IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER

Nowt - that is where I am headed - or was I actually barred the last time ?

Aarghh (twice) - Leading with your arm and looking at the opposition player is evidently not an offence but when you do that with no intent or capability to win the ball - it is. It wasnt a sending off - it was a booking. Samaras was always in control of the situation, there was never any doubt that he was going to win the header and he was clearly transfixed on doing that. What I am saying is that Tansey's challenge was needless. His challenge was to put Samaras off and was not to win the header. That is why his focus was on Samaras and he raised his arms to try and get height to block - not to win. And lets face it - if he hadnt made contact with the geeks face we wouldnt be having this discussion. In fact if he hadnt launched himself it would have been play on or if he had launched himself without the exertion of raising his arm or simply stood still to block - then he would have got a yellow at the most. Bottom line is that he created the situation where he put the referee on the spot. He did NOT need to. After that the ref ballsed it all up. You should only go in for such a challenge when you have a chance of getting to the ball. DC - is that not a clue in itself ?

Perhaps we are not getting in to the oppositions penalty box often enuff !! Still it gives us a new terrace chant - "We are Caley, super Caley - no one likes us, we dont care"

Feck it - I am going to watch it live on the telly in Fleetwood.

Respect DC - fine fishing trip - based on accurate statements. Again the bottom line is that he was sent off for Violent Conduct and for use of the elbow which must have been deemed to be an intentional act. It was a needless challenge and was more of an attempt to put Samaras off than to win the ball. He did lead with his arm and he did make contact with Samaras. He also appeared to fix his focus on Samaras rather than the flight of the ball. Those are all "facts" which will undoubtedly be raised at the appeal. I would even concede that it may have looked intentional from the ref's angle of vision. That was probably also the case in the Tokely sending off. However the ref could have conferred with any of his assistants - he was far too quick in flashing the red card. But I think we have a chance if the ref admits to all of this and admits that a red card was an error, in retrospect and seeing the piccies/replays. I would hope that the offence is dropped to a yellow card offence - which it was. As for Samaras milking it - well it is now part and parcel of the game - especially from Johnny Foreigners. I also think that Terry was voicing the frustrations of the three red cards and not just this one. And to end the bottom line is that Tansey went for a challenge that he was never going to win - he gave the ref a decison to make which he didnt need to.

The bottom line is that he was eyeing up Samaras and not the ball - there was no need for the challenge as he was never going to win it - it was a yellow.

To wind up the opposition. And it clearly works! Lest ye forget

Fleetwood Away.

Travelling from Livingston fer this one with plenty of litas to flash.

That maybe why an appeal is worth a shot this time - Tansey was sent off fer violent conduct and the ref clearly simulated illegal and intentional use of the elbow.

If we played a slow, deliberate style of football I would see the point but we don't. I feel our strengths are in our passing game with one or two players with real pace who can hurt teams. "Makes it harder to control the ball" must be related to shinty cos any decent player will control a ball no matter how long or short the grass. Whatever was intended it didn't work cos results speak for themselves. Yip - especially when you go 4-3-3 but I was only asking - and still dont know - as it looked far longer than usual on the box yesterday.

This would be the very same song you sung for decades in your beloved jungle if i'm not mistaken Does this mean Scotland will be fined the next home international when flower of scotland is sung? Not sure if this is a very poor attempted fishing trip or Old firm tit for tat point scoring but whatever it is its one of your worst threads ever and that takes some doing dougal I suppose that it depends on the wording that is altered or added to the original - actually just like Flower of Scotland - in the world of the politically correct. Ah - The Jungle - now that was a terracing only second to the Howden End.

The Soldiers song came over loud and clear on the telly and it was clearly being sung by more than a minority. Suppose there will be a slap on the wrist and a mediocre fine.

despite the fact that the geek milked it the picture tend to show that from the refs angle Tansey raised his arm and connected with the geek.

If it was said that it was an elbow the we may have a chance - two problems - when I watched it live I immediately thought that it was going to be a red card and lets face it - Tansey did not need to go in for the challenge, his eyes were on Samaras and not the ball and he led with his right arm. There was no malice but Samaras milked it - he may have got a wee slap on the dide of his face and a finger tickle in his eye - and then look at the positioning of the ref - he was right behind Samaras looking at Tansey - it may well have looked a lot worse to him.

It clearly wasnt a penalty ; our players - especially Foran and Gillet were simply not watching the line - but Stokes was offside for the second goal; It is probably Terry who has a genuine feeling that the powers to be are persecuting us - however you were, still are and always will be insane.

The playing surface was the focus of several comments on ESPN today with the inference being made that the grass was deliberately left long and that it had been watered to soften the ground. It certainly looked heavier and lusher than I have noted for some time. Was it a ploy or is it the necessity because of the site and the time of the year ?

ESSON :bouncyred: Really wasnt tested apart from the two goals and he didnt have much of a chance of stopping either of them. MEEKINS :bouncyred: Seen enuff to prefer him to Piermayr - I feel he is a more solid defender although he looks limited going forward. TOKELY :bouncyred: He may well have won most in the air and showed a few nice touches but he is still prone to be caught out of position - may be harsh but I would fault his positioning at the first goal. HOGG :bouncyred: He came on to a stronger game and looked the better central defender in the second half. Afraid that Hooper and Stokes's movement in the second half troubled us a lot GILLET :bouncyred: Almost the opposite comments to Meekins - looks good going forward but not so adept defending - seen enuff to prefer wee Shinnie HAYES :bouncyred: Didnt use him enuff early doors. Showed some nice touches and really is a joy to behold when he takes people on. I feel he is the key to survival and/or climbing the table. DAVIS :bouncyred: :bouncyred: My MOM as he was immense in the first half although he faded in the second. So strong in the tackle and always looks for the easy ball / pass. TANSEY Sending off was harsh but it was a rash, needless and foolworthy challenge. SHINNIE :bouncyred: :bouncyred: Very close to MOM and looked the better of the midfield pair in the closing stages. FORAN :bouncyred: Back in his favoured position / role. May not have stood out today but will make inroads on lesser opposition. TADE :bouncyred: Cellic played deep and the sending off left him isolated. Didnt really get a sniff but kept on working. TERRY AND MO :bouncyred: :bouncyred: They must be absolutely feckin gutted. We were looking the more likely up to the sending off and at times afterwards it didnt look like we had ten men. The refree basically ruined the game and robbed us. Lets just persevere with the system though.

I thought that Davis (especially in the first half) and Shinnie were the main candidiates but lets face it the sending off changed the face of the game and the decision to bench the geek. It would have been so interesting to see what would have happened if it was 11 v 11. Still more positives than negatives.

Ross Tokely MOM - it must be so different watching on TV.

ESPN replay clearly shows that Stokes was offside - rite in line with the linesnman who was the nearest person to Stokes.

Oh No McCourt - another feckin Nemesis.

If I were you I would think about putting a wager on a ICT penalty - inside information.

Tokely covered as a full back and not a central defender - that was the first piece of football that Cellic have played all day.

Almost an hour gone and we are still well in this but the game is beginning to get stretched and we really have to try and hold possession instead of running around defensively.