sideways motion.
The foul at 8:30 in set one is also something that comes up often. The puck was fluttering off the back rail. Davis was moving forward to trap the puck and regain possession. The puck fluttered off the back of his mallet and off the table. It's not a charge in the traditional sense of the word... but is it still charging? According to the rules, it's forward motion that causes the puck to leave the table.
This issue comes up often with players like Danny who is always moving forward on defense to get a piece of the puck and try to get possession.
|
|
|
| fupersly
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 231
|
If the puck is hit such that forward momentum is imparted on it by the defensive player (thus making him the offensive player at that moment) and it flies off the table as a result, then yes, that would be charging. However, moving the mallet forward to trap the puck and having the puck fly off the back of the mallet as a result of putting the mallet in front of the puck and not imparting forward momentum on the puck should not be considered charging. The primary difference in making the proper call is that the player must be attempting to make an offensive maneuver in order to truly "charge" the puck - sideways or backwards motions while on defense do not count as offensive maneuvers:
SECTION VI. Penalties & Fouls
15. If the defensive player strikes the puck in an offensive manner (with forward momentum) and causes the puck to leave the playing surface, this constitutes "charging the puck". The offensive player retains possession of the puck. Conversely, a defensive player who "blocks" by holding steady or by striking the puck sideways or backwards, causing the puck to leave the table, should not be charged with "charging."
|
|
|
|
| ajflanagan
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 509
|
Virtually the same exact thing happens again in Set 2 at 6:20 in the video. Billy shoots. The puck flutters off Davis' back rail, into the back of his mallet which is moving toward the center line to trap the puck, and off the table. This time Dan gives the puck to Billy.
Again at about 7:30 in the same set. Billy shoots a left wall under and misses. Davis moves to the right and slightly forward in a sweeping motion. The puck flutters off the back rail, off the back of Davis' mallet and off the table.
I personally would not call charging in any of these cases. Billy has a lot of experience. Dan confidently stated in the video that it's still charging even if it comes off the back of the mallet. Davis didn't argue the first few incidents but argued against the one at 7:30 in set 2. Just wondering why they feel this is clearly charging. Seems like it either is or isn't. The rules don't necessarily define an "offensive motion" but instead clarify by putting in parentheses (with forward momentum). The rules don't say anything about the back of the mallet. I thought I understood the rule. Apparently either I understand the rule correctly and Billy and Dan are wrong. Or they are right and I've been wrong all these years.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
| therood
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 42
|
fupersly said:
SECTION VI. Penalties & Fouls
15. If the defensive player strikes the puck in an offensive manner (with forward momentum) and causes the puck to leave the playing surface, this constitutes "charging the puck". The offensive player retains possession of the puck. Conversely, a defensive player who "blocks" by holding steady or by striking the puck sideways or backwards, causing the puck to leave the table, should not be charged with "charging." |
The problem with making the "proper call" is that it requires the referee to determine intent.
The point of having "with forward motion" in the rule appears to be as a definition of "offensive manner." So with that in mind, one interpretation of the rule is that "forward motion" constitutes "offensive manner."
If you take that definition away and the only standing indication of "charging" is an "offensive manner," it then becomes the referee's job to say what "offensive" is. That can be pretty subjective.
Of course, this notion is muddied up by an apparent converse of the statement, which states that hitting the puck sideways or backward is a defensive maneuver. So would a player moving forward to hit the puck backward be making a defensive maneuver? I think a lot of people would say it is.
As I see it, though, the trouble with making the call either way is that the referee is left to determine what the player is trying to do. Are they moving forward to hit the puck back to gain possession or are they moving forward to make a transition shot? The first is a defensive move by the rule, the second an offensive. Since the puck flew off the table, it's not necessarily clear what was going to happen.
With that in mind, what do we have to go on when making the call? The player was moving forward, which in the rule is the definition of an "offensive manner."
That's how I read the rule anyway. Rather than leaving it up to the referee to decide what the player's intent was, it's simpler and more consistent to interpret the rule as:
(1) "Forward motion" is an offensive maneuver. Period.
(2) "Sideways or backwards motion" is a defensive maneuver.
I'm interested to hear other players' opinions on it, though.
From what I could tell in the videos, however, Davis was much more upset about close plays at the line where he thought that Billy was over the center line.
I'm Eric Rood and, luckily, you're not.
|
|
|
|
| stubbs7
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 582
|
I'm going to answer a few questions, in one post.
Tim asked about the forfeiting and what transpired at the end of the match. Davis was upset about a line call at the end of game 6 in the 4th set. He was down 4-0 in points in the last game, and forfeited the game. I can't complain about this too much, I've throw the puck in my own goal more than once :)
Andrew asked if I still thought that Davis charged. I think that in the first example, Davis' mallet had a slight forward movement. The way that I interpret the charge rule is the same way the Eric does in his post: " 'Forward motion' is an offensive maneuver. Period." By that interpretation of the rule, I think that Davis charged. It is a hairline call in the first instance, in the second instance I think it was more clear that he was moving forward. But, whatever, we both had a few calls go our way, it balances out in the end.
I do agree that the charing rule is left open to interpretation, it should be rewritten for clarity. And I totally agree with Eric's summation - it's best to remove all subjectivity from the rules, when possible.
|
|
|
|
| TWeissman
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 210
|
Hold on...
So, in game 7 Davis quit playing once he was only down 4-0?
That is the last chance for him to come back...it's not like it is in the middle of a match and you get down 6-1 and want to just get to the next game, and toss the puck in on yourself.
What you are saying is that he forfeited the match, not simply tossed the puck in on himself.
This was a match for #1! I would hope that people fight to the bitter end in a match like that.
This also robs you of the satisfaction of putting the last point in. He just walked away from that Table? I'm confused.
Why was this not reported as a forfeit? Where is it on the video? I don't see it.
|
|
|
| fractalzoom
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 201
|
It's tough being a ref.
Both players complained to me about my 'bad calls'... but I tried to be as objective as possible. Davis asked me to watch the line better, and Billy pointed out that Davis charges left wall shots all the time. Think about this. If Billy is taking a shot - I have to watch where he takes it from *and* I have to check to see if Davis was moving forward with his mallet. It's not easy. Q and I came out here to watch two powerhouses go at it and not have people we look up to get pissed at us.
Think about how many bad calls are made by a home plate umpire. This is someone who's done this for years and makes gobs of money to do what he does and frequently gets it wrong... and umps have their own personalities and judgments of what the strike zone is.
The one thing I don't want to happen is being accused of impropriety. I think I pissed off both players sufficiently to not be accused of this, but really - I think this is why we play long challenge matches. Looking at the statistics - Billy averaged a point and half per game advantage.
|
|
|
|
| stubbs7
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 582
|
fractalzoom said: It's tough being a ref.
Both players complained to me about my 'bad calls'... but I tried to be as objective as possible. Davis asked me to watch the line better, and Billy pointed out that Davis charges left wall shots all the time. Think about this. If Billy is taking a shot - I have to watch where he takes it from *and* I have to check to see if Davis was moving forward with his mallet. It's not easy. Q and I came out here to watch two powerhouses go at it and not have people we look up to get pissed at us.
Think about how many bad calls are made by a home plate umpire. This is someone who's done this for years and makes gobs of money to do what he does and frequently gets it wrong... and umps have their own personalities and judgments of what the strike zone is.
The one thing I don't want to happen is being accused of impropriety. I think I pissed off both players sufficiently to not be accused of this, but really - I think this is why we play long challenge matches. Looking at the statistics - Billy averaged a point and half per game advantage. |
For the record, I think Dan and Q did an awesome job. Being a ref is tough - especially with aggressive players. While getting caught up in the emotion of the match, I let some of it out on the refs. In the future, I'll channel more of my energy towards the match!
|
|
|
|
| Davisl
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 168
|
I think all of this detracts from what Billy is accomplishing through his hard work, dedication and just awesome play. A few close calls were not going to decide the match, which he won handily. He is definitely the best player on the planet right now.
I thanked Dan and Q for doing a great job of reffing and coming out to support us. I think Billy is just so fast now that he gets to a lot of pucks that he didn't use to get to. I had no defense at all against Billy so I was charging a lot and most were pretty clear. I think because I was making so many forward motions, that when I actually missed the puck but it came off against the back of my mallet, then it looked like I had knocked it off. I'm not sure, it all happens so fast at times.
I've had 3 or 4 moments in AH that I regret, that I feel are very unbecoming and set a bad example. This was one of them, and I apologized for it. I felt Billy had gone over 5-6 times during the match, and not one of them had been called. Then, after being up 3-0 in the 4th set, and 5-6 in the 6th game, I felt Billy was way over to score the last point of that game. I complained pretty hard about it and then asked to go to replay, because that happened to me in the 2000 Nationals. I had scored the last point of a match on or near the line and the ref called it good. Someone was recording it and they reviewed and ruled that I was over. Opponent got the puck and scored the game winner, so that always stuck with me. Q didn't know the rule about being able to review it(there is no written rule either way apparently). I wanted to call Phil Arnold or someone who might know what was allowed. Eventually, I had to go with Q's ruling or risk a DQ or a conduct warning. So the very first point of the 7th game, I again feel that Billy was over. At this point, I snapped and so lost my focus that I couldn't regain it without taking 5-10 minutes to calm down. I felt that if I couldn't give Billy my best at that moment, that it would be worse to fake it thru the last game. I don't even remember how it went down, but I just couldn't play anymore and went over to shake his hand. Completely inappropriate of me and bad sportsmanship. I never want anyone to do that again under any circumstance save for injury. You just have to take your beating like a man, woman or child at times and congratulate your opponent for their awesome play.
So I hope two constructive things can be achieved from this. 1) Definitively state that replay SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. We have refs just like other sports, and we don't have the technology like football or tennis, so let's just keep the human element in play. We have shadow refs who can help, and most of the time, opponents will hand the puck over if the ref missed the call. 2) Possibly a ratings hit for forfeits without injury. Or just not do it, it's bad sportsmanship. I apologize to the whole community, we are all here to play hard and compete passionately at all times
|
|
|
| TheAirHockeyGuy
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 472
|
In the rules it's states that "excessive" arguing with the ref is considered a conduct warning. I think the word excessive should be removed and it should just state that any arguing with the ref during the match will result in a conduct warning. If a player has an issue it needs to be discussed between games. There is no reason why a call made should ever be changed just because one of the players saw it differently. The ref makes the call...period.
I haven't watched the video so I'm not sure if this was done but I'm surprised that a shadow ref was not requested. At least one person could have watched Davis and one Billy.
I agree that it should be written the the rules that instant replay is never allowed. Not all matches are taped and have the ability to utilize instant replay so it should never be used. We also have nothing in place to control over usage.
Chris Lee
Co-Founder, CEO
Air Hockey Players Association (AHPA)
|
|
|
|
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 658
|
After this match and viewing the thread, I have come to the conclusion, that the torch has indeed been passed. There is a new legitimate number 1. Wait wait.....no..no..no, I wasn't talking about billy and the rankings....but of Davis surpassing me as the number one crazy bad selfish sportsman of Airhockey. I'm kind of sad I'm stepping down, and handing over the reigns, But I also feel complete it in a sense too. I just don't think I can do it anymore. However I have complete confidence in Davis. May your narcissistic and malignant love for yourself grow stronger and stronger, as mine did for me. In time you will love yourself so much, you won't even care about all the people who will walk out on you in life! Good luck....
Okay now if that wasn't a guilt trip, i don't know what the hell is (and I was just kidding Davis...sort of ;)). Thank god there wasn't a lot riding on this match. I mean did anybody lose any money on it?
|
|
|
| tableman
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 690
|
I agree with Joe in that the rule has traditionally been interpreted such that, if you're coming forward on defense and the offensive player's shot comes off the back rail, hits the back of your mallet,and flies off... the foul is on the offensive player, not the defensive player. I think that's the proper call and if Dan was calling it the opposite, more experienced players (i.e., Billy and Davis) should have corrected that.
As for replay: the rules don't require it or ban it one way or another. We could formalize into the rules our tradition which is basically: the ref is allowed (but not required) to consult with observers,spectators, or the players, if he's not sure what happened. He can also go to replay if it's there. That's been done but rarely.
There's a few people who disagree (hello Vince), but generally, if both players agree on what happened, even if the ref saw it differently, the ref should accept the players' version. If not (and I've seen this happen and been part of it), if two veteran players with honor know what happened and the ref gives the puck to the wrong player, the two players will correct that themselves.
If I'm reffing and I'm 99-100% sure of what I saw, I feel no need to consult spectators or replay - unless both players disagree with me. But if I'm not sure, I have no problem consulting players, spectators, or video for further evidence.
Mark
|
|
|
|
| ajflanagan
- 28 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 509
|
| Replay or no replay is open for debate... but lack of a written rule should not imply players can do whatever they want. We do not have consistent technology to warrant a replay rule. In order for there to be a replay, there would have to be a guarantee that all matches are video taped. They aren't. So there should be NO REPLAY.
|
|
|
| travis
- 29 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 530
|
TheAirHockeyGuy said: I agree that it should be written the the rules that instant replay is never allowed. Not all matches are taped and have the ability to utilize instant replay so it should never be used. We also have nothing in place to control over usage.
|
I agree with this. For now, I think we should put a rule in place to say that checking video to determine a call should not be allowed.
| In the rules it's states that "excessive" arguing with the ref is considered a conduct warning. |
The amount it takes to be "Excessive" is at the discretion of the referee. What I would suggest is that if you are refereeing a match or set, and you are going to be strict about the amount of arguing that you'll allow (for example, any arguing will be met with a warning), then it should be communicated to both players prior to the set. Then the players will know what will get them a conduct warning, and hopefully act accordingly.
Travis Luscombe
AirHockeyWorld.com Webmaster
http://twitter.com/air_hockey
|
|
|
|
| TheAirHockeyGuy
- 29 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 472
|
travis said: TheAirHockeyGuy said: I agree that it should be written the the rules that instant replay is never allowed. Not all matches are taped and have the ability to utilize instant replay so it should never be used. We also have nothing in place to control over usage.
|
I agree with this. For now, I think we should put a rule in place to say that checking video to determine a call should not be allowed.
| In the rules it's states that "excessive" arguing with the ref is considered a conduct warning. |
The amount it takes to be "Excessive" is at the discretion of the referee. What I would suggest is that if you are refereeing a match or set, and you are going to be strict about the amount of arguing that you'll allow (for example, any arguing will be met with a warning), then it should be communicated to both players prior to the set. Then the players will know what will get them a conduct warning, and hopefully act accordingly.
|
Wouldn't it be easier if we just said no arguing though? Does any ref really want to take part in an argument about a call they made? What would happen if one player argues and then the ref changes his/her call? I think it is ok to talk to the ref in between games and maybe request the line be watched closer, etc., but it seems to me that arguing with the ref should have no effect on the call and therefore should just be eliminated.
Chris Lee
Co-Founder, CEO
Air Hockey Players Association (AHPA)
|
|
|
|
| tableman
- 29 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 690
|
ajflanagan said: | Replay or no replay is open for debate... but lack of a written rule should not imply players can do whatever they want. We do not have consistent technology to warrant a replay rule. In order for there to be a replay, there would have to be a guarantee that all matches are video taped. They aren't. So there should be NO REPLAY. |
Well, following your "logic"... then the ref shouldn't be allowed to consult with spectators, since there's no guarantee that a match has spectators. And since not all matches even have refs... should we rule that NO match can have a ref because we can't guarantee that ALL matches will?
Why not say this: the ref (if there is one) can use, if he chooses, whatever resources are available to him to assist him in making the CORRECT call (isn't that what it's all about?) That could include consulting with spectators (if there are any) and looking at video (if there is any).
Mark
|
|
|
|
| ajflanagan
- 29 Feb 2012
Total Posts: 509
|
tableman said: Well, following your "logic"... then the ref shouldn't be allowed to consult with spectators, since there's no guarantee that a match has spectators. And since not all matches even have refs... should we rule that NO match can have a ref because we can't guarantee that ALL matches will?
|
I never implied that consulting with spectators was acceptable either. It's not. There is nothing in the rules that implies it is. I personally would never consult with a spectator for a ruling in a tournament match or challenge match. Never. If the players don't like a ref's ruling, they can request a shadow ref. If it's at a major tournament, a ref can stop the match and refer to the head ref of the tournament for clarification of the rules. Consulting spectators and/or video tape is a ridiculous concept.
If two players agree to play a challenge match without a ref, that's on them. They will have to handle their own disputes. Honestly, it hardly ever happens around here.
tableman said:
Why not say this: the ref (if there is one) can use, if he chooses, whatever resources are available to him to assist him in making the CORRECT call (isn't that what it's all about?) That could include consulting with spectators (if there are any) and looking at video (if there is any).
|
Absolutely Not. No way. 100% No. That's absurd.
|
|
|
| EShoukry
- 01 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 67
|
I haven't seen the scores but would be very interested in what they were. It sounds from Davis' comments that the bad calls and controversy did not make a difference in the outcome. Billy is playing great, no question.
However, I think this is a good lesson to all players. First, if you think a ref is making bad line calls ask for a backup line ref. That way you have someone watching the line 100% and you don't have to worry about the psychological strain of keeping up with it.
Second, I agree with Mark's comments about pulling in experienced refs when there are rules questions. A player who charges and the puck hits the back of their mallet did not make an offensive strike on the puck. In my 17 years of playing air hockey, the puck has always gone to the defensive player.
Again, it seems like Davis' fate was sealed with Billy's outstanding play, but this is a good reminder that air hockey is mental as much as it is physical and to be the best you have to master or grandmaster both.
Take care,
Ehab
|
|
|
| DRAGO
- 01 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 46
|
The posts in this thread started off poorly and only got worse and worse.
(I won't contribute to the (intentional?) high jacking of this thread with a rules discussion - I started a separate thread on it elsewhere)
First of all, Billy's thread starting post is incorrect. Billy did not 4-0 paper dragon. The match is a forfeit, period. I think Billy's post was a natural mistake, and don 't believe he deserves any punishment for it, but the fact is this match was not completed and should not be recorded as a 4-0 victory (nor should it be entered into the MiBS - Mittic Basterized Rating System).
paper dragon writes:
"I think all of this detracts from what Billy is accomplishing through his hard work, dedication and just awesome play. A few close calls were not going to decide the match, which he won handily..."
What an unbelievable comment from paper dragon. HE IS THE CULPRIT! His actions at the match is what has distracted (and stripped) Billy of his victory. Let's be clear, paper dragon didn't "toss score" (which still would have been deplorable in the deciding game) the last three points, he left the table and refused to complete the match. This is unprecedented in a match for the number one ranking.
pd's weak explanation of his actions are a lie! pd, in his sick demented mind thought he was saving face by not finishing the match. To not give Billy the honor of playing the final 3 points is a disgrace. pd was worried after suffering a 7-0 skunk game in the 7th game of a set, and now in his mind (and in reality actually) he did not.
What paper dragon did was dishonorable and disgusting. A 6 month suspension from sanction play should be enacted by the USAA board immediately. Furthermore, a one year suspension of challenging anyone for ranking and a three year ban on challenging for number one should also be implemented.
pd is the one attempting to distract everyone from the number one issue - his deplorable conduct. In another thread earlier this week he actually referred to himself as Air Hockey's number one supporter since the year 2000 - what a joke!
CONT --->
|
|
|
|
| DRAGO
- 01 Mar 2012
Total Posts: 46
|
Nizzi said,
"...but of Davis surpassing me [Nizzi] as the number one crazy bad selfish sportsman of Airhockey..."
Nizzi had some forfeits in tournaments (always before the match or tournament started) that he took some well deserved heat for in the past. But Nizzi has never held this title (although that 'lil Fella near him has long been a contender) the fact is between O'Crazy, Cane, and pd, California has long been home to the sports' numero uno whiney bitch bad sport.
This is not the first time we have seen a "chi..." errr "dent in the pd's mental armor" (or should I say his paper scales?). His low self esteem and thin skin is how he garnered the pd nickname to begin with. Anyone else notice how at the last Houston nationals after an embarrassing finish he was a no-show (suddenly found a red-eye flight?) at the banquet? Of course when he finishes well you can find him sitting near the stage wide-eared.
Nizzi later commented:
"...Thank god there wasn't a lot riding on this match..."
I believe this was in jest. However, it bears mentioning again that this match was for NUMBER ONE USAA RANKING (not to mention MiBS points). Speaking of the importance of this "match":
Where is the outrage? Phil Arnold, you are too quiet. You are the number one proponent of matches being about honor and matches for number one being about the gold! Where is the outrage? Mark Robbins, you have read this thread. You have contributed to the rules discussion distraction obscuring the real issue. Where is the outrage?
Gentlemen, if you are the grandfathers of the sport, then this situation DEMANDS your attention.
And just so you don't think I'm playing favorites let me call out a couple of other people, and these are people that are MY GUYS.
Q and Billy - Post the UNEDITED VIDEO. If not, take down the edited version. The AH world demands the footage.
---DJ
|
First |
1 | 2 |
Last
Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / Davis Lee Huynh vs. Billy Stubbs - Results
|
