MarcusX

I disagree, everyone I know personally is as interested in it as usual, just weird time of year for it. Our works given everyone an extended lunch tomorrow if they want it, with the game shown on a projector in a meeting room.

Wow, that's just brought back a memory I didn't know I had! I think you're right

you can still drink at the fan zone, hotels, bars etc. It's only the stadium they've banned it.

Ah I see, yes ideally I absolutely agree I am a member now (or will be for the next tournament) I didn't really think about it back then

My point is cost of a pint is hardly the biggest reason to knock Qatar. There’s plenty of expensive countries in the world. The next WC is in USA, rate the pounds going those prices might not be far off over there ? Anyway, a mate out in Qatar has said you can easily get a pint for less than that and alcohol is more widely available then you’d think. He said he’s had a few days spending £20 or less if you don’t drink. When has any football or other sporting tournament thought about the cost to the average fan? Euro final tickets were upto £1k face value, in London.

This paid fan thing is getting more bizarre by the day

Almost all of them, you forgetting we trounced Ukraine 4-0? I always enjoy seeing England win Admittedly Scotland game was a nervy and tense encounter - always will be when a massive underdog faces their biggest rival. Same as any City v Rovers game these days would likely be far from enjoyable. How can anyone have not enjoyed Germany, Ukraine or Denmark games? My predictions: Winners: Brazil Top Scorer: Neymar England: I fear the group stage - but perhaps QF. Based on current form we'd be lucky to get that far

There's a lot to beat Qatar with, but I don't think cost of food/drink is specifically one. It's an expensive country, as is somewhere like Norway or Iceland.

Perhaps the players want to watch the World Cup?

Was that the Frome manager? Bunyard I believe? if not, he also suffered the same fate. dozens of bets against his own team Some would defend it by saying it's hedging your bets - win your happy, lose you've won some money back but it's not allowed even at that level. I remember start of each season we used to get a memo in the changing room reminding us we couldn't bet - but at that level it's very difficult to police unless you're betting huge amounts that gain attention (or stupid bets) or someone knows about it and whistle-blows. I see @Harry's post and there's a certain sense of irony that you play in a league sponsored by a gambling company, with a gambling company on your shirt with gambling adverts everywhere during broadcasts and at pitchside - all done to entice people to gamble - but dont you dare get tempted. Not saying it's right, but it's not a great look. I don't like how intrinsically linked gambling is with sport personally. As for Toney, this clearly had a factor in his selection for England. Gareth has shown before that the team is bigger than an individual and won't include players clouded in controversy. He was the first to drop Greenwood, whether he knew about the allegations or just based on attitude and the Iceland incident who knows, but appears he's a good judge of character. He got rid of Madison after that casino trip too when he'd pulled out of England duty.

He did didn't he?

Did the defender attempt to kick Wells or attempt to kick the ball? The attempt to kick a player portion is about a delibarate attempt to kick, trip or pull back a player. It's specifically about someone attempting to bring a player down and failing (eg a professional foul) can still be a free kick even if no contact made (and a yellow or red card) The more it's discussed the more I'd lean towards an indirect free kick if there was no contact (impeding the progress of a player without contact), or a penalty if there was contact - which I thought there was

It’s a direct free kick if the offender intends to make contact, eg if a player runs past you and you try and trip them but miss and don’t make contact it could still be a foul. I thought contact was made though as Wells was holding his head? Could have been trying it on though? One thing it shouldn’t have been is just “play on”. @italian davethat makes sense!

Were more, less or the same number of penalties given during the covid seasons? Also as an aside, why are so many people referring to the shirt pull as the first and the high foot as the second? Unless I’m losing the plot the high foot definitely happened first?

I think this was a foul by Wells first, or at worst 50/50. He runs into the defender, then there’s a shirt pull but then Wells throws himself to the ground. the first one for high foot was stone wall for me though

I don’t know why some people seem convinced he’s one game away from the sack, no chance - and who would want it at this current time?

To be honest, no not really. It should be a place teams fear due to our ability, that would be nice! But it’s not the 80s any more. Kids and families come to football, it shouldn’t be “horrible” or intimidating, IMO.

Have you any idea how painful a ruptured Achilles is, or more importantly how long it takes to heel? He’d have known instantly it’s a serious injury and you’re wrong - it’s not only head injuries the ref stops for. Edited: seems it was the medical team he was angry at.

We’ve lacked a bit of quality needed to take the lead but we’ve been the better team again

Yea only from a few idiots, we’ve put in several very good performances this season

No, 0 in 6 you are wrong.

What change would you have made then? Have to do something! Martin??

I should no better than saying this, but Watford have been dreadful. They’ve barely been near our box

You can’t put your foot that high and expect to get away with it, don’t even need to make contact for it to be reckless

That seems as stone wall as any decision we should have had