RicoS321

Hayes signs a one year extension. No brainer really.

Harsh. Van Veen has a great touch and is fairly skilful. He's just very slow. He's having a purple patch this season, which I'd doubt whether he'd replicate again. His movement seems to have improved this season, which is weird for a guy in his thirties, but it suggests that it could be a one off (think Doidge had similar for Hibs one year as an example). He's one of those guys that we'll consistently tell ourselves that we could do better than but we end up signing jet equivalents that don't do better. But we should at least try to sign better rather than settling for a guy who probably won't repeat a season where he's maybe had a fitness spurt or just everything going right.

And my daughter is being forced to watch it this weekend. For research purposes.

Good to see the PFA backing Shinnie. Hopefully something comes of that. It'd be nice to see other players, perhaps even clubs, back him publicly too. The extra game pish has to change. That's a guy potentially playing for his future (here or elsewhere) with only a handful of games left to play. It's outrageous that some bureaucratic, arrogant fucker can demean a player in such a fashion.

I actually thought the Morelos one was the correct decision in the end. Nobody seemed to realise that the rules had been changed a while prior to that (including the ref), to allow for a little petulance. Regardless, you're right about subjectivity, but I didn't imagine at all that a subjective process could come to that conclusion. To the point that concluding that the appeal was frivolous has lost all subjectivity and is actually biased (not against the Dons, but against questioning authority as you say). I can't think of a better example of a borderline decision that the appeals process is designed for. I'd love to have seen the club publish it's defence in the statement. I do wonder about the rule that states: "The Claim had no prospect of success". I guess that is there to catch an invalid claim, like appealing violent conduct. At the very least, the SFA should be forced to tell us which rule they have applied in the additional punishment (13.21.8.1.3).

If anything, asking for a review with a new panel is a little bit frivolous. Another three matches?

13.21.8.1 In the event of a Claim being dismissed the Tribunal must then Determine whether: 13.21.8.1.1 The Claim had no prospect of success; 13.21.8.1.2 The Claim was an abuse of process or a delaying tactic for the sanction originally imposed; 13.21.8.1.3 The Claim was frivolous. I don't think it can be frivolous (it could, but it's unlikely). It can't be because of a delaying tactic, because it was a fast track that would always be settled prior to the next match but I suspect it could be a technicality that means it had no prospect of success. Perhaps because it was "serious foul play", which can't be appealed? Edit: or can only be appealed for mistaken identity type reasons. It's a fair trawl through the rules like.

My apologies..... That's fucking unbelievable. Nothing remotely frivolous about the appeal. This borderline case is surely exactly what the appeals process is for?

Disgusting. I'll get back to you in May when this thread should be started.

I watched ICT scrape past cove at the weekend, and I think they're in with a chance.

That's correct, thanks. I actually don't mind foster as a pundit in fairness. His remit is to ask simple questions and not stray too far into a topic, which he does well.

Absolutely rank. Cheered on by the usual wankstains no doubt.

They're not throwing the book at him. They're not going to overturn it either, but there's a very good case to be heard for it not being a red, it's an incredibly contentious decision given that it was a follow through. They can only extend the ban for a frivolous appeal, and it certainly isn't that. He's clearly in control and I think that can be proven by the fact that he pulls his leg back. The county player is much less in control and arriving late (again, not a red). I think that the ref got it right (and had a clear view of it) in real time, however at the very least there is a strong argument that it should have only been a yellow even after the slow motion, out of context, pish. I think that's how the club will make their case too.

Exactly. He's a conventional number 9. He's also being doing okay with his hold up play since Goodwin went. He's a very good team player, with a great understanding of where to move. There are signs of late that the two are forming a partnership, and Miovski is integral to that. Duk's game intelligence, or lack of, is what will put some teams off that would otherwise take a punt on him. Together they're doing well, especially in the two rather than with Duk out wide. Miovski has been unlucky not to get a goal in the last couple of games after being in good positions.

That's why still photos (and I'd argue slow motion replays too) are completely and utterly useless in this type of situation. There was zero danger of a broken ankle because on contact, Shinnie pulls his leg backwards, significantly lessenning the impact - which you obviously don't see in the still photo. If you've got time, edit the video to show a photo of the county player standing on Shinnie's leg in the same challenge and make the comment: "the ref completely missed that one, that stamp could have wrecked his knee". You'd get full agreement from the VAR lads, who remove context from everything in order to do their shite jobs.

^^^This. The pertinent point that we should all be focusing on is that this incident would never, ever have been called up for a review after the game in normal times. Thus, VAR is now creating its own entire version of the red card, for which it is always correct in awarding. I heard thon wierdo Dougal talk about a red the other week on the "Vardict" thing on BBC, and he was telling us all how great it was for referees that VAR was spotting penalties (for handball) that wouldn't have been given prior to VAR, but failed to understand that those things are only now penalties because VAR exists. Obviously he's got some deep thinker in Foster or Lamont questioning him for 16 seconds per incident, which only exacerbates the issue. It's the lack of thoughtful discussion that we get on the subject that is the most infuriating thing. Where the BBC is the only real outlet for this type of debate, and it's just getting worse and worse. I guess we should be used to it by now, given the lack of any change in our game for a half century. It's just sad that the game is being allowed to be [further] ruined in this country and we have no representatives capable of articulating that.

I forgot about Irvine saving the pen. Legend. I was sure the van de ven one was later than 90-91 too, time flies etc.

That's a very long winded way of saying that I was right.... 99/00 - David Preece, Jim Leighton, Ryan Esson, Robbie Winters.

Players "dive in" all the time, it's how you win the ball before your opponent, and it's how you play football. Shinnie regularly wins tackles like that with no issue whatsoever - because it's not a fucking red card. Hayes's tackle in the first half was significantly worse and more out of control. Had the ref issued a yellow (incorrectly in my opinion) to Shinnie, I expect VAR would have said no clear and obvious error. The ref had a clear view and saw exactly what happened in real time. He didn't VAR to make the call, there was no clear and obvious error. Edit (again): the question that has to be asked here is if that challenge was shown on the highlights today, would it be called up for review and Shinnie given a red? That's, essentially, what VAR is supposed to do - avoid the really contentious decisions spilling over into the following weeks and months. There's not a chance on earth that he would have got a retrospective red earlier this season (because he wasn't here!). It's not clear and obvious, it's not contentious, you go with the ref's call.

Harsh on Duncan, I thought his work rate and link up were excellent in the second half, and great to get ninety minutes in a game like that for a lad that's only just turned 19. In terms of the offside, it's just another example of how shite VAR is. The linesman gave the offside, and in the end it was a tight call. The playing on and pitch invasion (sort of), the three minute wait for it to be confirmed. The fact that it was so tight a call just shows how ridiculous the whole thing is. Just stick with linesman's call and get on with it. The two key points in the red card for me are, first, that Shinnie bends his knee upon contact with the player, showing that there is no "out of control"/ "leaving one on him" / "endangering an opponent". The worst injury that the player could realistically sustain there is sepsis from a stud mark on the leg. Secondly, as you say, the county player stands on Shinnie. There's obviously no red card for the county player, but he goes into the challenge where he has no hope of winning the ball. He causes Shinnie's follow through to hit him, not the other way round. It was exceptionally clumsy from the county player as he jumps in with two feet (not maliciously, just his body position), which means that his left leg is straight when it shouldn't be if he was making any normal attempt to play the ball. Edit: to add though, imagine Shinnie had rolled around after the follow through and VAR had been asked to look at the county player's follow through on Shinnie, it would be extremely easy for a referee to give a red card for an out of control stamp. It would never ever be a red card of course, just that it's easy to completely alter the answer given to a problem just by changing the question. That's what VAR does, it changes the question (to: "can you see a red card here?").

He's had an entire season in the SPFL and been a stand out. There is nothing more for him to learn with us, he'd just be playing within himself staying, to the detriment of his career. Playing four games in the group stages of Europe isn't going to impress his parent club either. Top end championship down South is a step up from here and that's where he should be aiming, or abroad. He needs challenged to improve and to see if his passing game can cope at a higher level. We might get Coulson back for next season though....

There's no chance Clarkson is here next season. We've had a great player for a season. It would be a silly career move for him to stay here, he's already proved he can more than cut it. It's not really how the loan system works. I wouldn't even think there's a chance of getting Pollock. Maybe not even MacDonald who doesn't have a club, although it'd be great if so.

Injured. Hopefully back for next week now! Great second half performance against a difficult County side. Duk was top class, as was Clarkson. Thought Duncan and Shinnie had great second halves, and the game's gone if that's a red card. A fucking farce that is only a card when you slow it down and focus on the question "can you see a red card in the following incident", removing all context once again. VAR ruining the game throughout with its nonsense stoppages (including our disallowed goal).

He's on the maddison trajectory, definitely, and offers significantly more for us. His tracking and tackling make him a far more complete player than maddison was for us. You could be right about championship, but wouldn't be surprised to seem loaned to EPL either. Having seen gilmour for Scotland a few times, I'd say that's pretty much his level.

County have been decent, really taking the game to us and very direct. The midfield being bypassed completely, which suits them, and Ramadani missing not helping matters. MacDonald is excellent at the back, and the previous defence would be letting 3 in by now. We're playing a risky game, but I don't see any other option. I guess Duncan and McRorie could switch, but I wouldn't fancy McRorie in midfield after a good run at wingback. There's nothing on the bench, and a chance Duncan could do something on the break.