All looks good gear, but I was particularly interested in the chat of hoodies. 👀

The sending off? Was nailed on.

I think it will come soon. An evolving market. I understand why they had this format back in the day. But it will mirror the men's competition soon.

Exciting though right. The fact that it was in effect lost by the 3 run margin a few days ago. Tightest of margins. Not saying I agree with the format, but it's like the women's football chat in the other thread, it's not always about quality, it's competitiveness and entertainment that wins the day. Can't say this women's ashes series hasn't had both of those qualities. Sadly, I'm not confident the men will follow suit. Hope I'm massively wrong.

You're not the first and won't be the last to be disappointed or upset over it. We have a rule to NEVER edit posts, (for obvious reasons), so we can't for example lose the offending post and leave the reply. Sorry. Maybe some more of that red wine will ease the pain and suffering. 😉

Absolutely no politics is allowed in the football section. There's no grey area on it. So 1 of yours mentioned Hunter Biden. I think you were collateral damage on the other, as you quoted a person referring to Brexit. Happens sometimes. We have to hide the post and any quotes of it.

My word. They'll have had to spend time actually discussing and planning this 🤦‍♂️:

Pretty hard for that to be true when I've never said that phrase in my life, let alone on here.

Works both ways. You haven't answered if you'd celebrate England or Rovers winning from an injury throw in not being given back. 🤷‍♂️ But my opinion is he chose to go out on one leg, he gets treated like any other player in the team. Do you think he should be treated differently? This isn't tiddlywinks, it's top level international sport. If anything, you target injuries. If a boxer has a busted eye, the opponent is aiming for it. Was watching rugby league just last week when a player (St. Helens I think?) had took a bad knock and was struggling. Moved from half backs to the wing for a rest. Commentator: "They need to get the ball over the right hand side quickly, run hard, and smash into him. They'll either break through for a try, or get him off the pitch. Either way, it's a win." Some will say cricket isn't a contact sport like them. Bloody is! You're hurling a hard ball at 90mph, sometimes at their head. There's a reason they have all the padding and guards. You step onto the playing field with an injury, that's your problem to deal with, not your opponents. Think you're confusing playing hard and taking every opportunity to nail the opponent, with being snidey. Instead of 'spirit of the game' how about just 'don't be a snidey ****!' And what they did without doubt falls under that banner.

You asked a question. The answer is no, categorically. I've given you several examples that illustrate this. You appear to be deflecting and going off on tangents instead of debating in good faith. Fine, I'll move on then. But finally, the actual phrase spirit of the game wouldn't exist would it, if it just meant within the laws of the game. Think about it.

So, I'm taking it it's only cricket where being within the laws is keeping the spirit of the sport. I've already mentioned golf and snooker. Wait till we get to tennis and smashing the ball directly at your opponent's body. Totally legal in the rule book, but if you try that on Wimbledon Centre Court this week you'll get booed off pretty fast. I'd argue there's barely a sport in the World that doesn't have 'unwritten rules'. Seems like you think cricket is perhaps the only one.

You seem to be ignoring the reverse aspect of this stance that's been mentioned various times in this thread. So, next season an opposition player gets their leg broken, their team kicks it out. After the player has been given gas and air for 10 mins and stretchered off, we fling the throw in to Gallagher, who does a Cruyff turn followed by a rainbow flick, and then smashes it in the top corner. You celebrating that goal and win then? Same thing in the Euros Final against Italy. Are you proud of that trophy we've finally achieved after 56 years of hurt. It's all within the laws of the game, so that's fine right. Well done us!

Am I coming across as a McCullum defense team? He's nothing to do with any of the points I've made in this thread. Does seem a bit rich for him to Pearl clutching yesterday if this is his history. Tbh tho all I've heard on radio is him saying he won't be buying the Aussies a beer anytime soon. Sounds tongue in cheek to me. Did he say more? I only heard Stokes interview.

Well it was reversed and Collingwood brought back out if that helps any. That's what's so confusing about Aussies using it today as evidence that yesterday's dismissal should not have been withdrawn. "Here's a precendent that's the opposite of yesterday's outcome. What do have to say about that you whingeing pomms!" Err..nothing...it stands for itself. 🤷‍♂️

Went for 4 didn't it? Or is my memory letting me down. He's not going to give 4 dot balls back. 🤷‍♂️ That golfer once had his ball picked up by a bird didn't he? And got penalised for it. Should everyone in the field have duffed a shot 1m to make it fair. Sometimes freak occurrences happen. I suppose the problem being ours happened in the last few balls of a World Cup final. That happens in an early group match it's probably never mentioned again. Was such a pivotal moment at a crucial time. But we didn't engineer it. That's the key difference for me.

By 'unfair' I read 'accidental', because that's what the ball bouncing off the bat was. Not planned and premeditated like yesterday. If we want to go down that road how about we disallow every deflected goal in football. Ball bounces off the back of defenders head = "That's an unfortunate accident, we just chalk that off right?" 🤔 No, you get bad luck in sports sometimes. Totally different when judging a players purposeful actions. (I.e. Shane Duffy's two against Cardiff definitely count!! 🤬🤬)

Perfect example of why these are false comparisons. The batter here is still in shot action stance. Totally legitimate. Now if that batter had stood up, grounded his bat, and marked the floor with his foot, I'm 100% sure Foakes wouldn't be looking for the stumping anymore. But since the batter overbalanced his weight while still in this pose there was an opportunity of a stumping. It's like chalk and cheese compared to yesterday. Don't know how people are struggling with this.

Warner offering out an 80 year old man. 😂😂 What a bellend.

Pretty much the same as I think when Rovers only have to get through 6 mins injury time to hold onto a precious 3 pts.

You'll have to explain to me. Don't know the incident.

I'm so sick of people going to rule books on these occasions. It's irrelevant to me. It's not in the rule book to give the football back after an injury throw in. Not in golf's to not stand on people's line on the green. I don’t think it's in snooker's to give a foul on yourself when touching balls. But you do/don’t any of those three things and see how the sporting world views you afterwards. Couldn't care less about Rule 45, subsection 14, article 4. 🙄 Absolute scumbags.

Urgh. Looking like Madame Tussauds for you Sunday. Get us a picture of you slapping Ronaldo in the face. 😂

I don't wear a top with a YouTube logo on. And I don’t get surly and moody every weekend because of them. And I certainly don't waste hours reading and discussing whether two of their employees are better or worse at handling and distribution. 🤷‍♂️

Ta, will give it a try. I put them on in shower sometimes and have to do a pathetic naked twist dance trying to tap the ad skip button without covering the floor in water. Will it stop that? Tmi?

I know there's a more serious conversation going on, but feel like this is an underrated post. On topic, the only thing I'll say is how much excessive ads on things like YouTube piss me off. I can, for example, watch three different 1 hour podcasts- one will have no adverts, one will have two or three, and one of them will have adverts every bloody 5 mins. 🤬🤬 Which angers me even more when I know the person doing the podcast is already a multimillionaire. Just excessive greed. I would have thought the fact that BRFCS is a non-profit organisation would have resulted in this conversation going a little differently. But hey ho. Now, has anyone got hold of JB on the jetski in Barbados to let him know this is still rumbling on. 🤔