Whitey Grandad

You don't actually understand all this do you? Nobody has suddenly started calling them Boscombe, people have been calling them that for over 100 years. It's not some new fashion. Those who really know and love their football and its history will understand the background of the club and appreciate its rise to the top division. If you've never heard of it before then you've been walking around with your eyes and ears shut.

Please see above

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m just trying to explain but not excuse his decision which was very ‘soft’. It’s strange that seemingly the whole football world thinks it should have stood yet the professional referees think it was a foul. It’s as though they’re operating to a different set of laws. By the way, I used the word ‘persuade’ to indicate that I thought that Austin’s challenge was powderpuff.

Istanbul??? When did that happen? I’ve only just got used to calling it Byzantium.

If he could actually head a ball too he’d be terrific.

This time last year he was celebrating playing in the Champions League semi-final against Barcelona and going through 3-0 on aggregate. He came on in the final but couldn’t stop them losing 4-1 to Real Madrid.

There’s some of that in it. Brian Clough insisted that everybody at his club be as nice to the referee as possible because you never knew when you might need a favourable decision.

And terrible at man-marking. Admittedly he was pushed in the back yesterday but he should have been behind Morata instead of yards in front of him.

You're right, it has changed. If a goalkeeper only had one hand preesed on the ball you could kick it away from underneath. I watched the replays of yesterday a few times and Caballero doesn't have any hand on the ball when Austin first makes contact with him. However, Austin is backing slowly into him and this persuades him to mishandle the ball when it does arrive. Once Caballero has touched the ball then any further contact might be deemed a foul by an overly sensitive referee. Let's be honest, Caballero would almost certainly have caught the ball cleanly without Austin's presence. If Austin doesn't move then it can't be a foul but Austin looks at the keeper before making his move. If Charlie had concentrated on looking at the ball instead of turning his back then we might have had a different result.

My dad played in the Isthmian League around wartime as a full back and his job was to protect the goalkeeper from being charged by acting as a screening bodyguard. Times have changed. There was originally a purpose to the goal area but now it only acts as a place to kick the ball from. Tony Cascarino's take on this from The Times: There is too much protection for goalkeepers 'Charlie Austin’s disallowed goal for Southampton against Chelsea just shows how goalkeepers have got far too much protection. For a foul to be given against Austin, because he nudged into Willy Caballero as the goalkeeper jumped to claim a high ball, is ridiculous. It was a perfectly legitimate goal. Austin was not looking to foul Caballero and it feels like we have gone so far the other way, from goalkeepers having too little protection to now having too much. If you are going to stop play and award a free kick when they get touched in mid-air then you may as well stop crossing and heading. If I were a goalkeeper I would just run and jump into people on purpose knowing that I would get free kicks.'

A referee has a duty to play advantage but this can often lead to a worse infringement. Would Stephens have been sent off if the ref had stopped Wilshere's shirt-holding earlier and then booked him for it? Often a player retaliates when he is being persistently fouled. Players expect to get protection from the referee too and often a free kick and a warning can pre-empt trouble later.

You think that's bad? I saw a young kid with a full green keeper's outfit and 'Forster' on the back.

You'll have to be more specific that that. They could be anybody

Ball over the line is not for VAR and has its own technology, which did indeed indicate 'GOAL' on Atkinson's wrist. The question is whether Atkinson would have blown for a foul if it hadn't been a goal. Austin does back into Caballero but not excessively. The key here is whether Austin was gebnuinely trying to head the ball or was he more intent on disturbing Caballero?

Hmm, that’s a thought. Some players might see relegation as their main chance of escape. It dawned on me years ago in one o& our previous relegation fights that the best players, such as Alan Shearer, were never going to get relegated because they would be straight off to another club.

Good point, but Man Utd have had a lot more practice at selling tickets for Wembley than we have Or maybe our second visit in two years meant that we were a bit more blasé about it.

A lot of that muddle comes from not having a settled team.

I was and I did, but haven’t been active for a while. After several tries I downloaded the latest version of Laws Of Association Football (LOAF) from the FIFA website last night, I’m that sad. Fook me, they get more complicated every year. There’s nothing in there about goalkeepers in particular apart from challenging him/her once they have the ball under their control., and this can mean anything between having both hand tightly grasping the ball to having one outstretched finger pressing on top of it when it’s on the ground. In my day it was ‘two hands good, one hand bad’ but things change with time. Clearly Caballero never had the ball under control because Austin backed into him ever so slightly causing him to mishandle it. A very soft decision but one that most top level referees would also have given. Somebody ought to explain all this to the players. We are left to wonder whether McCarthy would have received the same benefit. A lot of these ‘interpretations’ come from a separate guidance of the International Board of Referees (can’t remember proper name) but most of those have now been written into the LOAF. http://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/FootballDevelopment/Refereeing/02/90/11/67/Lawsofthegame2017-2018-EN_Neutral.pdf

I saw Hughes’s quote but he doesn’t know what went on between the referees. There was quite a discussion about this incident on the BT Sport coverage with Graham Poll explaining that any touch on the keeper whilst he is in the air is a foul and the three ex-professionals saying that this was a stupid rule. They also said the the review referee saw nothing wrong with the decision either. My beef is with Morata’s goal. There was an obvious push on Hoedt but this didn’t figure in any replay on any camera angle. Atkinson had a long discussion with the VAR about the goal but if there’s no evidence of the foul it won’t be given.

Autocorrect, I expect. I have actually been to Ottawa. I drove there on business from Toronto in the early 1980s.

Our present squad is unbalanced but unfortunately it’s not going to get a drastic overhaul very quickly. Too many long term contracts (Thanks, Les) and selling and buying in a short summer window will not change more than a few. Don’t forget that not much happens until after the World Cup finishes.

I checked and our tickets were a nominal £70. Yes, last year we were up in the gods and had a better view but I wanted to be lower down and nearer the pitch but in row 43 at the top of the lower tier we were the corporates were overhanging us and there was a TV structure blocking our view of the Saints fans behind the goal. We could see the whole pitch (unless somebody stood up) but couldn’t get a sweeping panoramic view of the whole arena. Before kickoff I went to choose our seats for a The Final but the lower you got you didn’t seem to get any closer to the action. I’d been to the old Wembley on many occasions since the mid 1960s and the views were much better.

I agree except for one thing. I (68) was there with my grandson (15) and our tickets cost £70 each. Our coach arrived at 10:30 and after nearly four hours of walking around I appreciated a chance to sit down. What is it about standing up? We were at the back of 126 and there were several individuals around who had no idea that there was a football match going on. They were too busy going for a píss, coming back from a píss, looking for their mates, standing up and looking for their mates, banging the roof panels above them. I don’t think they watched the game once. And another thing. They were the first to leave before the end of the game. Are these real ‘fans’?

Cherries to you NewWorlders.

You youngsters make me laugh, you think history started when you stopped wearing nappies. Pokesdown station was originally called Boscombe. It’s name was changed to Pokesdown when the newer Boscombe station opened. Boscombe is a place in its own right and hasn’t always been a suburb of Bournemouth. Besides, if the fans of AFC Bournemouth (1972) want to also refer to it as Boscombe who are we to argue?