DoofersDad

With attention focused on Corbyn and the rather extraordinary goings on in the Labour Party, it has almost escaped the attention of the media and the public at large that the SNP have announced that provision for a 2nd independence referendum will be in the SNP manifesto for next year's Holyrood election. Never mind about the talk before last September of this being a once in a generation / lifetime thing; never mind about respecting the wishes of the electorate as expressed in last years manifesto; never mind about disruption to the country which a 2nd referendum would cause and never mind about the increasing divisions which all this regressive nationalism is causing. Instead of having a debate about the SNP's increasing ineptness in Government, this announcement ensures that independence will again be the big issue and the lack of a credible labour alternative at UK level will ensure that the SNP hammer at the message that the quickest way to get rid of austerity is for Scotland to become independent. It will also be the quickest way to ruin Scotland's economy, but unfortunately, as the referendum and the general election demonstrated only too well, people tend to vote what they think will benefit them most in the short term and the longer term implications are ignored. What a parcel of rogues leads our nation!

The bit I have highlighted is total codswallop. The moment the referee makes the decision that Oshaniwa has committed a foul, then Sho-Silva's reaction does not come under consideration...unless he retaliates. He could have gone down and rolled all the way to the centre circle, it would have still not resulted in him getting booked. I don't think it is me that is talking total codswallop. The rules of the game state that a player should be cautioned if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled." These are two separate things and therefore with respect to feigning injury it is irrelevant whether the player has actually been fouled or not. Equally, any action the referee may have taken against the player perpetrating the foul is also irrelevant. Sho-Silva's did not pretend to be fouled because he clearly was fouled, but what he may have done was to feign injury in a misguided attempt to draw the officials' attention to the incident. If the referee felt that the foul could not have led to the level of injury ShoSilva's actions were indicating, then under the laws of the game he should have cautioned Sho-Silva for feigning injury. I am offering absolutely no opinion as to whether Sho-Silva's reaction was inappropriate or not, all I'm saying is that because he went to ground, the referee had a decision to make which he would not have had to make had Sho-Sliva stayed on his feet. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is only an offence to feign injury in order to win a foul or in an attempt to get an opponent cautioned. If the rule was as per your interpretation, then every time a player was fouled and took an extra roll or held a shin and then got back up, they would be booked....and that doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is because the rules don't say it should. In short....Sho-Silva did not pretend he got punched.....he DID get punched and the rule you quote (which is the rule on simulation) does not get any consideration the moment the referee determines that he was fouled. Just because players don't get cautioned every time for the minor types of simulation you quote does not mean that such actions aren't against the rules. By your very flawed logic you might as well say that because players don't always get booked for holding and shirt pulling in the penalty area that the rules don't say that holding and shirt pulling is not allowed. Presumably you can provide some quote or reference to support your opinion that the rules on simulation do not apply if the referee judges that the player actually was fouled? What you are saying is that it is perfectly OK under the laws of the game for a player to feign injury in order to make an offence look worse than it actually was, provided that the referee actually awards a foul. You must accept that whether the referee awards a foul or not, the intention and actions of the player simulating is exactly the same and therefore should logically be dealt with in the same way. Starting to think you're on the wind-up now. How can a player be booked on the rules pertaining to simulation after the referee gives a decision which, in and of itself, states that there has been no simulation. I'm not making an argument that "sometimes players don't get booked for it". I'm saying that players "NEVER" get booked for it....and the reason for that is because the rule is not there to be applied in the strange manner that you are suggesting. The evidence (and logic) speaks for itself. That's my last post on the subject. I take it that is your last post on the subject because you cannot produce any wording in FIFA or SFA regs to back up your ridiculous position? To say that a player will only be dealt with for an offence depending on whether another player is dealt with for a different, albeit related, offence is patently absurd. _Although I do accept there are things FIFA and the SFA say which are patently absurd!) The rule I quote above states that a player should be cautioned if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled." Clearly he was not pretending to have been fouled because we can all see that he was struck, but the other and quite separate part of the simulation law is about feigning injury. As far as I am aware, the law simply refers to feigning injury and does not differentiate between feigning injury when the referee awards a foul and when he does not. I may be wrong - but if anyone thinks I am, please provide the evidence! Let's be clear, I am in no way accusing Sho-Silva of simulation. All I am saying is the fact he went to ground gave the referee a decision to make under the simulation rule. In my view he made the right decision by not cautioning Tobi. Bottom line here is that, as a general rule, just because you actually have been fouled does not make it OK to feign injury. I have backed up my view by quoting the FIFA rule on the subject. It appears that CaleyD thinks referees have been told it is perfectly OK for players to feign injury as long as they actually were fouled but offers no evidence to support such a bizarre point of view. By the way, I thought Sho-Silva was a breath of fresh air when he came on. He was hardworking, enthusiastic and positive in his approach - an extremely welcome addition to the club.

The bit I have highlighted is total codswallop. The moment the referee makes the decision that Oshaniwa has committed a foul, then Sho-Silva's reaction does not come under consideration...unless he retaliates. He could have gone down and rolled all the way to the centre circle, it would have still not resulted in him getting booked. I don't think it is me that is talking total codswallop. The rules of the game state that a player should be cautioned if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled." These are two separate things and therefore with respect to feigning injury it is irrelevant whether the player has actually been fouled or not. Equally, any action the referee may have taken against the player perpetrating the foul is also irrelevant. Sho-Silva's did not pretend to be fouled because he clearly was fouled, but what he may have done was to feign injury in a misguided attempt to draw the officials' attention to the incident. If the referee felt that the foul could not have led to the level of injury ShoSilva's actions were indicating, then under the laws of the game he should have cautioned Sho-Silva for feigning injury. I am offering absolutely no opinion as to whether Sho-Silva's reaction was inappropriate or not, all I'm saying is that because he went to ground, the referee had a decision to make which he would not have had to make had Sho-Sliva stayed on his feet. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is only an offence to feign injury in order to win a foul or in an attempt to get an opponent cautioned. If the rule was as per your interpretation, then every time a player was fouled and took an extra roll or held a shin and then got back up, they would be booked....and that doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is because the rules don't say it should. In short....Sho-Silva did not pretend he got punched.....he DID get punched and the rule you quote (which is the rule on simulation) does not get any consideration the moment the referee determines that he was fouled. Just because players don't get cautioned every time for the minor types of simulation you quote does not mean that such actions aren't against the rules. By your very flawed logic you might as well say that because players don't always get booked for holding and shirt pulling in the penalty area that the rules don't say that holding and shirt pulling is not allowed. Presumably you can provide some quote or reference to support your opinion that the rules on simulation do not apply if the referee judges that the player actually was fouled? What you are saying is that it is perfectly OK under the laws of the game for a player to feign injury in order to make an offence look worse than it actually was, provided that the referee actually awards a foul. You must accept that whether the referee awards a foul or not, the intention and actions of the player simulating is exactly the same and therefore should logically be dealt with in the same way.

The bit I have highlighted is total codswallop. The moment the referee makes the decision that Oshaniwa has committed a foul, then Sho-Silva's reaction does not come under consideration...unless he retaliates. He could have gone down and rolled all the way to the centre circle, it would have still not resulted in him getting booked. I don't think it is me that is talking total codswallop. The rules of the game state that a player should be cautioned if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled." These are two separate things and therefore with respect to feigning injury it is irrelevant whether the player has actually been fouled or not. Equally, any action the referee may have taken against the player perpetrating the foul is also irrelevant. Sho-Silva's did not pretend to be fouled because he clearly was fouled, but what he may have done was to feign injury in a misguided attempt to draw the officials' attention to the incident. If the referee felt that the foul could not have led to the level of injury ShoSilva's actions were indicating, then under the laws of the game he should have cautioned Sho-Silva for feigning injury. I am offering absolutely no opinion as to whether Sho-Silva's reaction was inappropriate or not, all I'm saying is that because he went to ground, the referee had a decision to make which he would not have had to make had Sho-Sliva stayed on his feet.

Whether he went to ground or not should be irrelevant with respect to whether the Hearts player got sent off or not. If the officials saw the punch, regardless of how hard it may have been, then the player should be off. If the officials did not see the punch then the player should stay on. Going to ground after the punch was thrown cannot change whether the officials saw the punch or not. If the victim of a punch goes to ground then the referee needs also to consider whether that is a reasonable response to the punch that was thrown. If the referee decides it wasn't then the "victim" might also receive a card. Best to stay on one's feet IMO but we do need the clubs and the footballing public to expect firmer action from referees and the SFA to address all the cheating nonsense off the ball that has become such an integral part of the modern game.

I wonder if Corbyn's election will have that much impact on Scottish politics. What the SNP have done rather successfully is to persuade a generally left of centre Scottish electorate that they will have a greater chance of a left of centre Government if Scotland is independent. I am sure they will argue that a more left wing labour party stands even less chance of winning a UK election and that therefore there is even more reason for left wing voters in Scotland to vote SNP. Added to which, Corbyn is not the leader of the Scottish Party. Dugdale is and she is clearly some way to the right of Corbyn. It will be fascinating to see how changes in the Labour party at a UK level impact at a Scottish level, but I really can't see the Labour parties achieving the kind of stability and clear policy position required to make any kind of recovery in Scotland in time for the Holyrood elections next year.

Good to see Meekings and Vincent back and new boy Storey certainly justified his starting place. Getting Draper back to his usual position gave us more bite in midfield and helped make Tansey a bit more effective again. With Tremarco back at Left back Williams was freed up to a more attacking role and with the new lads coming in there is now serious competition for places despite the on-going injuries. But for me, the most pleasing thing about tonight's performance was the way we defended the lead. After a spell of Hearts pressure we made a couple of attack minded substitutions and a proper game of football broke out. Rather than just sit deep and absorb the pressure (or, far too often, fail to absorb the pressure) we went looking for a 2nd goal and were rewarded with an excellent finish by Storey. After a dismal first half we got some fan friendly footy and the crowd responded accordingly. Let's have more of the same, please!

HT 0-1 FT 1-2 ICT Christie Opp Paterson Time 31

BBC website Top Stories Labour voting ends amid ballot claims 1 hour ago New human-like species discovered 8 hours ago I wonder if the two stories are related?

I hope Vincent hasn't got the same agent.

Don't think he was in the slightest bit interested in playing for us.

PerfICT, Sneckboy. You normally make such sensible posts. What's happened? It seems young Ryan's departure has you all in a tizzy Let's get a bit of "Perfsnecktive" here. Nobody is saying Ryan is not a good player and nobody is saying his departure won't make us weaker in the short term. We would only be stronger if we replaced him with a better player - which is probably unlikely. Making a comparison with Messi is even more absurd than most of the hype (although no doubt very tongue in cheek). According to the stats on the website, Ryan has scored just 9 goals during his career here. Some way short of Messi and someway short of his old man as well! He is a good player with the potential to be a very good player but the level he has reached so far is broadly in line with other decent midfield players we have had and who have moved on e.g. Cowie, Rankin, Hayes, Robson. Of course I would like him to have stayed, but we always knew he would go sooner or later. So be it. He's moving on so let's just accept it and recognise that most of the players who contributed to the club's success last year are still here (albeit on crutches). It is maybe time to give them a bit of appreciation rather than trying to hype up Christie to God like status compared to the rest of the team. Thank you, Ryan. Goodbye and good luck.

Do you go to games? Do you? There is a player of the year poll on this site for folk who do go to matches, so let's have a look at what they think. We have had 3 home league games this season and there have been a total of 101 votes for MOTM. Christie has received just 5 votes for MOTM and 9 votes as runner up. This compares with Williams with 39 votes for MOTM and 16 as runner up. Interestingly, one of our much maligned new signings, Mutombo, has12 votes for MOTM and 22 for runner up. I think this evidence supports that Ten4 has it just about spot on. Christie is good, but he has only just "emerged" and has only rarely had a game where he has been very good. Some of the hype about him really is very OTT.

I'm sure he is very excited by this move but his reported comments really do illustrate the problems we face. We keep saying that one of the major factors in keeping gates down are the number of people who are local born and bred but who support the OF in preference to their local team. One can understand folk who developed an allegiance years ago before ICT existed, but youngsters like Ryan have grown up knowing nothing other than their local team being in the Scottish League system. In Ryan's case it is much worse. His Dad played for ICT, managed ICT and still works for ICT. Ryan himself has come up through the junior ranks of ICT and it is ICT, right from the Chairman down to everyone else in the club, who has supported him, helped him and nurtured him in becoming the player he is today. If anyone should be an ICT fan through and through it is Ryan Christie. If he isn't first and foremost an ICT fan, then can we really complain at anyone else for not being one? Maybe I am being a little unfair on the lad. He is, after all, paid to play football and not to communicate and the media will encourage a Celtic fan story line. But his sentiments as reported does the club no favours at all. Hopefully some more considered comments will be reported and in future Ryan will declare to the world that whilst delighted to be a Celtic player, he is first and foremost a fan of the club that has made him what he is - Inverness Caledonian Thistle.

I know we are all disappointed that Ryan has been sold and that we didn't get more for him but that does not mean that Celtic have done anything wrong in the way they have gone about their business. You may think Celtic paid too little for him but where were the better offers? Why on earth should Celtic pay more for a player than the selling club is prepared to accept? Our Board were under no obligation to accept any offer so if you are unhappy about the sale have a pop at the Board for accepting the offer and for not having Ryan on a longer contract, or have a pop at Ryan himself if he was unwilling to move anywhere other than Celtic. Exactly what aspect of the deal (as much as we know of it) shows unfairness and a lack of respect on Celtic's part? We may wish the league to be more even but it is what is and Celtic, quite rightly, will look after their own interests first and foremost. They know they are going to win the league at a canter and their focus is on Europe. But bear in mind that if Celtic are successful in Europe then we all benefit. Had Celtic reached the group stages of the Champions league then there would have been a considerable payment to all the SPL clubs. Let us hope that next season Ryan's contribution can help Celtic reach the Group stage and benefit comes to us and the rest of our league as a result.

No they haven't. They have simply done a good bit of business. Nothing wrong with picking up a bargain on the last day of the sales.

Presumably whilst the transfer window shut at midnight there is nothing to stop clubs signing out of contract players at any time. There is maybe a bit more value to be got there and Ofere would be a good shout in my book. But really! Billy left us in January since when we've come 3rd in the league and won the cup FFS! Surely this is a club which has a reputation for developing players and providing the opportunity for some exposure for players looking to develop and last season's success should make us a more attractive proposition than ever before. In addition, we should have a shade more cash than ever before so I think folk are absolutely justified in expressing concern about the current situation. Of course, it may be that the new signings come up trumps and we wish then well, but from what we have seen of those who have played and what we have seen of the history of today's signings there is nothing which gives any indication that they will be able to succeed at this level. Let's face it, scoring just 2 or 3 goals a season for the last few seasons for teams at the wrong end of the English system does not fill one with much anticipation. We have a problem, and the fact that this thread is now well over 800 posts says it all.

Hmm. That would explain continuing frantic activity to get a striker on board. If it is £600k with Ryan back on loan for some or all of the rest of the season then it is not a great deal unless there are clauses for significant future payments for Ryan's future appearances or subsequent transfer. I suppose an option could be that Ryan leaves straight away and we get Stokes on loan but I agree that it looks unlikely that he will come here.

Apparently he's been out on loan to Newport County - I wonder if it is Terry who has recommended him

If we do get Stokes on loan then I think on balance this is not a bad deal at this point in time. You might argue that we should have had Ryan on a longer contract and you might argue that we should have been able to find a half decent striker by now, but that fact is we have managed neither of those things. What this deal gives us for this season is to retain Ryan's services and we get a decent striker who seems to be most prolific when playing for Yogi. Stokes may not be a regular in the Celtic first team but he's still only 27 and should be a regular scorer for us. That in turn should help in getting a few more through the turnstiles. £500k may not sound a lot for a player of Ryan's potential but one needs to remember that he's far from the finished article and hasn't had too many outstanding performances (for instance, superb against Celtic in the Semi last year but rather ineffective in the final). And let us suppose that an English club had come in with a £1million bid and no loan clause - what then? Apart from the fact that Ryan may not want to move to England, we would have had no Christie and no proven striker and precious little opportunity to use the cash to fill those gaps. This way we keep one good player for a season, get a much needed quality striker for a season and have £500k in the bank which can be used to help with extending contracts of other players we want to keep. Clearly we also need to start planning for next season when we are likely to have neither Christie or Stokes. The cash may help us to do some more permanent business in January.

Have to agree with that one. Probably a sentimental decision from Butcher to give his buddy one last big deal after all their years working together. Richie delivered for Butcher, and Butcher delivered for Richie. Seems fair enough, although maybe not such good business from the club's perspective! To be fair, he certainly didn't look 'past it' before his injury, so he might still come back into the team and make a significant contribution. Since this thread is about looking on the bright side - we've had a terrible start but we aren't isolated at the bottom. In fact, one win would have us knocking on the door of the top 6. We've also now seen enough of the SPL to discern that most of the other teams aren't any better than us. actually Bucher had left the building when Foran got his contract. In fact I think it was also signed before Yogi arrived! Asked whether he was going to sign a contract extension Foran had said that he was waiting to see whether Butcher would sign an extension and then he would decide what he was doing. Far from signing a contract extension, Butcher decided not to honour his current contract and went elsewhere and almost immediately Foran signed his long term contract . Read into that what you will.

Mutombo's dismissal sounds utterly stupid but on the plus side it does perhaps indicate a level of passion. Mutombo's suspension might also force the manager in giving some game time to one of the youngsters. I recall a few years ago when Butcher consistently preferred Barrowman to Rooney. Barrowman was injured and Rooney had his chance. The rest is history.

Sounds like a disappointing end but I think we would have taken a 1-1 draw before the game. We at least can blame our poor start on injuries to some extent. We may not be happy but I think we are happier than this Kilmarnock fan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3QtbD5jHK0 Priceless! - but don't click on the link if you are offended by the odd naughty word!

With respect, I think you are missing the point here. It is not in dispute that the Highland scheme seems to work very well, indeed it is the success of the this scheme and others like it which has led the Government to propose Scotland wide role out of the named person concept! The problem is the wording of the legislation which many bodies are interpreting as promoting a much more proactive and intrusive role than the current successful schemes adopt. It must surely be a concern to those of us supportive of the Highland scheme, that such a large number of bodies representing those staff currently engaged in the successful pilots have voiced such strong concerns about the wording of the legislation. These bodies, which include professional and staffside bodies for nurses, teachers, police and social workers, represent the very people who make the current schemes a success. If they are united in their concerns about the legislation then I think we should also be concerned. Personally I don't see anything sinister in this, it is just sloppy drafting and scrutiny of the legislation. But the danger here is that some local authority or agency or even an individual will adopt a much more intrusive and inappropriate approach which they would be able to justify as legal because of the way the legislation is written. The point is not that the concept of a named person should be opposed but that the legislation as currently written needs to be opposed and amended. This is necessary to ensure the named person role does not become more intrusive than is currently the case in schemes in Highland and elsewhere where the named person concept has been introduced successfully.

One of the real concerns I see is that so many of our players are on contracts only to the end of this season. Had we started off this season as we had last season, then the prospect of another good finish in the league and perhaps another taste of Europe next year, would have seen us in a much stronger position to retain our current players and attract new players. Hopefully our injury crisis will ease soon, our new recruits will demonstrate that they can perform at this level and we will start to make progress up the table. However, if we have not turned things round by the end of the year and find ourselves in a relegation dog fight we will be having players queuing up to sign pre-contract agreements elsewhere. We have rightly been seen as a club which has developed players and allowed them to move on to bigger clubs and as long as we are successful then they may hang around here a little longer - but they have not come here to play in the Championship. If we get relegated we will lose many of our better players and there is not a chance we would bounce straight up like before. Of course our injury crisis is serious but in my view the current contract situation is probably a more serious threat to our longer term success. If we are struggling at the back end of the season and if the bulk of our players are not signed up for the following season then it will not matter a great deal to them whether we stay up or go down. If they are signed up for a further year they will have a huge motivation for the club to avoid the drop plus we would still have them the following year in the event of us getting relegated. It is therefore pretty urgent that the club looks to extend contracts ASAP. And, of course, ensuring players always have at least a year on their contracts means we are more likely to get money for players who do depart. So whilst it is not all doom and gloom at the moment and there is certainly no need to panic, it does make good sense to recognise the implications of not pulling things round and to take steps now to mitigate the potential effects of that. If there are players in the squad with less than a year on their contracts that the manager would like to keep here then they should be told that they either renew before the January transfer window or they will be released at the end of season. You can't stop a player leaving but at least that way you maximise the chance of getting some transfer fees into the club and you maximise the time available to find a replacement.