Search results

Because females have a right to dignity, privacy and safety. Stonewall do not support current equalities law. Stonewall support self ID where anybody who identified as female and state their gender identity was female could gain GRC meaning they could access female facilities, and play in female...

I answered the questions, or tried to. Wearing a rainbow is not an impartial act. An impartial act would not be wearing a rainbow. Wearing rainbow laces identifies an individual is identifying with LGBT support. The poster in the opening post made that point. The Rainbow laces campaign was...

In a football context rainbow laces would not be impartial. LGBT politics frequently is associated with self ID, and contentious and highly controversial issues such as trans inclusion in sport. Do I support the right of trans women and those who possess GRC to use female only facilities and...

1. I would not wear rainbow laces, not because I have an issue with LGB, but I do with T's politics with self ID and women's rights and the equality act. 2. I don't display my support for the Labour party when I ref. Do you for the Tories? Or the Liberals? Or the greens? or UKIP? Or Reform? Why...

LGBT and LGBTQIA+ politics are frequently contentious and controversial. A minefield. Toxic. By displaying rainbow laces you are not being impartial.

The keeper could dropped to his knees to peer between opponents knees. In motd land this is not affecting the keeper!!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/gary-lineker-slams-wolves-var-controversy-and-calls-for-major-rule-change-after-west-ham-decision/ar-BB1lcQri The views of Dublin and Lineker. It is worrying that these people have influence.

I dont know if the local FA hate it and its anecdotal but it seems to work well. I haven't experienced anything notable except one team played a banned player and included him on a team sheet, and post match the opposition pointed it out after they lost!!

Here in Bristol with the Somerset and Gloucs FA's and leagues prior to kick off at u14 the Managers have to provide the ref with team sheets prior to kick off. There is no need to check names, so the name you get given isnt on the team sheet it goes on the report and the league/FA deal with it.

Hazard was at the out there zenith of the game and i'm doing u10 -16 so have never seen this and probably wont ever encounter it, but if i ever get a mini Hazard on the pitch and it does something looking like that at 21 secs its a foul. I think its a foul, it looks like a clear trip, so foul in...

21 seconds. I think Hazard deliberately trips an opponent.

A little MMA.

If Gordon had arrive fractionally later as Phillips is mid kick - PIADM?

Bristol post. Bristol City vs West Ham, VAR, and the clear divide that is widening in football The crunching tackles and "handbags" at Ashton Gate show how VAR is creating two versions of the same game Bristol City beat West Ham United in a FA Cup tie and a significant part of the post-match...

Joe Williams on Ings. Potential modern day sending off with VAR.

Overturned. I am 2 out of 2 on these now. It was no foul.

A ref is an official. Leagues are fine with officials sharing concerns over fixtures not being played. Clubs entering leagues have made a commitment to x of games in x period of time, and leagues do not like games to be called off for spurious reasons like FA Cup games being played on a Sunday...

Then its highlighting the subjective. Was there excessive force? No. Reckless? Seems in control and the player is not going to top him. Am I chucking around reds for that sunday at a U16 game? No way. does the ref make a clear and obvious error? no. its only a red in one part of football. That...

I cant see a foul, or anything reckless, and certainly no clear and obvious error by a ref performing well.

Yes. It was not specific. Clever analogy.