Pedantic Pete

Aren't the two linked? If they aren't suitable to hold the world cup because of their human rights record then surely they aren't suitable to do business with?

Do people realise we have trade with Qatar worth billions, I think we even make fighter jet's for them? Shouldn't we be picketing outside BAE if we are so set on making a stand against this "scummy country"?

Left to our scouting team we sign players like Boufal, Lemina, Casillas etc

Lol..the countries that are bidding isn't a secret..Everyone knew Qatar were bidding for it..Each round a bid is disqualified so you even get to see who still is in the running as they count down to the final few. They are currently looking at letting China bid for 2030..There you go 9 years notice for you to get out protesting!

But isn't the issue that people are happy to sign a form, maybe go for a walk on a protest but not really ready to change anything in their own life that would make a difference? Isn't it just a bit of virtue signalling really? Make people feel good that they signed a petition but will they still watch the world cup? Probably... if England do well they will be down the pub watching the games.. Will they boycott the TV companies that show the games? No..... they will still have a TV licence and watch corrie after its over. Will they boycott any company doing business with Qatar? Probably not. Did they really care? Probably not..a bit of faux outrage is all the rage these days... then carry on as normal. Why weren't they protesting before the decision, to make the decision to give it to them impossible? Why aren't they out in the streets protesting to ensure China don't get the 2030 world cup?

You are absolutely right, Change has to start with a single person. Personally though, I don't think it that people should try to use sport or football as the medium for that change. If we do boycott countries for everything that is wrong then we will never play another international again and probably shouldn't be turning up on a Saturday either as a protest to cheap labour being used to make the kits.

The problem IMO with this sort of thing is that there are so many issues in the world so why do people feel the need to bring politics into football? The fish we eat is often caught using slave labour, the kits we buy are stitched by kids, we do multi billion pound business deals with countries violating human rights laws everyday, we let the Chinese do whatever they like to the people of Hong Kong with no consequence as we are trying to get down to carbon neutral by getting anything that is polluting made in another country (China) so we feel good for lowering carbon but can carry on consuming at the same levels...but woah..we should boycott the world cup..that will fix everything?

But that's what I mean, he should have made a decision- red or yellow- then VAR checks it and says "you got that right"- "or wrong". Not go to see what the card colour should be. If he ended up at the monitor, surely it means that Mason has said- "that's a clear and obvious error".. So perhaps he said- "you got that wrong- you should have sent him off"

I haven't read this but I thought VAR was there to check clear and obvious errors not for refs to use to make decisions? So what was his original decision?- or are we entering a new era of the ref "popping" over to the monitor before every decision he has to make?

Didn't have VAR back in the day to rule out the consolation goal!

Does it really matter that much about investment? Chelsea spent £200m, already had a squad worth xxx million and are miles off the pace. £100m into Burnley wouldn't change their position much? Bournemouth seemed a better TEAM before they bought in the superstars for loads of money who then got them relegated and the manager sacked. To challenge the top clubs you'd need probably a billion invested over a number of years. Perhaps a stable owner, a well run club and a bit of luck are better than a "bit" of investment?

What I would have given to be at that game! You were very lucky to experience that. I watched it live on TV and it was memorising, I can't even begin to imagine what it would have been like to be in the crowd. I wasn't what you would call a fan of Rossi, purely as he personally deprived the rest of the tournament of a fantastic Brazil side. Brazil only needed a draw too! However you had to admire him for what he did and it's a shame he has passed at much too young an age.

I don't think they can afford to fine the teams. For a long time it has been said that people should stand up to racism and whatever the circumstances the players felt aggrieved enough to walk off on mass. Even if the investigation completely exonerates the 4th official. I don't see how fining the teams would demonstrate support to eradicate racism. It would demonstrate a lack of empathy and pile further pressure on a player in a situation in the future which he/she felt was not appropriate.

I don't know what was said in the game but on the face of it, to me, using a characteristic at the game to identify someone, is the same as what the police have done. We either don't see the physical differences or we do, surely we can't pick and choose when it is appropriate to do so?

My local police force have just tweeted about a crime they want witnesses for..They have described the aggressor as black (as well as describing any other likely identifying features) ... Is that racist? not a trick question but I am not sure of the rules anymore?

You have just displayed your true colours..Don't you know there is only one opinion now? If you don't have that opinion you are *racist/homophobic/islamist (is that a word?/ insert any other "ist you can think of"? * delete as applicable

I didn't say I agree or disagree with anything you wrote? What I do find interesting is that you generically call your "fellow" fans names because some happen to post a few lines that you disagree with. Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that you can understand some ones thoughts and beliefs from just a few lines on here? It's that bit that intrigues me as it seems more and more that people "think" they know other peoples internal dialogue. My view is people are more complex than that and education is better than "name calling". Honestly I thought your post was just bear baiting, and what do you know, me asking a question shows I was wrong with that assumption! 🙂

Do you really think that posting this would change any bodies mind? Are you trying to get your "fellow" Saints fans to think differently or just trying to trigger a reaction? I am really interested in what someone is thinking when posting this sort of stuff on social media?

I think that's a little harsh although pretty much the reality. Remember the picture of him on the balcony chin in both hands after the first two group games as we were on the way out? I always thought Robson was a bit lucky but he did find a formation (after Robson and Wilkins got taken out through events not in his control) that started played half reasonably, late on in the group stages and took that into the knock out stages. IMO We were never going to win that game against Argentina, even our goal was late on and a consolation. We kicked Maradonna about like we did with players that were too good for us but he didn't lie down or shrink away from it like lesser players, he got up and came back for more. It always pisses you off at the time when someone cheats in a game but normally people get over that and retrospectively realise the reality. Maradonna though for some reason became this cartoon figure of hate who "cheated" us out of the world cup!

I am not sure why people cling to the hope it was an own goal. Does that somehow take away the brilliance of the goal and so stops it counteracting the hand of god goal in their minds?

In my opinion the best player of my lifetime by about a million miles. In my mind only Pele challenges him as the greatest of all time, but Pele was just before my time. Maradonna may have cheated (quite a bit), but he never had the protection (or the playing surfaces) that Messi etc get now. A tackle round the throat was considered only borderline then but the guy was so strong and the ball stuck to him like it was glued to his foot. We never would have won that quarter final, even without the hand of God, he was just too good for us. As much as that goal pissed me off, 4 minutes later you couldn't help applauding the brilliance of the guy. It shouldn't really matter to me that he died today, He wasn't likely to do anything on the footy field again (like he hasn't for the last nearly 30 years) but I do remember how I felt watching him play- although I never saw him in the flesh, I was fortunate to watch him in games like the semi final against Belgium, on TV live and despite loathing him for the hand of god, you had to admire what a brilliant footballer he could be! So him dying does make me sad. Flawed personality or not, R.I.P. mate, you gave me some happy memories!

The only fair way to resolve this is that any team playing Liverpool has one player sent off, before the game, for every player Liverpool have injured, tested positive or is being rested. Therefore the 11 who do play for Liverpool will only have to play against an opposition with 5,4 or even 3 players depending on how many Klopp has declared are injured, tested positive or rested. In the rare event that Klopp decides all 11 need a rest an automatic win, obviously, is given and Klopp can declare what the final score was. To ensure that the golden boot is awarded correctly, he also can declare how many goals each of his players would have scored had they played. Klopp will also be given control over VAR to sort that mess out, he will have the final say on all cards a ref decides to issue and will run the FA disciplinary panel to ensure fair treatment to his players. This only will apply to domestic games.

Che up for EA player of the month..get your votes in!

Whats that got to do with Matt then? He never promoted that?

Surely censorship is not the way forward if that's what your suggesting? Certain political parties are advocating voting for 16 year old's but you are suggesting they need to be "protected" from idea's which are not following your view of normal? I may disagree with Matt but censoring discussion isn't the answer surely?