Rasczak

The only defence would be that Raven clipped the player without intent, by the player running across him and catching his leg in normal stride. Having looked at the highlights, that is debateable and I feel that an appeal would not be upheld. That wouldn't be the defence IMO. The scenario for a sending off is 2 fold, first would a free kick or penalty be given regardless of any other factors, second if there had been no infringement would the attacker have an obvious chance to score. I think that in any other circumstances, the foul would have been given anyway, what is to debated is whether Vine had a clear chance at goal if it were not for the foul. My first thought, the sanitised version anyway, watching on screen was, "Wait a minute, who else would get there, is there a red coming.", so wasn't surprised. Having seen the replay at the time, I haven't watched the highlights yet, it did look like maybe there was cover and so it may not be an obvious chance. Any appeal would likely be on the basis that it was not an obvious chance, looking to get it reduced to a yellow.

But under the proposal there would have been be no SPL, just a single league body who arrange the leagues. Teams then play games through the season based on their position at the beginning. Except come up with a proposal that gives most benefit to most teams, even through it is not perfect and get the ball rolling to get where we want to be. No point in thinking out of the box like that. But that is exactly how it seems to be phrased; So you are against the current playoffs between the second bottom in the SFL leagues and 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the league below ? If you are a SFL1 club then you should only play SFL1 clubs and not have to play against SFL2 clubs to finish the season. I don't expect you are against the playoffs, but surely you can see how that can be inferred. Think of it as the middle 8 in effect being an extended play off for the relegation and promotion places. You may believe the extended period is too long, but the intention of giving playoffs, which have been asked for, is there. You (both ?) also seem to be under the impression that I think the 12-12 to 8-8-8 is the panacea for the league. It is not and I can see that it is not perfect, some clubs will lose out on the big games, the split effects are bigger than now, there could be more chance of relegation if your form dips at the wrong time. I can see the good points of it as well, more potential opponents, a second chance at staying up if you had a bad early season, and see that it was never meant to be the solver of issues on its own. It was a concession to get the bits that everyone wants, single league body, fairer financial distribution, playoffs etc. If we had got it, then we could have had a chance to see if it would work for Scotland, just because it didn't work elsewhere doesn't automatically mean it wouldn't have worked for us. If it didn't, which I agree is not unlikely, then further change wouldn't be blocked by 2 clubs with a disproportionate ideas of their own importance.

So you are saying that you wouldn't want to risk having to play such lowly teams as, for example this season, Morton, Partick Thistle, Falkirk and Livingstone, who are obviously so much lesser teams than ICT ? Because each club would have different ideas on which to cherry pick and so a single proposal that got most of what was needed would have got part way there and made it easier to get the rest if it was really needed later. And of course the difference in class and ability between SPL teams and the current SFL1 is so great that they no top 4 SFL1 team could ever push a bottom 4 SPL team to need a 3 goal comeback and extra time in a national cup semi-fin... oh wait. But it keeps getting said that is what the fans want, but you are also saying you don't want to play the top 4 of the SFL. So where do the extra 4 teams for the top league come from ? Why is it abhorrent to have the possibility of playing the 12th to 16th top teams under 12-12 to 8-8-8, but brilliant to have the guarantee of playing those exact same teams under a 16 team top league ? For what it's worth I agree that a 16/18 team top league with extra playoffs and possibly an extended League Cup that gives back the extra home games would be a goal to get towards. I also know it cannot be done overnight and to get there we need to show that it is the way. IMNSHO, the proposal as was gave that chance to start the move.

And under the current system it is impossible for teams to have no chance of Europe after 3/5th of the season ? The reports I have seen don't confirm either way if it was all protected measures or just the league structure. Even if it was just the league structure, then by offering the 9-3 more compromise has been given. The kudos you mention is one thing, they look good in the eyes of others and that in itself could bring in increased gates from away fans. "They helped us get a fairer share of the cash, I'll go to away games there". Fanciful I know but not impossible. And they could also be looking long term, giving up a little now, getting more overall income back into the game so they end up with more, remember 1% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Not with the current set up of 2 clubs being able to block anything for the other 40. But going to 12-12-18 with all the other things it would have brought may well have given us the stepping stone needed to get a set up in place that would have given us that. Of course if 12-12-18 had gone through, got Scottish football on a stable setting, given the excitement and competition we need, improved our UEFA and FIFA rankings, then been changed to a 16 team top division as that was the next step forward, there would still be those who say it would be a failure as it had to change. It may not be perfect, I have never said it was, but it seems to me to be right for right now. Something else may be better for another time.

What like it has been for the last 15 years ? Who said it couldn't be changed for 3 years ? Who ever told you that was wrong. What was in the original proposal was that any structure changes within 3 years needed a larger majority than most other changes. If everyone wanted to change after the first year it could be done. From the reports, even that was removed and changes to structure would be on the same majority as everything else so the single sticking point that St Mirren gave as the reason for saying no was removed and they still said no. But to get the good points above that would help the lower end, there had to be compromise from the higher end, as they would lose out. You were never going to get the money redistribution without there being something in it for those giving up the biggest share of money. So you couldn't just cherry pick what you like as not everyone would cherry pick the same things and so there would have been no chance of getting what you want. And will you take Stuart Gilmour with them ? The St Mirren vote seems to me to have been about them being convinced they would have been in the middle 8 nearly every season, and then losing out on potential home games with the big teams, Celtic, ICT etc. Thing is if that is their normal position then they likely miss out on that game anyway, and if we went with a 16 team league, once home and away, then they definitely miss it. Yes 12-12-18 is not perfect, but there is no perfect solution for everyone. I posted some thoughts on a possible format last It gave a top 16 with playoffs at top and bottom, and although some here liked some of it, there were some points that probably would never be agreed on by enough teams. This was a chance to get the bits that most fans want, fairer distribution of money, playoffs, pyramid system, with a compromise on how we got there and making it easier to tweak later if it wasn't working. It seems to me some teams, and people, couldn't see that we needed to take a little pain in the short term, to make it better long term.

That is not actually confirmed yet. If they lose to Hearts, Kilmarnock beat St Mirren and Dundee, Dundee Utd. beat St Johnstone and Aberdeen, and we lose to St Johnstone then they end up 7th at the split. So depending on results, we could secure them their top six place on Friday. Aberdeen have 41 points, County 45 points. How can they finish 7th or lower? Don't ever doubt me! Aberdeen don't come into it, well except for losing to Dundee Utd. I had thought it was done and dusted as well with us beating Hibs, but it was mentioned on the radio so I did the sums, and that combination of results puts St Johnstone and Kilmarnock on 47, Dundee Utd. on 46 and them on 45. Its because both Kilmarnock and Dundee Utd. have 2 games to play still that muddies it.

That is not actually confirmed yet. If they lose to Hearts, Kilmarnock beat St Mirren and Dundee, Dundee Utd. beat St Johnstone and Aberdeen, and we lose to St Johnstone then they end up 7th at the split. So depending on results, we could secure them their top six place on Friday.

In which case, why don't we just call him Ted to save any argument

As I understand it, if the cup winners already qualify for The Champions League, then the cup runner-up gets the Europa League place. If the cup winners already qualify for Europa League, then the other place goes to the league. Cup winners get best Europa place, cup runner-up or lowest league qualifier gets the worst

There, fixed it for you.

Sitting in the Skiach, much happier than last time I was here. Thought it was a definite penalty from where I was sitting. I did have to laugh at Del on the radio, all the talk about him going to Aberdeen, I thought he'd fit in at Celtic, with the always cheated, never defeated attitude. We could have a problem for the Hibs game, can Graeme Shinnie get his place back from Charlie Taylor ?

The basis on which you seem to be calculating safety from relegation (not that this has been an issue this season anyway) isn't quite right. You appear to be going on the bottom club (Dundee) no longer being able to catch ICT. However for any club to be relegated, ALL the teams below it need to be able to catch it and the point at which there are no longer enough points left for this to happen is usually earlier than a lot of people think. I know that it can work like that, for example at the split, ie with 5 games to play, forgetting goal difference, even if you are only 14 points ahead of last place, being only 13 points over next to last will still make you safe as at least one of the teams will drop points to the other As it sits, all sides can currently obtain enough points to overtake us, Dundee can make 30, we are 28 ahead. In the event of Dundeed getting all 30 and use none, then St Mirren would get maximum 26, and are only 11 behind, Heart, could still get near 20 and are 10 behind, every-one else is within 6 points and there are enough points left for all to get that. If you can work out what combination of results, makes it impossible for at least one team to still make 43 points with a -1 goal difference, the minimum we will get this season is 43 points and -2 GD, then let me know. The main point I was making though is have we ever been safe before the split before ? I think even in the 7th place seasons it was after the first game after before we were safe.

And if St Mirren win tomorrow, then we are arithmetically safe from relegation. Would this be the earliest in the season we have been safe as an SPL club ?

^^^ Doesn't know the rules of football. or maybe hes just doing this >>> ? For me it was a penalty as mekings arm was in an unnatural position when the ball made contact with it , making it a penalty IMO . Maybe rig or wee luke can enlighten me as to why I'm wrong . I'm neither of them, but I'll enlighten you. For it to have been a penalty, it would need to have touched his arm.

We maybe don't want to go the way of too many officials, but maybe the way American football works in that each official has specific things to look for, they have the authority to call it and any doubt will be discussed rather than just dismissed because the ref wants to show he is in charge. If they are assistants, let them assist and have the ref give them the respect that they can make a call and the belief that if they do call it they will be heeded and if the ref saw it differently they discuss it rather than just dismiss it. At the moment it looks like they are sometimes frightened to make a call as it may make the ref look like he missed something, and of course the rules dictate that the ref is infallible even if all evidence is to the contrary.

If the assistant doesnt make a decision he needs to indicate what the referee has given using his flag. I understand that, it just seemed to me that the assistants, both of them really, never made their own decisions and only ever indicated what the ref had given. I believe that refs will speak with the assistants to say how the game is to be handled beforehand and whether the ref had said the them to follow him every time or they just couldn't make a decision I don't know, but surely regardless of what he said it is their duty to bring to his attention any thing he may have missed. Seems to me for the Shinnie incident, either the assistant didn't see what was in front of him, or didn't bring this to the attention of the ref.

The SPL highlights only had the side view and it just caught the moment of contact, just at the edge of the picture so it was difficult to say how bad it was. BBC highlights show it from the camera in the North stand, and you can see clear as day Vigurs racing in and then lunging in at the player, I have seen red being given for less. If you watch just before it as well, Raven nicks the ball off Vigurs' toes to feed Doran and Vigurs goes down, some players might be looking for a bit of early revenge in that situation.

BBC highlights say definite foul but ask whether it was inside or outside the box. Granted I have had a few views, but it is definitely at least on the line, my understanding is that means it is a penalty if it is given. The ref seemed happy for he free kick to be taken inside the box so that means whatever infringement he saw he deemed to be inside. The East Stand assistant was ever helpful, watch the highlights and he, as for every throw in, waits until the ref makes a decision then blindly follows it. As WYNESS101 says he it was right in frint of him and he arguably had a better view than the ref, but does nothing. Interestingly, the ref yesterday also booked someone last week for "simulation"

He certainly didn't seem to understand that to be offside you must be beyond the last man when the ball is kicked, not when you look across a second or so later.

A clear one of Ikonomou's leg sticking out and tripping Graham Shinnie.

Sitting in the Skiach on the way home to Thurso still annoyed at the non penalty decision. Stonewaller from where I was sitting just behind the goal. Fun on the way back to the car though. Some ten year old kids trying to bait us by asking if we were supporting Andy Shinnie in the diving in next year's Olympics. Pretty poor they can't get the player or the games right.

At least we have a ready made song for him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaFqNSLu6U4

BBC story updated All efforts from the team now on tomorrow and beyond.

I thought about this and suspect not as Joe Cole was given a straight red in the Arsenal game and he played in the Europa League game against Trabzonspor 4 days later. I think that is more as the Europa League is UEFA sanctioned rather than national association sanctioned, same as being sent off in a World Cup qualifier wouldn't incur an automatic suspension for a domestic game.

I started writing this before MaccaPacca's reply so some info is duplicated, however I think the context is still needed. According to both the official Liverpool and official Arsenal sites, Danny Wilson was neither in the starting 11 nor a listed substitute for the their match on 15/08/10. LFC Report Arsenal Report Though he was on the bench for the Europa Cup game the week before, 05/08/10. LFC Europa Report Neither link for the Arsenal game makes reference to him at being banned for the game and a search on the LFC site for Danny Wilson shows no results about him being banned, however does turn up an interesting result posted 2 days before that game. LFC News Article It mentions the Europa League, but not anything about an imminent suspension He was hoping for game time ASAP, but didn't mention he would have to wait at least one game due to a suspension ? Doesn't look to me like the suspension was a factor in him not being selected just that others were preferred. I don't see how you can just pick a game a player was not selected for and declare that was the one a suspension applied to. What I can't find is an official historic list of suspensions from the English FA, just current and pending ones. That is definitely the document that is needed to confirm if the suspension has been served. As I see it, if the English FA have a document saying Danny Wilson was suspended for a First Team game for dates between 21/07/10, his transfer date, and the date any disciplinary points from FA sanctioned games would have triggered any further suspension, and he did not take part in the first relevant game, then the suspension is served. If such a document cannot be produced, then the suspension was not served and therefore would apply to the first relevant game after registration with the SFA. The BBC article as updated today at 11:58 states that the suspension was served in the Arsenal game, that being the case then the SFA/English FA will shortly be providing the necessary documentation showing this, will they ?