stevegrant

How did you make the payment?

I would think there's absolutely no chance. It's been shut for years now, so I'd imagine the income from Saints matchdays can't outweigh the cost of running the place for the rest of the week.

I'll take issue with this statement, having had one of the pies from whichever new supplier we've got. Think they might be the same ones that supply Brighton, it was very good Actual poured pints rather than 330ml bottles seems an improvement to me? I don't usually drink in the ground for various reasons, but it seems a bit churlish to have a pop at the club for things when they have actually improved.

I think I might have been a bit "Bah humbug!" this week

The main issue with VAR under the FIFA and UEFA remit is that there is a pitchside monitor and the on-field referee is often encouraged to go and review incidents him/herself, and that's after the initial conversation over the comms system, so it naturally takes quite a long time to go through the whole process. My understanding of the Premier League's implementation is that there is no pitchside monitor. If a decision is reviewable, the on-field referee stops play at a suitable moment and in conversation with the video referee, they make the decision between them, although in reality it's likely to be the video referee overruling the on-field referee as the latter won't have the pictures available, but it seems highly unlikely that any decision should take more than 30-40 seconds, depending on how quickly that 3D offside "line" can be calculated and drawn on-screen. Even in cricket, where the DRS system works very well and is a pretty mature process now, the reason they go through the process in the order that they do for LBW decisions is because the Hawkeye system that does the projected path of the ball takes around a minute or more to calculate.

You may need to log out and log back in again. The update we've applied is quite a few versions up from the one that was running previously, so there's been a fair few changes which may have affected session cookies and that sort of thing.

OK, update installed. Everything seems to be OK - if anyone spots any technical issues, please let me know.

So that update didn't actually happen on Wednesday in the end, for various reasons. I'll get it done either tonight or at some point over the weekend. Don't think there's any big news due, so should be fairly safe

Afternoon all. A long-overdue software update is being installed tomorrow at some point (probably mid-morning), so there may be a brief period of downtime. I'll keep it as brief as possible.

Winning Crane bowled 12 overs unchanged this afternoon, so that should have clawed the over rate back a bit. Hopefully enough that we don't get penalised for it.

Not sure what happens if we bowl them out with overs to spare in that case - surely we could make a case that, with plenty of time left in the day, we would have made an effort to recover the over rate in the evening session if we'd needed to.

Yeah, I think it's pretty unambiguous now, which is all we ask for, really. Maybe next year they'll clear up the offside law... Ultimately, we know that most players don't deliberately handle it, but if they've gained a significant advantage from doing so, they should be penalised.

Edwards got one just before lunch. Nash and Mullaney now together, break that partnership at some point in the afternoon session and I think we'll win. Two hours or more to clean up the tail should be sufficient, although that is with the "this is Hampshire, of course" disclaimer in mind

Worth noting that in the IFAB documentation regarding the law changes from this summer (link: http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/791/171520_110319_IFAB_LoG_changes_and_clarifications.pdf), there is not a single mention regarding the handball law changes that specifies the changes only apply to "the attacking third", as the article in the OP states. The full text is as follows: It is an offence if a player: * deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/armtowards the ball * gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then: ** scores in the opponents’ goal ** creates a goal-scoring opportunity ** scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental,including by the goalkeeper It is usually an offence if a player: * touches the ball with their hand/arm when: ** the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger ** the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberatelyplays the ball which then touches their hand/arm) The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly fromthe head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close. Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’shand/arm: * directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot) * directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close * if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturallybigger * when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground tosupport the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body

In actual fact, it's even more mental. Only one team goes down, but three are promoted, so they're swapping the numbers around. 10 teams in Division 1 next year, 8 in Division 2. All teams will play 14 matches, so there will be 4 teams in Division One who each team will only play once. What a load of ****.

Am I right in thinking there's only one relegation place this year, because they're reshuffling the divisions to put 9 in each? (and obviously creating an imbalance by keeping the number of games at 14 per team )

As if

Would assume so, yes. Both past 100 now, either they've both played exceptionally or the wicket has flattened out somewhat. Not sure what sort of target we need to be setting here. Already 300 ahead, so perhaps another 100-150 and have a good hour or so at them tonight?

Looks a close game, Notts 55/2 in reply. Dawson has been replaced by Mason Crane from today. Confirmed that both Vince and Dawson are unavailable for the RL Cup final on Saturday, so I would guess that makes us significant underdogs now.

Fair to say this is not the opening pair I expected to be making century partnerships...

121-run lead. Not bad.

To be fair, he never really showed this sort of form at any stage for Surrey. His departure was self-inflicted, he basically went to Alex Stewart and demanded to be an opening batsman in all formats, at a time when they had Aaron Finch and Jason Roy opening in T20 and 50-over cricket, and Kumar Sangakkara in the 4-day side, so he wasn't even a guaranteed pick in any of them, let alone an option for opening! As a result, they decided it was best if he went elsewhere - Warwickshire needed younger players as they were a proper Dad's Army a year or two ago, so it's obviously worked out well for all parties.

Looks like it's been a good day. Sounded hard going through the afternoon session, but rewarded with a load of wickets towards the end of the day. In the unlikely event of us bowling them out for 204 or less, I wouldn't imagine we'd enforce the follow-on considering how tough it seems to be to take wickets. Quite the stat that if Dom Sibley adds the 5 runs tomorrow that'll take him to a century, it'll be his sixth first-class game in a row where he's scored a century.

Certainly looks that way so far. Keith Barker has bowled 8 overs for 3 runs

It's the opposite of "making sense", the TV fixtures are picked as the season is progressing.