Best Of

Sack Otter87 for being unloyal disloyal and,,,for,,,knowing the rules of the game.

No down vote, you are entitled to your opinion, I don't personally think he "strikes" him or attempts to, from the replay I think he swings his arm a bit wildly and it barely brushed him, so maybe fair if unfortunate penalty but harsh red. Was absolutely furious at the time but it happens, and we didn't really help ourselves with the way we attacked (or didn't) with 10 men but that is never easy and Rav and the remaining defenders did very well.

Comment of the day. In the words of the great man, never too high, never too low. In the context of the game a very good point. On to the next one.

We didn’t loose, so to be pedantic it cost us two points as we actually got one.

Love the precise synchronicity (if that’s the correct term).

I'm getting ready for the thumbs down but I've just seen the Bradley incident and I'm afraid that I'm on the referee's side with this one.

If you have a look at the 2nd angle of the link I've provided, its clear that Bradley knew full well what he was doing, he wasn't in any position to play the ball and even tho the contact was minimal, he & his action put himself in a position where the ref needed to make a decision. The laws of the game state "Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent" is a direct freekick / penalty offence

https://x.com/WycombeDJ/status/1885727099962491110?t=el1Sn_Fp9SEoOagyPE5p_g&s=08

Not sure on the exact figure but it was over 800.

same here now we know more about the hinterland of the author

I mean, technically they are right, but why can’t we just continue to call them men?

WHO Forest?!