trousers

@stevegrant - if you could schedule another 48 hour downtime window next weekend that would be very much appreciated. Cheers 👍

Pragmatism? On the the Saintsweb forum? Nah, can't see it catching on...

What, and risk forfeiting my hard-fought hypocrisy crown...?

Ssshhhhhhh.....

Refresh the browser a few times....

I was just about to post that refreshing every page / thread a few times each time seems to do the trick. Bit of a PITA but not the end of the world, I guess

To put a more balanced slant on it....

I'm getting same on both laptop (Windows / Chrome) and on phone (Android)

Cheers Steve... but still getting the problem on the default / blue theme....

I think the technical term is: "its all a bit f**ked"!

Classic 👍🎵🎷 (As witnessed in person by yours truly last year 😁) VID_20240830_213348669.mp4

'Duke of Earl' my favourite

If it annoys certain people then I'm all for the licence fee on that basis alone. The more annoyed the better.

I've always been an admirer of your unwaveringly astute posts Maggie...

Bit harsh... He was only posting a link to a tweet FFS....

I'm very tempted to go into MLG mode, but I'll refrain...

The plethora of "and now shops are selling Easter stuff" comments at this time of year.... almost as annoying as the tiresome "they're selling christmas stuff...disgraceful!" comments at the end of summer.

I agree with MLG!

There's a significant difference between predicting a common-or-garden "struggle" and predicting a record breaking capitulation. The latter has happened, not the former, and I don't recall anyone predicting it would be as bad as its turned out...

These "updates" rarely actually state what the nature of the injury(s) are though.... Sadly, there must be some fundamental underlying issue with both players' bodies if they are incapable of kicking a football or moving around on grass without some kind of injury (re)occuring as a result...

So, this season in summary then... Rubbish owners, poor manager and mediocre players... What other jaw-dropping revelations can we come up with next....?

You see, this is the problem I have.... This particular law (and probably others) seem to be written so they are purposely open to interpretation and thus controversy. Why can't they be written in a clear and concise way? For example: "If you push the goalkeeper then you have committed a foul". Why on Earth can't it be that simple and definitive?

Asking me what I think is missing the point of my question....I'm asking a question about the laws of the game because I've no idea whether or not it was a foul on Ramsdale... It doesn't matter what I or anyone else "thinks" (in order to answer my question)... I'm just interested in what the actual laws state. Was Ramsdale fouled (according to the laws of the game)? That's all I'm interested in, not mine or anyone else's opinion or interpretation... (P.s. if the laws state that Ramsdale fouled Mateta first, then I assume it should have been a penalty?)

Yeah, agree that's how the (flawed) VAR system operates.... I was more interested in the scenario from an academic point of view, rather than whether the on field decisions were right or wrong. My question is simple: according to the laws of the game, was Ramsdale fouled? Yes or no? (I am genuinely interested in the laws of the game here, not trying to make a point)