Cf

Arghhahdbshwbsbsjsnsb

Good lord. Getting really irritated now.

Watch one of the two angles that show it doesn't touch his arm in the slightest and tell me how it's a clear handball.

They literally shown an angle where it doesn't hit his arm/hand. Everything else is irrelevant. It's a goal.

Willock and Longstaff seem the obvious weak links. They're starting to get on my nerves.

What's this logic of show all the angles that make it look inconclusive? Surely the only one that matters is the one that shows it doesn't?

That's bollocks.

Wasn't Willock scoring for fun for cabbage head?

Fucks sake.

Orange card right there.

Ball hardly moving on the deck here.

And I should also add I defer to Howe's judgement. He knows a hell of a lot more than me.

I do like the idea of whilst the results are coming in you keep your place. But if we are aiming high you could argue draws against Leeds and Palace aren't good enough. We are arguing between the difference between very good and very very good. But if you want to be at the top that's the difference maker.

Howe could shake the lineup a bit but ultimately we are still overachieving for where we are with our squad. If Isak is fit though I'd be starting him over Wilson who has looked a little lost recently.

Ridiculous he had the title.

Meh. At least we didn't lose I guess.

This isn't happening is it?

ASM touched the ball yet?

This feels like when not if.

This referee rule is so dumb.

I know it's not how it's supposed to work but I don't mind the logic of "between the two of them are they enough to warrant a red?" when deciding on the second.

Wouldn't be upset to see Isak with him or replacing him.

In terms of expected points (yeah I know, but I find it's a useful data point) Leeds are currently on the bad side of variance a little bit at the mo too. I'd be inclined to give a little bit more leeway when that's the case.

Pahahahahahahaha

Agree with that. Today felt one of the first times our subs put in performances to challenge the starting 11.