DoofersDad

Labour need no deals with the SNP. All they need from the SNP is for them to keep their word. The SNP have stated they want to lock the Tories out of Downing Street and that means they need to keep Labour in power. All they have to do to keep labour in power is to vote with them. There is no need for deals and the SNP will have plenty opportunity to shape and amend bills through the parliamentary committee and debate stages.

Well at least it was on target - Barrowman would have put it into the stand. Fair play also to Brown who did very well to get back. I don't think Marley would ever have thought he would be so quick across.

No dougiedanger it must remain and all its history told "in particular the repression of the highlanders" Spot on IBM. Whatever your political view, destroying our history be it buildings or books or whatever, or be it good or bad is the refugue of those scared of other ideologies and of how others may interpret the facts of that history. It is what "Islamic State" is doing in Iraq. In order to remain civilised in the future, we need to be reminded of the injustices of the past.

No.

That's what I said. So whoever is 4th in the league will very much want us to win the cup.

Let's hope that when the final comes we will have acheived a European place by finishing 3rd in the league. If so, then victory for Falkirk will mean they win the 4th European slot whilst victory for us will mean the 4th slot will go to whoever has finished 4th in the league. Is that correct? Might there be merit in encouraging their fans to come along and swell our numbers to cheer for an ICT victory so that their team wins a European place?

I like him. He's a goal scorer but he's a lot more than that. He's played some great lay offs for others and I don't think I can recall a player for ICT in any position who can control the ball as well as he does off his chest. Get him signed up now!

H-T 1-1 FT 2-1 ICT Tansey Opp Rooney Time 8mins

Yes - particularly the capitol - Itshandball

"Ross Counters Ross County Rumour" might have been a better headline.

This is the relevant section. 13.4.1 The Compliance Officer may refer the following matters to Fast Track Proceedings: 13.4.1.1 Alleged Sending-Off offences at a match (as defined in clause 1.3 of Annex C hereto) not seen by match officials, which are brought to the attention of the Compliance Officer by whatever means. What Lunny (and presumably the new CO) was arguing was that whilst the officials saw the incident, they failed to spot the offence. Had they seen the handball, Josh would have been sent off and therefore it was appropriate to issue a Notice of Complaint. For all the rubbish Lunny has been speaking, I feel he may have this correct. I can't see any clarification for interpreting this section but there has to be a distinction between the general incident and a specific offence within that incident. For instance, the referee in Celtic's match with Dundee Utd would have seen the incident when Brown and Ciftci went to ground when challenging for a ball, but would not have seen Ciftci's wee kick out at Brown. It must be correct to recognise such a difference so that one can deal with violent and dangerous play if the match officials have not spotted it. It seems to me that amid all the nonsense, Josh's appeal has been successful as a result of successfully challenging the one thing the SFA got right. Perhaps the panel felt this was the most pragmatic thing to do. Whether the SFA protocols make such a prosecution appropriate or not is by the way. The point is that no such prosecution has ever been brought anywhere in the world and it was simply wrong to do so in this situation. Throwing it out on procedural grounds allows the panel to tactfully avoid participation in a vindictive precedent and also to avoid any controversial discussion on whether or not the handball was deliberate. Throwing it out on procedural grounds will also force the SFA to review it's protocols. In my view the process is an important one in that it allows dangerous and violent actions missed by the match officials to be appropriately dealt with. The process should not be used in situations where the Compliance Officer simply thinks the ref got it wrong. In another post I suggested that the process could also be used to retrospectively deal with the curse of holding and shirt pulling. Much of this is off the ball and exceptionally difficult for the officials to spot. Perhaps there should be some clarification of the protocol to focus on dangerous "on-the-ball" offences the referee may have missed, together with "off-the-ball" red card offences. What we don't want is retrospective analysis of referees' performances and hearings based on what they might have missed. Referees have a very tough job and they will always make mistakes. Clubs need to take the rough with the smooth and allow the SFA to deal with poor referee performance internally. If the SFA could use the protocols to clamp down on dangerous play and off-the-ball cheating instead of criticising their own officials, then they just might start to be of some use to the game in Scotland.

SFA have just announced allocations. Falkirk get 51,800 seats and we get 200. They get the stands and we get the toilets.

You don't need any internet trawl to know that Lunny is a complete t*sser. BBC article here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32442417 He thinks the most likely reason Josh was successful was because the panel felt sympathetic or were confused. (I'm sure that will go down well with the panel.) The confusion element stems from the fact that whilst the officials may have seen the incident, they did not see the offence and therefore the panel may have wrongly thrown the case out because they thought that as the officials had seen the incident, it was not actually a matter for the panel. On the radio he said a 3rd option was that they did not see the handball as deliberate but that having seen the footage he would think that was the least likely explanation. He then goes on to defend the new Compliance Officer for bringing the case on the grounds that failing to do so would have set a dangerous precedent. No footballer anywhere in the world has ever been retrospectively punished by their FA for handball and yet Lunny thinks that not punishing Josh would be a dangerous precedent! And was he therefore not setting dangerous precedents week after week himself by failing to bring a single similar case to a tribunal when he was Compliance Officer? What planet is the guy living on? Justice has been done and now there is an urgent need for some serious review of the shambolic state of the SFA

Could be a Colombian

No mix up. It is the SNP candidates which are honking. Indeed it would seem that even the SNP agree with that assessment as they keep having to rely on someone who isn't even a candidate in this election. Well it's either that or have one who is presuming to make up Labour's budget for them. Well someone has to. Labour couldn't find their arse with their hands tied behind their back. If your hands were tied behind your back you wouldn't be able to find your arse either. But I am quite sure Salmond will help Milliband with a budget which will ruin the country so that he can then turn to the Scottish electorate to claim Scotland would better off on its own.

It is the SFA's Compliance Officer who should be looking at alternative career options.

Great news. But I note that the outcome was described as the case having been dismissed whereas when Ciftci's appeal was successful the outcome was not proven. Does this mean that the club's legal team argued successfully that the Notice of Complaint was not valid and therefore it was not actually put to a panel? Either way, in line with the culture of openness that the SFA claim they operate in, I guess we will never know why the case was brought in the first case or why it was subsequently dismissed. I also note that Barry Robson was unsuccessful in his appeal. I am really quite surprised at that but at least it means he won't be playing against us on Saturday

I'll not comment on the rest of your post but just this little contradiction above. If it wasn't deliberate then it should not have been a penalty. The laws of the game require the handball to be deliberate for it to be a foul. There is widespread confusion about this and we are even hearing loads of folk who are very experienced in the game accepting it was not deliberate but at the same time saying it should have been a penalty. Perhaps one good thing which might come out of this sorry episode is some better guidance for the interpretation of the law. IMHO more than half of all penalties given for handball are not deliberate and so we see defenders get punished for a ball hitting them in the arm at point blank range but not for wrapping their arms around an opponent to prevent them going for the ball. For the good of the game that needs to change.

Josh's culpability requires to be proved but not beyond reasonable doubt. He has not been charged with a criminal offence. Correct. If culpability is beyond resonable doubt then you get let off. This has been demonstrated by Ciftci's various appearences before the panels.

I think Celtic will have the title wrapped up before then which will take the edge off the game. I am sure that Deila would tell his players that any kind of retribution would be extremely bad both for the club and the player concerned. It will certainly be a very hostile reaction from the crowd which is one very good reason not to include inexperienced youngsters in the side. As for Josh himself, it may be that he picks up a slight niggle in training and is rested for the game. In any case, with Warren out of the final I am sure Yogi will want Devine getting some game time.

The SFA have succeeded in so far as they have turned this into a spat between the clubs, when really as a few have said, their whole objective has been to deflect anger and attention away from their own bungling referees and administrators. Deila has also said that he doesn't believe Josh handled the ball deliberately I hope that's the case, but it does beg the question of why Celtic wrote to the SFA to ask why a penalty was not awarded for deliberate handball when a much clearer penalty against Celtic was also not given.

No mix up. It is the SNP candidates which are honking. Indeed it would seem that even the SNP agree with that assessment as they keep having to rely on someone who isn't even a candidate in this election.

Looking at it again it is Warren who is best placed to stop it but it is also far from clear that the ball is goal bound. Both these factors sort of make whether it was deliberate handball or not irrelevant as the notice of complaint specifically refers to it being a deliberate handball denying a goal scoring opportunity. SFA therefore need to prove The handball was deliberate The ball was goal bound Warren was unlikely to have stopped it

Yup, I'm sure Shinnie could have stopped it with an outstretched arm

I think you can take Yogi's comments to mean that had the hand ball been given we would not have appealed a red card despite the fact that it was not deliberate. The fact is that handballs are routinely given in these sort of ball to hand situations and whether the decision was correct in terms of the letter of law it would have been accepted because we are reasonable people who accept the rough with the smooth.. But the SFA have moved the goals posts. They have now taken the unprecedented step of issuing a Notice of Complaint for handball. In these circumstances it is reasonable to insist that the case is judged against the letter of the law and not on the usually accepted and incorrect interpretation that referees often apply. I take it Yogi has not said anywhere that he thought Josh handled it deliberately?