Kaizero

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball. So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!) You're contradicting yourself time and time again... Thanks... it's been a pleasure. Delightfully ironic. How did I contradict myself, then? You mocked me when I touched upon the point that it may no longer symbolic, by asking, sarcastically, when was it ever not symbolic.(And no, you can't mention its 'inherent' nature as clearly I was talking about the act and intention of the player - not the philosophy behind it!) Later, you say oh yes 'I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore'! Time-fucking-waster. Again...this is the impression of you: The difference between you and I is that I at least try to stick to the discussion at hand rather than resort to weird personal attacks to deflect from a losing hand. Again, as mentioned, the snippet you've chosen to extract and base a new argument on is, in context, used to exemplify why it's always been a symbolic act. My argument started with "When has it not been a symbolic act?", and it's what I've been arguing the entire time. I conceded something raised by KI, which is that there can be different layers of symbolism attached to something. I'm not disputing that if a ball was the ball that was used for all three goals, it does not have more symbolic meaning for someone. But that was never my argument. My argument was that there's never been a time when taking home the match ball after a hat trick was not a symbolic gesture. You've, for some reason, argued against this even though the post I initially replied to said that it was fair enough if it was a symbolic gesture - which I've time and time again have explained to you, but for some reason you refuse to pick up on it. In simplified terms: Question: When has taking the match ball home after a hat trick ever not been symbolic? Example 1: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the one ball era: symbolic. Example 2: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the multi ball era: symbolic. Resolution: It's always been symbolic. I agreed that the symbolism is there inherently. I simply was going beyond this (the materialistic factor), and because obviously you can make everything into a symbol anyway. Keep covering your arse with more bullshit. 'Losing hand', ffs. When you are involved in an argument that you're not winning or can't back up, your standard go-to mechanism is swinging around you with insults and/or attempts at diverting from any discussion. It's quite frankly very annoying, as it makes the discussion take so much longer than it should. The core of the discussion was whether or not it's never not been symbolic. Then KI entered and said it's even better if the ball was used in a one ball system, as the ball then was involved in all goals for certain. I agreed to this, but also said it doesn't change anything from the original argument, which is that it's always been symbolic. To go to your medal example, an Olympic Gold Medal for a cross country skiier would have greater surface "value" (obviously personal circumstances such as a WC being after a battle against injury and similar might change the meaning of a medal for any individual) for the contestant than a WC Gold Medal, purely because the Olympics are every fourth year rather than every second year, which the WCs are. That doesn't change the fact that both Gold Medals would be symbolic. My argument re: anything being a symbol was agreement with you on the fact that you can argue symbolism for anything in life (though not "inherent" symbolism): Anything can have symbolism for any person, it's sentimental value - so yes, you can argue symbolism for anything. Inherent symbolism is a bit different though, due to the use of the word "inherent". Medals, for instance, are inherently symbolic as the symbolism attached to medals being given for performance are permanently symbolic. They're etched into our common consciousness as symbols of great achievements/performance, hence why most of us would mock a participation trophy as it goes against the purpose of the symbolism we've invested in trophies/medals. A rock could have great symbolism to me as an individual, but not to anyone else, hence that rock would not be inherently symbolic - just symbolic.

My ex thought that all the fans got given a hymn book with all the chants in before entering the ground

I'll lock your face.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball. So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!) You're contradicting yourself time and time again... Thanks... it's been a pleasure. Delightfully ironic. How did I contradict myself, then? You mocked me when I touched upon the point that it may no longer symbolic, by asking, sarcastically, when was it ever not symbolic.(And no, you can't mention its 'inherent' nature as clearly I was talking about the act and intention of the player - not the philosophy behind it!) Later, you say oh yes 'I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore'! Time-fucking-waster. Again...this is the impression of you: The difference between you and I is that I at least try to stick to the discussion at hand rather than resort to weird personal attacks to deflect from a losing hand. Again, as mentioned, the snippet you've chosen to extract and base a new argument on is, in context, used to exemplify why it's always been a symbolic act. My argument started with "When has it not been a symbolic act?", and it's what I've been arguing the entire time. I conceded something raised by KI, which is that there can be different layers of symbolism attached to something. I'm not disputing that if a ball was the ball that was used for all three goals, it does not have more symbolic meaning for someone. But that was never my argument. My argument was that there's never been a time when taking home the match ball after a hat trick was not a symbolic gesture. You've, for some reason, argued against this even though the post I initially replied to said that it was fair enough if it was a symbolic gesture - which I've time and time again have explained to you, but for some reason you refuse to pick up on it. In simplified terms: Question: When has taking the match ball home after a hat trick ever not been symbolic? Example 1: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the one ball era: symbolic. Example 2: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the multi ball era: symbolic. Resolution: It's always been symbolic.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball. So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!) You're contradicting yourself time and time again... Thanks... it's been a pleasure. Delightfully ironic.

You don’t have to. You understand it. It’s so fucking easy.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard.

Well no, because the conversation was about the actual ball vs just any one of multiple balls from a match. Any one of multiple balls from a match is symbolic, the actual one isn't, it's the real thing. The difference between 'I scored a hattrick with that football vs Real Madrid' and 'I scored a hattrick Vs Real Madrid, possibly with that football and one or two other footballs' But the entire act of taking a commemorative ball home in the first place is a wholly symbolic gesture, is Kaiz's point. There's no practical function to it. There's nothing special about the ball used to score a hat-trick, except for the symbolic meaning invested in it. There's nothing special about the ball used to score a hattrick? Of course there is, it's the actual ball, that's the whole point that was made. There's no symbolism, because it's not symbolic of the real thing, it is the real thing. Kaiz's mistaken what the conversation was about. For evidence of the difference, look at the price difference between match worn shirts and replica shirts. As Ian W said, what matters is that the ball was used in the game. Not that all goals were scored with the same ball. If that was as important as you and Dinho insists, then why do hat-trick scorers still take a ball with them and display it? You take it to commemorate the time you scored a hat-trick, you don’t take it because that was the ball you scored a hat-trick with. The ball is only symbolic of the match where the incident happened, and serves as a reminder of the event. It's not for you to decide on what matters. If I was a footballer I'd want the actual football if I could, that's why the price of a match worn shirt Vs replica shirt point makes sense, because it's a mental thing where you look at something and know that it was involved rather than symbolically, which means less universally. It's a very easy to understand point that I know you understand, but keep ignoring for whatever reason. Either way, Godspeed, we're boring the living shit out of everyone. I know what you’re getting at. I’m not disputing that the symbolism of one thing isn’t greater and/or equal to the symbolism of something else. I’m saying it’s a symbolic act in general and that’s why they bring home a match ball after scoring a hat-trick. Just for some reason I’m now discussing the concept of a symbolic act with Dinho.

Fwiw, the argument is long over as Dinho only wanted to have it confirmed it was symbolic that they took the ball home. It is symbolic. That’s why they bring the ball home. No idea what Dinho is trying to do now.

Of course they bring home a ball out of vanity (unless you’re Michael Owen who doesn’t let anyone else into his «trophy» room ). It’s a symbolic item.

Look at how sad Ronaldo is because his collection of hat-trick match balls aren’t from one ball matches. Clearly these balls do not symbolise the same thing for a footballer as the ball from a one ball match.

It was a ball that was used in a match. The rock is a rock i was looking at having a great time. It’s essentially the same as we as humans invest the symbolism. You’re investing more symbolism into the hat-trick ball souvenir than the actual footballers are.

If I had an absolutely amazing day looking at rocks, I could bring a rock with me home from the place I was looking at the rocks to remind myself of the great day I had looking at rocks.

What about medals? They’re inherently symbolic. There’s participation medals/trophies as well you know. Best participant.

Bad news is this season is going to suck worse than these arguments At least there’s still the NFL thread.

It hasn’t changed any meaning though, as it’s always been symbolic.

Well no, because the conversation was about the actual ball vs just any one of multiple balls from a match. Any one of multiple balls from a match is symbolic, the actual one isn't, it's the real thing. The difference between 'I scored a hattrick with that football vs Real Madrid' and 'I scored a hattrick Vs Real Madrid, possibly with that football and one or two other footballs' But the entire act of taking a commemorative ball home in the first place is a wholly symbolic gesture, is Kaiz's point. There's no practical function to it. There's nothing special about the ball used to score a hat-trick, except for the symbolic meaning invested in it. There's nothing special about the ball used to score a hattrick? Of course there is, it's the actual ball, that's the whole point that was made. There's no symbolism, because it's not symbolic of the real thing, it is the real thing. Kaiz's mistaken what the conversation was about. For evidence of the difference, look at the price difference between match worn shirts and replica shirts. As Ian W said, what matters is that the ball was used in the game. Not that all goals were scored with the same ball. If that was as important as you and Dinho insists, then why do hat-trick scorers still take a ball with them and display it? You take it to commemorate the time you scored a hat-trick, you don’t take it because that was the ball you scored a hat-trick with. The ball is only symbolic of the match where the incident happened, and serves as a reminder of the event.

Ian W is spot on, a line I never thought I’d say

Well no, because the conversation was about the actual ball vs just any one of multiple balls from a match. Any one of multiple balls from a match is symbolic, the actual one isn't, it's the real thing. The difference between 'I scored a hattrick with that football vs Real Madrid' and 'I scored a hattrick Vs Real Madrid, possibly with that football and one or two other footballs' But the entire act of taking a commemorative ball home in the first place is a wholly symbolic gesture, is Kaiz's point. There's no practical function to it. There's nothing special about the ball used to score a hat-trick, except for the symbolic meaning invested in it.

Football shirts are great for lounging in at home and/or training.

Are medals symbolic gesture or the prize for the players' performances? Jesus fucking christ. Definition of symbolism 1 : the art or practice of using symbols especially by investing things with a symbolic meaning or by expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or sensuous representations: such as a : artistic imitation or invention that is a method of revealing or suggesting immaterial, ideal, or otherwise intangible truth or states b : the use of conventional or traditional signs in the representation of divine beings and spirits

TIL that Ronaldo has his own museum "Museu CR7" in Funchal, Madeira, where he shows off all his trophies and memorabilia Spot some of his balls in the back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEIjDygTkqM