17 stone giant

I agree. That's what we're waiting for the organisers to decide. If they do go ahead though, I will see it as a damage limitation World Cup, rather than one that is truly showcasing the best that the sport has to offer.

No, it would be considered inferior by plenty of other people too.

They're not bigger than the sport, but they're an enormous part of international RL. That's why their absence causes such a big problem. We might still decide to play without them, but it's not a decision that can be arrived at without a great deal of careful consideration.

Why do you need to switch? Just watch both rugby league and rugby union. I've been doing that since the late 1980's.

"While the Board reiterated the determination to deliver the biggest and best ever Rugby League World Cup in history" Unfortunately I don't think that's possible without Australia and New Zealand taking part in any of the three tournaments.

I hope it's this. I hope the contingency plans that they have spoken about previously (e.g. September 2020 - BBC Sport) will mean that it's possible to put it back to 2022, so that it can be a 'proper world cup' with all of the best teams.

How can they come back on board when they've said it's about player wellbeing and safety? It would make them look ridiculous if they changed their minds only a few days later. It's not going to happen.

From a sporting perspective, I'd like it to be postponed so that it can take place with Australia and New Zealand also competing. But I've also said that I will back whatever the RLWC organisers decide to do. They are the ones in a position to know the full facts. If they believe that delaying it would cause too much damage, then the lesser of two evils would be to go ahead with what, in my opinion, would be a tainted World Cup (from a purely sporting competition perspective). As I said before, there's no perfect solution now, other than perhaps Australia and New Zealand changing their minds, which doesn't seem likely.

You're obviously running out of wise cracks, because that one is just irrelevant nonsense. Let me ask you; do you think an England player winning the World Cup under the circumstances we're discussing, is not going to feel that it's a somewhat hollow victory? Do you think that the likes of Tomkins and Roby would afterwards chat to Hanley, Farrell, Edwards, Goulding, Sam Burgess etc. and say "We achieved something you didn't do. We won the World Cup." And if they did, what do you think the reaction of those former players would be?

It's up to the players how they would feel. Maybe they'll love their appearance on SPOTY as World Champions, having finally won it after all those years of hurt.

Not by me they wouldn't, and I can't imagine by many people in Australia or New Zealand either. People here can stamp their feet in anger all they like, but it's not a proper World Cup without Australia and New Zealand. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise given the records of those two teams in previous tournaments. I want England to one day win the World Cup, but I wouldn't take any great satisfaction in us doing so if Australia and New Zealand were absent. How many Ashes series, Tri nations, Four nations, and world cups have England/GB won in my lifetime? None. The reason being that Australia and New Zealand always prevented that from happening. They were always the obstacle that needed to be overcome, in order to be winners. With that in mind, no way am I going to celebrate England winning when those two teams were absent. As I said previously, I have no objection if the RLWC organisers decide to go ahead with the tournament. If they think it's the only feasible option (for financial reasons etc.), then I back their judgement. But please don't expect me to value the tournament in the same way that I normally would.

The things you mention are what the RLWC organisers will have to take into consideration before deciding whether to go ahead with Aus/NZ or postpone, etc. Only they will have the relevant information regarding sponsors etc. to make such a decision. I don't agree that the football WC would necessarily be a major problem though. My preference would be to delay until next year, so that Australia and NZ can take part. I think it will forever tarnish this World Cup if they are absent. Between them they've contested numerous WC finals, and have won between them the last 8 or so. Whoever wins this WC without them, would not be regarded as genuine world champions. Having said that, if the organisers decide that going ahead is the only feasible option, I'd accept that. The circumstances are unprecedented and the situation that now exists means that the WC organisers are trapped between a rock and a hard place. As such, I will back whatever they decide.

Good stuff. Would I be correct that you registered with UEFA in order to get them this early? I was very pleased the other day when I looked at the Euro 2022 fixtures and saw that England are playing at St Mary's and also in Brighton (including a second time for the QF if they top the group). I've never been to the Brighton stadium, so I plan to go to that game as well as the St Mary's one.

So what are all the countries saying? Are Samoa, Tonga, PNG, Fiji etc. all stating that they intend to play?

A four minute warning is all that I ask for.

So what year will Australia and New Zealand be ready and able to play in a World Cup in England? 2023?

Would it really be so bad to move it to 2022?

I agree. Time to look at whether 2022 is possible instead.

I've been listening to "Football's coming home". Not always through choice, but because someone, somewhere, seems to be playing it right now.

Was a shame about Raducanu having to retire. It was a good game to watch. I hope she's ok and that there's nothing to worry about going forwards. I've loved Wimbledon since the late 80's, but since they added the roofs I think it went up another level, as you always get some play.

Weird how they announced the fight and almost immediately this decision comes about. Was this decision always scheduled for now, but the promoters announced the fight days before anyway? Or was the decision brought forward in response to the fight being announced? Either way, I expect Wilder will be given a sweetener (cash/promise of fighting the winner next year, etc.) to let the fight go ahead. I haven't paid to watch Boxing since Tyson v Holyfield in the mid 90's, but I might do for Fury v Joshua.

We could have played until midnight and still not scored. I thought we started ok, but our inability to score means that the opposition know they just need to stay patient and take their chance(s) when it comes along. Leeds did that and they deserved to win. I don't think I've ever seen so many players slip over in a match. I'm sure everyone will be glad when the pitch is fixed. Frustrating times as a Saints fan, but I think we'll pick up enough points in the next few months to be safe. I'll take 17th and an FA Cup win (which of course won't happen).

Am I the only one who doesn't get the constant fuss about VAR? When it comes to offsides, surely officials have always drawn a line in their heads regarding where they believe the forward to be and where they believed the defender to be, and then compared them. That's what offside is. I get that deciding exactly where to draw the line isn't an exact science, especially when it's something like a players arm - as per Ings against Villa. But having drawn the line where they (VAR) think it should be, it's a simple case of which line is then nearer the goal. I just don't get the fuss. Ings was offside based on the lines drawn. Yes, he was offside by a millimetre or two, but so what? You need to have a cut off somewhere. Even if you change the rules so that a forward can be, say, 5 millimetres nearer the goal than the defender and still be onside, you're then going to get a case where the forward is 6 millimetres nearer. Yeah, let's get rid of VAR and then we can again have offside decisions like this one. I'm sure no Dutch fans would have complained had that disallowed goal proved costly to their World Cup qualification chances - 5 mins 33 seconds into video. Only played onside by three England defenders and by about a metre! Graham Taylor always conveniently forgot about it too, when complaining about being cheated later on in that game. Netherlands 2-0 England (1993) WCQ - YouTube

I enjoyed the Man Utd v Liverpool game. I thought Rashford, in particular, was superb. Such a shame it wasn't played in front of a crowd, because I think it would have gone down as a classic game if there'd be that aspect to go with the on-field drama. Glad Southampton went through too, although I expect Wolves will knock us out at Molineux in the next round. I hope Ralph puts out our strongest team and really gives it a go.

Wrong decision in my opinion, but that's modern football - certainly at a club like Chelsea, anyway. I know that things haven't been amazing for them recently, but why give Lampard the job if you're not going to have some patience and see how he develops - which means giving him longer than 18 months. He certainly hasn't been a disaster there. I expect him to be back in management very soon, and I'm confident that over the long term he will prove himself to be a very good manager. I'd certainly be happy to have him at Southampton, if someone was to poach Ralph.