Lighthouse

Another 2 years I think. I can only assume the club have a coaching role lined up for him.

Someone like Shalke or Werder would be decent. Not too far to travel and big clubs with decent fans. Want to avoid teams like Dnipro or whoever qualifies from Kazakhstan.

Oh sh*t.

I'm sure it's buried somewhere in this thread already but Rob Green has got to be a better bet than Davis or Gazza next season and QPR will be desperate to get him off the wage bill now they're going down. I don't think we will get a better 'keeper willing to compete with FF in the long term.

That sounds a lot like sour grapes to me. So the guy you want didn't win, boo-hoo. It's hardly as if we've elected a BNP majority. I've seen a few comments this morning along the lines of 'bye-bye' NHS etc. Like that's going to happen.

Only 30 for Nation of Ooog.

Give it a year or 2 and we will have players in Saints first team born in the year 2000. That REALLY makes me feel old.

@IDS_MP on twitter, gets so many bites from non-Tory voters who don't realise it's a spoof.

What a gimp taking selfies in a pink T-shirt.

Paul Merson always said 2-0 is a dangerous scoreline. Watch this space.

Hardly a surprise but 791 for LD. Oh dear.

I know they didn't in 2007

So you think the ball spends 1/3 of the time out of play, (your words not mine, apparently 30 minutes would have to be added to the 90 if we stopped the clock) but this doesn't constitute regular, prolonged or consistent breaks in play? Right oh... However, at no point in these 30 minutes should we spend 2 minutes (most decisions would take a lot less but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) reviewing a potentially game changing incident on video. But then you also said... So if there are 2 minutes before the ball goes out of play in some instances, the video ref would already have come to a decision whilst the ball was in play. So no time at all would be lost. The video ref wouldn't have to wait until the ball was out of play to START reviewing the footage.

I think Bolton tried to sign Rivaldo once.

Hang on, in this same thread you said Which is it?

Yeah...

GLT was never used up until very recently. Then incidents like Lampard's goal against Germany and that goal Ukraine scored against England highlighted the ridiculous farce in not using this equipment. It's coming eventually whether you like it or not. It will probably take a couple more incidents like the hand of God, or Henry against Ireland which decided major tournaments/qualifying but it will come. I've explained enough times how your example can be quite simply dealt with. You insist on speaking as if having a goal disallowed and penalty rightly awarded will somehow destroy the whole game. It wont and the small, occasional delays involved will be no more significant than players time wasting by faking injury or kicking the ball into the crowd.

No it leaves the game, in very rare circumstances, with a disallowed goal and a penalty awarded. It's not a difficult situation to understand, though it would be disappointing for the team who had the goal disallowed. However, you would walk away from the game feeling as if justice had been done. If the video ref proved that you should have conceded a penalty, then you should never have had the chance to score the goal. As has been said several times; it's a very rare event. How often is a clear penalty not given and the opposing team then scores immediately without the ball going out of play. Yes there are the occasional, "we should have had a penalty 2 minutes before they scored!" moments but there is usually a goal kick or a thrown in in there somewhere, when a video ref could be consulted without stopping the game.

How is it any different to a goal being disallowed for offside or a handball in the build up? How often does that really happen. How many goals have Saints scored or conceded this season which followed the same passage of play as a legitimate penalty call? It will happen occasionally but it's better than the daft decisions we're getting every week right now. Where did you get 'a few minutes' from? If the video ref has a couple of screens showing 4 camera angles, how long does it really take to rewind 10 seconds, pick the best camera angle and play it forward in slow motion. Anyone fairly competent with a computer could make a decision in 30 seconds. It's not as if you have to review every single angle in slow motion. There is normally one clear angle for any given incident which shows clearly if there is contact, handball, offside, in/out the box etc.

I think Chelsea's are made from better leather and have more padding.

How is it not fair on the attackers, when they are the ones who have called for a video replay? What has a bigger negative impact on a game - a penalty being wrongly given/not given or a team being given a goal kick? Why can you not give a goal kick? It's a pretty minor change in the rules. I've yet to see any legitimate reason from you or mash as to why it wouldn't work. Just a lot of stubbornness and claims of 'it's a farce it wont work.'

I have you're just ignoring it. If a captain wants to consult the video replay he tells the ref. I'll try and make it even more simple for you Penalties - The ref blows his whistle. Play stops. the video ref reviews the footage. A decision is made - If it's a penalty, it's a penalty. - If it's not a penalty, goal kick is given. Red cards - If the ref has blown for a foul, the footage is reviewed and a card is awarded/not awarded - If the ref does not see the foul but an opposing captain appeals, the video ref reviews the footage whilst play continues. If there is a red card offence, it is then relayed to the referee who awards the card at the next break in play. In the rare event of a penalty wrongly not being given and the other team going up the other end and scoring, the penalty appeal is reviewed after the goal. If there is a legitimate appeal for a penalty, the goal is disallowed and the penalty is then taken. It would be disappointing for the other team obviously but at least justice would have been served. I would feel much worse watching MOTD and knowing we should have had a penalty 30 seconds before we conceded a goal.

If there is an obvious counter attack on, there's no reason the ref can't wait until the ball goes out of play before consulting the video ref.

If the captain isn't close enough to the incident, one of his team mates could give him a signal to call for a video ref. It would then be up to the captain whether he trusts his team mate and makes the call. If they don't have any idea what happened and don't call for a video ref, how is that in any way different to what happens now? We see this kind of thing all the time. Not always that blatant but players are always making cynical fouls to 'take one for the team'. It's not like a video ref would open up a whole new world of cynical cheating. IF you had a penalty claim in injury time AND the opposition won the ball AND launched an immediate counter attack then yes, the video ref could be used to stop play. How often does that happen? I'm willing to bet that in the 5 seconds following most penalty claims the ball is usually cleared for a throw in, or hoofed up the pitch and collected by a defender, or goes out for a corner or a goal kick or is collected by the 'keeper, or kept in play by the attacking player, or controlled by a defending player comfortably within their own half. What you have done is name a very specific set of circumstances, which happen very rarely throughout a season. Apparently you think this occasional situation in which a team is denied a counter attack and a POSSIBLE chance to score, is somehow worse than penalties, red cards and offsides being wrongly given/not given in a number of games every week. If a team uses a video ref call late in the game to stop you from countering (in a highly specific set of circumstances) then tough sh*t. It's by far the lesser of 2 evils, nobody ever lost a game because they were denied the start of a counter attack whilst 60 yards from goal.

Brentford, Sheff Utd and Southend for me.