OTF

The prize money for this is lowwww, they'll play plenty of youth/second string players.

That's my pre-match routine.

Big Joe to break free from his BUJ shackles and be back to his combative best. Isak on the scoresheet and overall a return to Eddie Howe's Black and White army of high tempo pressing thundercunts. Tonali's second home debut will be a thing of beauty. All in all a great start to Father's Day. I'm coming around on these @LongTimeAdmirer threads.

Conventional wisdom dictates that we must have been lead to believe that Guehi would be available within a price range we were willing to go to. Then Palace have moved the posts thinking we would just pony up the extra. We haven't because we were already stretching and we've not managed to sell anyone. There must be better value options out there that still offer a strong long term replacement for Schär, but from what we've been told about we're not very advanced on anyone. Sure they might not be English or have Premier League experience but neither was Botman (or Schär for that matter).

Fans on twitter: WHY TF HAVEN'T WE BOUGHT A RW AND A CB IT'S A JOKE!!! EALES AND MITCHELL ARE HOPELESS!!!! JUST GET IT DONE Also fans on twitter: WHY DID WE SELL MINTEH AND ANDERSON?!?!? THEY WERE TWO OF OUR BEST YOUNG PLAYERS

Perhaps in response Howe could have asked if she preferred being referred to as disabled or handicapped.

He wasn't playing at Forest anyway and have no doubt that financially he's being well rewarded. Hopefully he ends up somewhere actually playing.

The harbringer of truth... wait it's you @Christmas Tree 😯 Well said.

Dermot Gallagher has no association with the FA and like many referees (and ex referees) absolutely loves being the centre of attention. How can below the armpit apply when someone's arm is away from their body? Nevermind the fact that the ball very clearly touched what would be below the armpit line on his arm if it was down by his side. I'm not sure how it's possible for mid-bicep to be above the armpit line but then Dermot's a washed up ex-referee and not a qualified year 5 student. DERMOT SAYS: "If it is touching any part of the body beneath the armpit line, then it is handball. It's touching part of the body he can't score with." Nice of him to point out how wrong he is Check out where the ball is in relation to both his elbow and his shoulder. Much closer to his elbow than his shoulder. This is the exact same frame from a different angle. Most in the media decide their position before they closely review the relevant footage. Noone can look at the above and suggest none of the ball contacted anything below the armpit line. That's the rules, it's a handball. The VAR was correct.

The pundits are just doing their job and drumming up drama (as well as probably don't understand the current rules). As for you, KD and ATP, well I'll let you come up with an excuse. This is as plain as can be. You can't honestly believe that part of the ball has not touched anything on the red section in the diagram KD posted. If you say that you do then you're plainly just being contrary. In summary: The decision made by VAR was categorically correct. Part of the arm touched the ball which is not allowed in any way by an attacking player during a goal scoring action. You're demonstrably feeble minded if you honestly don't believe that.

That diagram takes into account the position of the arm when contact with the ball is made, but it's a separate consideration regarding attacking players when a goal is scored. if the ball strikes a goal scorer's arm while in the midst of a goal scoring move, regardless of arm position, intent, or any other qualifiers, a goal shall be chalked off. Clearly states if the ball strikes any part of the arm considered handball then it will be chalked off. That picture which is from the angle most favourable to the attacking player still shows the ball touching the handball zone for which the goal was rightfully chalked off. Further that image also shows a foul being committed against Dan Burn. And finally if the ball did entirely come off the "no handball" zone its trajectory would have been wholly different. This is the textbook example and execution of this rule and just goes to show that even when a system exists and is executed properly (which is sadly often not the case) people will still complain.

We deserved one here and I'd say Southampton deserved none against us.

Livramento is ready physically, has the defensive capability, the attacking capability but his decision making and close control isn't comparable to Trippier.

The camera on the other side shows it was his shoulder.

You're right, a point each was deserved. Both teams should have scored more from the chances created. They looked very nervous in the second half.

Trippier does make a big difference to our composure and ability to maintain possession, and I agree that an alternative to Longstaff needs to be implemented asap. Gordon and Barnes are our best wide players. Kelly didn't impress, though wasn't terrible. He's more defensive minded than Hall, I think Eddie got that right (or potentially could have started Trippier at LB?).

On replay it was very clear.

The VAR and handball rules on goals played out perfectly, exactly what they're designed for. Man watching their goal Joelinton had so many opportunities to pass the ball and didn't, such a Jekyll and Hyde performance after his herculean effot last week. We're somehow on four points after two overall shite performances. We did have some good spells here but look desperately short of cohesion.

Did you see the replay and/or are you watching a shite stream on an ipad? Replay showed it was clearly off the arm, as in the ball didn't go near his shoulder.

What legit goal? It was clearly off his arm and not his shoulder. Joelinton yellow is correct though it looks worse in realtime.

Thankfully on review it was the shoulder and not the neck that Joelinton yanked, but still just a dumb thing to do.

Joelinton wtaf.

It's off the arm not the shoulder for mine.