RicoS321

Fit's that in metric?

I didn't know that, that's interesting. I thought he looked very lacking when he played left back for us at the beginning of the season. Not shite by any stretch, but just stood at the wrong angle when marking his man and his left-footed clearances were a bit straight legged. Like when Considine plays right side of defence. Both still more than capable with their wrong fits (unlike likes of O'Connor last season) but just something about them being on that side clearly not comfortable. I think Hoban will fit quite nicely at right back like.

Good response TC, hadn't thought about the war angle.

Gie the birds a chunce you insecure bunch of pooves.

You don't believe his old man told him that?

There is no double standard over appealing. The huns can appeal as many incidents as they like, that is not a double standard. You seem to conflating appealing with having a decision overturned/go in their favour. I think the term you're looking for is hypocrite. The only double standard is the decision to call in a case where an incident has been clearly seen and dealt with by the referee, because that has not happened in many other cases (see Cammy Smith v St Mirren) which were worse. There is no double standard being applied to Power until such time as he's actually charged with anything, other than the decision to review. If he's given a ban, then there is still no double standard there as the incident doesn't really compare to any other, it's just a poor decision. If we're being picky, we could say that the nearest possible incident is McKenna versus the Tims, in which he was red carded so Power should get a red card based on that.

Yes. He is interested to see whether the compliance officer thinks it was with the intent to hurt, thus a red card. The compliance office - not the hun - believes there is a case to be heard on those grounds. It's the constant comparison of every decision with the Morelos one that gets me (it was mentioned with regard to the McKenna sending off too for some bizarre reason, and the Devlin case too), hence why I was replying. They are not similar other than that a foot made contact with an opponent, so there is no precedent set by the Morelos incident that is relevant to this one. Rangers are not "clear in their belief that making contact with an opposition players with your foot is a yellow card offence" like you suggest - as that's not what they argued in the Morelos case - and nor would it matter if they were because they are not the compliance officer who is the only person who could cite this incident for further review. Basically, if we're going to call it a conspiracy, can we at least get the facts right? The contention is that the incident is being heard at all as it was a yellow card dealt with by the ref at the time (right in front of him too). If they find against Power, then there will be a further issue over what is deemed as reckless/out of control similar to the McKenna vs Tims incident.

But they're right. Morelos' fanny kick on McKenna was a yellow according to the rules of the game. Intention to kick does not come into it, it has to be with the intent to hurt. That will be why Morelos' recent band was upheld, because he clearly tried to hurt McKenna with a stamp to the nads. I think that the argument in the Shinnie case was that it wasn't deliberate (which it clearly was, hence the ban was upheld). Rangers will not be putting forward any arguments in the case of Power, because it is not their case to argue. If it is deemed that Power intentionally tried to hurt Jack or was reckless or out of control then it will be changed to a red (again, I don't remember that ever happening before in this country). If it - correctly - is deemed that he just went for the ball, then the yellow will stand.

Do you mean McKenna's against the Tim? The ref never gave the free-kick, so it was deemed not seen (even though it clearly was seen but the ref didn't think that it was a foul - because it wasn't). To be honest Power's one is a yellow card all day long. It's clumsy and dangerous, but never deliberate. He's clearly looking at the ball. If one of our players had been hoofed in the face like that, I'd agree with the ref. It's a contact sport and sometimes you take a bad one even though there isn't intent. It happens all the time. The problem with these incidents is that you always get the impression they're determined to even things up for an easier life. If there is an "exceptional circumstances" get out clause then it defintely shouldn't be used in this instance (the Cammy Smith one v St Mirren was far more ridiculous from the weekend for example). The problem is that this type of incident is stoked up to be more controversial than it actually is. Pundits are paid to do that, but we shouldn't be taking the weight of their opinions without extracting a little of the hysteria. The incident shouldn't even be cited.

Aye. Did some fine street art like. Was he that good in goals? Or was he just jizzed over because he had a half decent save against some Brazilian dude once?

According to the BBC gossip page (linking the Sun, so probably not reliable) Killie will find out today if Power will face a ban over his kick to Jack's coupon. He was booked though, wasn't he? In other words, the ref dealt with it. I thought that you couldn't face a ban if the ref has seen the incident and awarded a booking based on his interpretation? Admittedly, that's a stupid rule, but I thought that it was a rule? Or has that changed this season? Or maybe I imagined it altogether.

To be honest, I can't see Killie taking more than a single section in the South stand as normal anyway.

I forgot about that rule. Have we ever used that to our advantage? I'm thinking Hearts probably in recent years. Have we played anyone else pre-Hampden/semi stage that we could have utilised 20% of the tickets (where they wouldn't have sold them otherwise)? I can't think of an occasion where I've thought that we're getting a big allocation where we wouldn't normally.

I just like picters.

Wouldn't you prefer Killie at home?

I agree. A lot of industry from Shinnie, but passing was poor. Ferguson was poor too though. He does need a break, but I can see why McInnes is wary about dropping him given the cover. If Gleeson improved I think it'd be no bother. Ferguson's work rate is far superior to Gleeson's (although given game time it may improve). Again, it goes back to poor recruitment. Campbell isn't quite there yet either. The tims will have an easy draw whoever they play because they're better than everyone else. The huns will also be favourite in each of their possible ties (outside the tims). We may suggest a fixed draw but the reality is - other than perhaps keeping the huns and tims apart - there is no need to fix a draw.

I think they changed things so that cases are heard sooner after midweeks. I think it might be tomorrow evening, but I could be wrong.

In what way? If they are corrupt enough to uphold Morelos' appeal then they're not going to give a shite whether we appeal McKenna's or not. There's no way on earth he's (Morelos) not getting a two match ban. Our best course of action is to say publically that we won't be appealing because it makes a mockery of the system and would be dishonest to do so.

Why? McKenna blatantly in the wrong, and our manager has admitted as much in his snivelling interview. McInnes had the opportunity last night to go to town on that little fucker up front for them (and their goalie) and he failed miserably to do so. It was a stamp (not a particularly hard one) delibderately aimed at McKenna's groin - that was his very obvious intention. That could have been seriously damaging to McKenna, and something that goes beyond his fitba career. You can't but yer studs in someone's ballsack like, that's one of those things, like spitting, that is the most disgusting of acts. McLean got a two match ban for grabbing the Killie player (I think) in the nuts, Morelos should face more. McInnes should have been scathing, and really emphasised the point. Looking at it objectively, that nasty little fucker could and should have been facing a lengthy ban. I'm assuming there will be no suggestion of McGregor getting cited.

I'd agree with most of this like, especially regarding Cosgrove. Ferguson was poor, really didn't get involved enough and Shinnie carried him at times. GMS had that great run and shot at the beginning of the second, then reverted to type for the rest of the half. Agree with whoever said that Stewart held onto the ball too long. Reminded me of McGinn a year or so ago, missing some good opportunities to get the ball in the box which makes it difficult for the strikers to time their runs. I don't remember him getting a single good ball in tonight, despite looking really good in possession and working very hard. We've played three games prior to this one against them and each they deserved to win but didn't. They didn't deserve the three points tonight - we were significantly better than them in the first half - so fair's fair. The dirty hun fucks. It was good to see us having a go though, we could easily have sat in like we did in the other 3 games. McInnes interview was a bit fucking shite though. It was like listening to Calderwood. He needs to reign that shite in like. It's unusual for him, he's usually pretty clued up in his media chat and understanding how not to antagonise his own fans.

You said "What kind of niave tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system". and " This is a high profile man with powerful enemies who the establishment are terrified of. The justice system is mostly made up of establishmentarians. Thus making it extremely unlikely that he'll get a fair trial IMO." By implication, you suggested that the justice system is going to interfere with the fairness of the trial. I don't think that's an unreasonable reading of your points - which were quite vociferous - is it? I think it's incumbent on you to explain in what way that might happen given the accusation. Fair enough if you can't be airsed, but don't expect folk to take you seriously. You could be right that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have pre-decided his guilt, but I'm saying that the judge pre-deciding will make little difference to the evidence presented, the prosecution are prosecuting and there is a good chance that the jury will be split between those that are supporters of the man and those that aren't. Inotherwords, it is equally likely that a jury could be filled with SNP voters as it is a jury filled with Tories if we're politically profiling here. Also, I don't think human are hateful and vengeful by nature. I think the overwhelming majority are forgiving and incled to be cooperative (nice) by nature, but perhaps society and religion point them towards vengefulness. I doubt the human race would have got particularly far into its evolution based on hate and vengance.

The OJ and Dassey cases are utterly irrelevant, in the same way as the conviction of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is - a totally different legal system, which has no bearing in what happens in this country. You're just dropping names. Can you tell us about the case you saw? That does sound pretty interesting. In terms of bullying lawyers, Salmond has the funds to get lawyers that won't be bullied. Bullying the jury? Possibly, but I doubt that'd happen in such a high profile case. If you're hoping for something to be proven beyond doubt then you'll be waiting a long time. It's his word against theirs and he proclaims his innocence. I doubt there'll be a killer piece of evidence that'll change it for you, it'll just be the weight of all the evidence. With that in mind, you probably won't believe the result if it doesn't go your preferred way as would be the case for those that really want him convicted if he's deemed innocent. I don't think anyone is niave enough to have complete faith in the justice system, but then most aren't naive enough to have complete faith in one man (that they don't really know privately). As a result, most people simply weigh up the various components and make a judgement based on the evidence presented (until proven/disproven in court). By looking at the evidence with a view to searching for a corruption that will see Salmond found guilty, you can look at the various points of entry where that could take place. For me, that corruption would ultimately take place in the planting of victims (completely making up the charges in other words), rather than at courtroom level in this instance. I don't see many avenues for a judge to intervene other than by not allowing evidence to be heard or by intimidating the jury. Given the publicity, I think that'd be a huge risk as it would definitely come out post trial and leave a judge with a lot of questions to answer. I just don't think you're making your case particularly well (ironically). You're suggesting that it's impossible to get a fair trial, but you're not describing the ways in which that might happen and the mitigating factors in why that might be difficult. If you'd said, I think these women are making up their claims and being paid/bought/blackmailed/whatever into doing so, then I'd be more inclined to listen as to me that'd be the only credible way to get a false conviction. Otherwise, you've got a pretty weak case that reads as if you've got 100% faith in a man that is incredibly misplaced (whether he's guilty or not).

Good points. Tyrant, if yer going to suggest "establishment" conspiracies, then at least back it up. The only possible way I can think that the justice system could intervene is by refusing witnesses, or certain evidence to be heard. None of that, however, will make the testimonies of the alleged victims any less true or false. The annoying thing is, is that there is an establishment, and our political system is corrupted (including at Holyrood, as Salmond's interactions with Trump showed) and infiltrated throughout by money. There are a huge number of credible avenues to look down for evidence of this. Why choose something so remarkably uncontentious? It's just a manny who may or my not have done something that many mannies in his position have done before. Stop elevating him to some level of importance beyond that which he once represented. The ideas of independence are not in any way reliant on one individual. This constant need for a "leader" or single person that who we can follow toward freedom (or whatever) is like a form of mass-patheticism. Independence is just something that he was a temporary salesman for. If he turns out to be a dick, then we just get another salesman.

I agree, but I think he will (or Gleeson). I think he'll go for the extra man in midfield (the way we finished against Hibs) unfortunately, which I think is a cop out at home. Whether he plays Ball or Gleeson as that additional man is neither here nor there for me, it's the formation that is the issue. He's done it in all games against them this season, including the opener at home, which was a total disaster with a painting-over-the-cracks last minute goal.

To be fair, it should have been at least 2, probably 3. Dallas' shitness as a ref shouldn't affect us tomorrow night. If anything, it'll have the opposite affect with refs pretending that they aren't huns for a few weeks.