BTRFTG

Great post but wrong 'horse before cart' conclusion. The beauty of The Laws, the ones the WC Final ref and the ref on The Downs honestly attempt to apply in equal measure is fundamental to fairness in the game. Officials make honest mistakes, always did, always will and VAR does nothing to prevent that. What VAR has already done and that your proposal will only heighten, is the separation of rich from poor. We've already begun to see challenge where games at equal standard have been influenced by whether or not VAR was in operation, either able to be installed or temporarily inoperative. Remind, VAR isn't just cameras, its as fundamental as defining unchanging pitch dimensions each and every week. Where consequences are financially huge we've heard threat of court action based on individual incident, using comparable footage taken from multiple matches, targeted at certain officials. How long before the most important squad member becomes the club retained silk, not their centre forward? Audiovisual technology must never be used to define The Laws. That's not it's purpose. The solution is blindingly obvious and that is to scrap VAR. Put control and respect back into the hands of the officials (technology sure as hell is doing its best at undermining officials at all levels and unless one lives in the Metaverse how do we think football might be played without officials coming through?) The changes that need to be made are not with The Laws rather are to the licencing rights. Broadcasters and publishers should continue to highlight when mistakes arise but should be required to provide balance by highlighting the decisions called correctly in the face of incorrect pleadings of players and fans. The latter outweighing the former by a country mile. Broadcasters and publishers might also reinforce that any error was exactly that, an error honestly made. Accept it, move on. Fans, possibly the least impartial arbiters imaginable, aren't as exasperated as the hyped media prefer to make out, or attempt best to make them. Rarely do errors against ones team linger longer than the second post match pint but those in favour, now they're something special. Freddie Sears goal, witnessed by everybody at AG other than the officials and its post match impact on Warnock lives long in the memory and to this day brings a smile to my face. Its called football, enjoy it, errors and all.

Clough did say that but various managers preceded him in so doing. Valid point though. But it's not just the penalty area that receives special exemption. Players (usually defenders,) running the ball out of play making no effort to control the ball yet preventing an opponent from so doing. It's obstruction, though never given. Dangerous or violent conduct by goalkeepers in claiming the ball, punishable for any other player but goalkeepers have free reign to act as they wish in the box. There's also the temporal exemption. Horror challenge in the first 5 and its a stiff warning from the ref. Same challenge 10 minutes later sees an instant red. T'was ever thus and all VAR has achieved has been to magnify and provide ample evidence for the inconsistency in officiating fans see first hand. It's introduced more inconsistency and error than its removed.

I've had it on mute, have i missed anything of note?

Ah, an interesting choice of artists. Michaelangelo & Delacroix both technically superb, attracted patronage of state and church. They painted pretty much to order & profited well from it. As did Vermeer in his own less-profitable way, albeit very slowly and only to Delft's local patrons. Enough to provide for him and his family and his failed profession as art dealer. Tragically, he never realised he was far superior to the artists he unsuccessfully promoted. They three lived by selling their ideas (output) for money. And then there's the odd case of Van Gogh who painted prolifically, mostly third rate and inconsequential crap. The story that he never sold a painting whilst alive is just that, a story expertly concocted by the promotional marketing genius that was his sister-in-law. Jo and Theo financed him throughout his life, in return for his works. In possibly the first exploitation if its type Jo spotted there's no better time to sell than when an artist is dead and through careful placement and very limited release of his works created the Van Gogh everybody thinks they know today, but who is largely myth. He, too, was separated from his ideas by his brother's money. Never more succinctly put than by Graham Gouldman - 'Art for art sake, money for God's sake'.

I know I'm a man out of time but my comments about watching only the match and not bothering with the pre/during/post match punditry is becoming an ever common discussion point, such is the lack of insight. I reckon if you polled those who watched the game and asked her name few would be able to recall it, hence 'who she'? I wasn't being derogatory , I genuinely had never heard nor read of her. The channels talk of providing insight into the pressures of top level tournament football, so why not employ the old Kodjia who's turned out in the last 30 Wholesalers Cup Finals for Woolpack Wanderers? Football on Scilly doesn't come more pressured than that.....

Danish womens football, of which I know and have as much interest in as Level 9 of the pyramid. I suspect, however, Level 9 to be of a far higher standard of technical competence.

Anybody know if one can watch the BBC feed in HD AND listen to the 5Live commentary (TV only). Red Button seems only to allow 'SD' when opting for 5Live. Using separate radio there's too much delay.

What's the relevance of today's game with Eriksson's medical history? If he wasn't fit to play he wouldn't have made the squad, we shouldn't be holding that over his head every time he pulls on a shirt. You or I could provide the generic comment that his heart stopped, he was thankfully resuscitated and thanks to modern miracles is restored to combative action, that it's a great news story et al. Now had she commented as to how he and his colleagues might set up, add insight as to how the squad has been training, what goes through players minds prior to WC fixtures as pressured as this, I'd get it. But nothing of the sort. Unlike the more familiar ex pros I gain the impression many of the newer type pundits don't have the inside contacts the old guard possess. Invariably its that type of info where the story is.

Ok, I'll not bother recounting how I lived 3 doors from Damien & 'the chancers' before they devised The Freeze, their warehouse shows and fame and glory. Art had sod all to do with it.

I note the Danish female pundit (who she?) wasn't required for the post game analysis, presumably as she had nothing more to add than pre-match, in itself nothing. And before the pile on of my being accused misogynistic, let me explain. I've always considered pundits comments in context of who the pundit is, the 'what might they know about what they're saying' question? Nothing to do with sex or race, I've thought plenty of pundits buffoons for talking out their backsides over matters at which they were far from accomplished. So the disadvantage of all the 'who they' that BBC and ITV (in particular) appear to think de rigueur is there's nil context as to how to evaluate them? Not only have we have little idea who they are, we've no idea of what they've ever done nor why they're supposedly qualified to comment, which invariably they don't. If described as 'token gestures' one might rightly be accused of being offensive, problem being I haven't yet seen or heard one make a contribution that's had me thinking, good point, I hadn't considered that. Moreover, all appear not to have been to the school of TV Journalism where lesson one is always - don't describe that what viewers are readily able to see for themselves (the blindingly obvious.) Come in at a tangent and add something of which viewers might not be aware. Sticking them between quality, experienced and opinionated ex-pros simply doesn't work.

Whilst the pratt Hartson's eyes only for the potential handball the ref (and the rest of us,) spots the blatant push in the back by the Danish 7 on the near post marker that preceded the incident.

Ok. Artists love to portray themselves as free-thinking, open-minded creatives. Whilst some might be, for most its a career choice. Whether through patronage of church, nobility or institution most works were (and are) created for a purpose. That purpose is to transfer from the mind and intellectual property of the artist to the person who now owns it. That causing the separation? Invariably money, but sometimes power and influence. Very few creatives make art for themselves only. If they do we'll never hear of them. Even cited artists who supposedly never sold their works during their lifetime had astute commercial guidance exploiting their estate, else they cashed a good living bartering their works for favours supplied. So yes, that's what separates art from artist.

There's enough material there for a Behinda Carlisle EP: We Got (The) Beat (Centre) Circle In The Sand (Don't) Leave The Light On - (have you seen leccy prices remix)

Ask Damian Hurst, he'll explain.

The difference being large volumes of cash separate art from artist, the same volumes of cash that appear to prevent the separation of players and regime.

Strikes me the most relieved person at the tournament to date is the TV director charged with identifying a young, female, large-breasted, tight-topped, 'distraught' fan at the final whistle. Imagine if The Saudis had lost.....

Women are permitted to drive in Saudi (just not with men outside their immediate family in the vehicle.)

When I first visited The Kingdom I was offered glass after glass of 'Saudi Champagne' which I declined not wanting to break the local laws. It took a few days before I realised the champagne shaped bottles contained nothing more than an ultra fizzy, light coloured apple juice.

Argentina players gesturing AGAINST time wasting. The game's gone.....

One of life's great mysteries. In German football matches seem mostly not to attract additional time.

You'll know better than I re FFP/P&S but in some restricted trades or where analysing financial robustness, even where some loans are charged at nil interest an assumed base rate is calculated from an economic perspective. I don't know if that applies to football and without wishing to sound like SL's greatest advocate interest should be charged, else what's the point of FFP? Wealthy owners could loan to cover losses without interest accrued, effectively write off the loans in loan to equity swap then never seek to cover capital outlay.

No mystery. Unless you're a Loan Charge con artist there are two fundamentals to loans; start and end dates, interest charged during the loan. No surprise the greater the value of loans the higher the interest repayments. But let's not kid ourselves. Could SL have received higher returns if investing elsewhere? For sure he could.

When loans are converted to equity interest no longer is payable. As for dividends - what dividends?

Except like all deluded conspiracists, you didn't.

Dean Windass was sent off 3 times in one match when playing for Aberdeen, the second and third of which were for continued dissent.