RicoS321

You have your wish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45491684 Interestingly, it looks like the club have gone with the Logan covering appeal rather than the video evidence of the tug on the jersey. Frustratingly, the SFA have not updated their website with the actual panel's decision which is as much of a disgrace as the decision itself. We can't see what AFC have argued or the panel's thoughts on making the decision. To me, Logan covering is debatable and not indicative of a definite error by the ref (in my opinion it is, but it's not unarguable). The tug on Devlin is a foul that directly resulted in Devlin having to foul the player in return - it's completely unarguable given the video footage. Again, be interesting to read the text whenever the fuck it arrives (which should be on day one of the decision, at the press of a button).

Actually, they don't. Not statistically anyway. It was/is very, very rare for either McGinn or Christie to be having a poor game and then suddenly produce a moment of magic. The number of games where McGinn especially was given a full 90 minutes (or even 20 minutes beyond what he should have) to try and produce the moment of magic with nothing forthcoming was very significant. I wish I'd taken some notes on it, because it's something I took issue with for a long time. People kept saying "McGinn can produce something from nowhere" but actually the evidence rarely backed that up. When McGinn is having a poor game, it's very obvious and it doesn't usually get better. Unlike Rooney, it was rare that you'd ever come away from a game saying "McGinn did nothing the whole game but then got that goal out of nowhere". A couple of games from memory - he got a free kick against St Johnstone despite being pap and another game against County. I think that the number of times we came away from a game saying that McGinn was poor and remained poor until subbed or the end of the game was in the overwhelming majority to the extent that a decision could have been made earlier to remove him from play. This isn't a criticism of McGinn, he plays in a position that is all or nothing (see GMS) in terms of impact and sometimes you just can't get the better of your opponent. He always works hard, but you can very much tell when he just doesn't fancy going beyond a player. It's those times where McInnes' caution comes in to play in my opinion. A McGinn that isn't at the races is not always better than Wright/Ross/whoever with something to prove. McInnes is a better manager than that. We don't need to do a like for like swap. Wright could easily have come in playing high up the park alongside another front man, with a slight change in formation to accomodate. Maynard on day one proved that he wasn't capable and that any minutes that he was getting were not warranted. Same with Parker, same with Monakana over Smith and so on. A youth player doesn't have to come on in exactly their preferred position, they need minutes on the park. I agree. I don't think that McInnes is doing a ridiculously bad job, I just think he could improve in a couple of key areas. I think that a club strategy on youth development, that was transparent (i.e. the fans could see it), would force his hand a little and help remove some of the percieved risk that he clearly feels is there. I'm not expecting Campbell (Anderson etc) to get 20 starts a season, but I am expecting him to get 15-20 minutes or so at regular intervals in the season. A policy of introducing youth earlier in games when 2 goals up (with obvious over-ride from the manager) or some such would be useful - too often we see a Ball or Forrester or other senior player introduced to keep them happy/give them game time when they shouldn't need or don't warrant that. There are plenty of occasions when a young player could have been thrown in when we were coasting (Wright didn't feature since January, which is just nonsense) but wasn't. Questioning player attitude is fine, but not questioning the effect on a player's attitude caused by sitting on a bench every week without hope of appearing isn't, and I don't think we've got that balance correct.

Okay, I accept that. I think that the issue is, then, that he probably holds the youth players to a higher standard than other players. When Christie went on a run of pap form he wasn't replaced, neither McGinn. At some point, what transpires on the pitch must be a function of what is happening in training and so they must have shown some drop in form in training too. Attitude is one thing, but again I expect younger players are held to a higher standard, maybe correctly so for their futures development. Again, I think the biggest issue for most is then 10-15 minutes that yer Maynards get just because their more senior when they are demonstrably pish.

That's why he cashed in.

Absolutely, he's not quite there yet. The overwhelming evidence shows that McInnes is very cautious in his approach - to the extreme. I don't think anyone would deny that, or suggest that it isn't an issue. To be honest, it's basic logic. Was Wright better spending 6 months on loan, or playing 22 minutes in 6 months? What mitigations could there be for this, and how does it benefit the player? Nobody is basing their opinion on guesswork they're basing it on limited, but accurate and useful, knowledge garnered watching the team and players' performances every week. From which, it is possible to articulate some pretty good questions that need answering. Did McInnes make a mistake in not sending Wright on loan? Did he do it to teach him a lesson because he was a young upstart (and, if so, did it work?)? Was he protecting the player in some way? Was there an unexpected upsurge in the performance of other squad players that meant it simply wasn't possible for Wright to get 15-20 minutes regularly? If so, why wasn't this visible on the pitch? "Average Joe" is asking pretty valid questions of a manager who has a responsibility to our young players, are we supposed to accept everything that happens without question? I'm not suggesting that McInnes hasn't got answers, I'm saying that we're not party to them so it's definitely worth discussing on a message board. The most obvious thing for me is that we don't appear to have a strategy with regard to youth development, nor an obligation or a set of targets. McInnes needs time to decide his preferred 11 this season, but come November we should have a good idea and we should start to see more minutes for guys like Campbell. In previous years we've fucked about with yer Maynards, Parkers and Monakanas well into the January window to the detriment of youth progress. There should be a strategy and a set of targets at club level to ensure that this occurs.

I think McInnes will persist with the Gleeson and Ball combo for a while like. I'd have Campbell out on loan with McInnes' record of playing youngsters. Six months at a good championship club. Playing should be the order of the day for these lads. Specifically playing against mannies.

With O'Donnell in, could easily switch to a back four too. Will be interesting. Not paying Sky £8 for it though, so won't be watching unless I can get a decent stream.

I'd play the 4 at the back too, but I understand McLeish's preference for a 3 or 5 at international level, especially on wide pitches like Hampden. Fraser has played wing back heaps of times for Bournemouth. Seems to have had all his trickery coached out of him and plays quite deep from what I've seen (admittedly mostly just highlights with the odd game here and there). I think he's the only option for right wing back in a 5 but I'd go with yer suggestion of O'Donnell in a 4 - I just don't see McLeish playing that way anytime soon.

McGregor's a better goalkeeper than Gordon. I'd definitely pick him every time. The pathetic shite with the lifetime ban was a media concocted piece of shite. The notion that any fan was sitting at home was offended by him and Ferguson's childish (and that's all it was) V signs was nonsense. A couple of matches out and an apology would have more than sufficed after such a minor incident. Neither O'Donnell or Patterson can play centre half and McLeish has consistently picked a back 3 (rightly or wrongly), hence why McKenna started the last few. Tierney has played a few games at centre half so he slots in where McKenna isn't. Looking at the other defenders, there aren't any others I'd have ahead of him at the back. O'Donnell is being kept out of right back by Fraser really, and Paterson plays his club fitba in centre mid, so would be in the same style of slight shoe-horning as Tierney at centre half. If we were putting someone at right back who doesn't play there any more then I'd have Jack over Paterson. Basically we're shoe-horning a left back into centre half because we don't have any other left sided centre halfs. Fair enough I'd say. I wouldn't trust a back two of Mulgrew and Souttar either. I'd maybe even have Tierney in the centre of the two in a sweeper role to cover for the numerous inevitable fuck ups those two would make. There's certainly no denying Tierney is a fantastic player and will get a serious move in the future if he wants it.

Aye, I see fit yer saying, I agree with you on that. If Murayfield were given the green light then there would be no need for the other two. Similarly if we chose one of Parkhead or Ibrox. The notion that we couldn't choose one of either Parkhead or Ibrox either is a symptom of the biggest problem in our game. I'm not sure why QP don't just put it on the market for sale to the highest bidder, be it for flats or fitever. That would stop the SFA dicking about and put the whole thing to bed. QP could get themselves a cracking stadium somewhere else with a wedge leftover for coke and stippers.

You might not agree with his opinion on this particular occasion (I think he's a populist dick) but he's certainly not speaking nonsense in that particular quote. His suggested solution is fairly logical and not controversial. Which parts do you have issue with?

Cheers min. Looks like a couple of drive-throughs or something? Yer classic Forfar roadsidesque Burger Kings or some such? Rank. Doesn't surprise me, if I'm not mis-reading the application, the site is exactly where a drive through chain restaurant should be. If that's what floats the dandies fan boat then that can only be a good thing. I think it backs up pretty much everything I've been saying. Also, it looks a fair distance from the new ground and along a dual carriageway of course. Also, "Aurora planning" have submitted this? "All for Aurora", Aurora planning?

Document unavailable?

Fuck, I forgot about Ferguson! Ditch Ball. I also forgot about Lowe! Wright won't get much game time if we're rotating McGinn and GMS in attacking midfield though. Given McGinn played several games as an auxiliary wing back and his tracking is good I'd think McInnes would do the same switching with Lowe and McGinn, GMS and Logan depending on whether we want to attack more or not. Given the fact that I've forgotten half our players, I think we should revert to 4-2-3-1. Or a 4-4-4-4 and give everyone a game.

If I recall he gave his MPs salary to charity didn't he? I could be making that up. The crowd funding thing is a touch crass, but if you believe your innocent and you want to make a statement about the way in which you have been treated then he's quite right. Charges as gross as those need defended in the dirtiest most public way possible if they aren't true. We have to assume that he believes they are. As you say, they're a reputation ruiner, and so it requires drastic measures. What is interesting is that former colleagues who are still MPs have donated to the crowd-funding which is either a sign that they're stupid or that they have inside knowledge that suggests the allegations are false. No politician wants to be left holding the "I crowd-funded the pervert" card I wouldn't have thought.

He enjoyed a bit of success with a variation of it at times post split last season. McGinn at wing back at times played very well for instance. We definitely have the personnel with a fit McKenna and it would suit us in many ways. I think we'd get a bit more out of all our strikers, who get isolated a lot in the 4-2-3-1. The only downside for me is shoe-horning in GMS somewhere. Arguably been our best player so far this season but wouldn't slot into any of the available roles comfortably. His tracking back is much improved though, and so no reason why he can't alternate with McGinn wide left when required. Logan would be first choice on the right, but again could switch with McGinn when we need to be more attacking. -----------------Lewis------------------ --------Devlin---Consi---McKenna----- Logan--Ball--Wright--Shinnie-----GMS ----2 of Wilson/Cosgrove/Ando/May--- Gleeson drops out due to his name being too long for a midfield 5 I'm afraid. I'll let McInnes explain it to him.

It was still be nice if Anderson made it impossible for the manager not to play him rather than May making it impossible for the manager not to play Anderson! I think the biggest problem Anderson will have is Wilson. If he's any good then he'll push May out of the first eleven. That'll push Anderson further down the order with May seen as the first sub (in McInnes' mind). Anderson looks like a decent impact sub (unlike May), and I hope he gets plenty of those appearances before throwing him, he's got time. Ten minutes once every 3 months like Wright is of no use. Good to see the influence Rooney has had on him, that can only be a good thing.

I'm 100% certain that the club would have put forward both reasons in their argument. For me, the Brophy tug is more pertinent because in order for Devlin to be the last man Brophy required to foul him first. As per the quote above from the Morelos case: "The video footage shows an earlier barge on the Player that the Tribunal believe, had it been noted it would have been acted upon" it suggests that had McKenna been pulled up for the barge then the kick wouldn't even have happened. That, for me, sets the precedent here and we can simply take the panel's exact phrase and substitute Devlin: "The video footage shows an earlier tug on the Player that the Tribunal believe, had it been noted it would have been acted upon". That's how the club should have appealed the decision - using the panel's own wording to present Devlin's case, thus giving them little room for argument. I don't think that's entirely true (or at least I haven't seen evidence of it). I'm pretty certain the refs know the rules, they're just not interpreting them consistently, which isn't unusual. The punditry, media and ex-refs have not helped by not knowing the rules and I think is exacerbated by not allowing refs to explain decisions. Agree about refs and crowd influence but do you think that folks on panels give a shite about the powerful voices? A bit like civil servants giving a shite about what politicians think I'd have thought? Totally agree with your conclusion though. I think we've locked ourselves in though.

Exactly this. We had ample opportunity to change that. That voting decision by Milne will go down as the worst in the history of the club and possibly Scottish fitba. Lickspittlery at its finest.

All those things are for professionals to decide, and I would think that we could all make a pretty good judgement call based on the facts in front of us - refs do this in every other decision. I would suggest that if McKenna is fatally injured then regardless of whether or not it was a petulant swipe then the red would not be rescinded. As both McKenna and Ajer were fine, then it was a fairly easy call as I suspect most would be. None of the examples you give would be particularly hard to differentiate. The rules are clear and in the case of Morelos it was also clear that it wasn't excessive force, thus it was clear that the decision was wrong going by the existing rules. Black and white doesn't exist in fitba, and that's what makes it good. Sending offs for kicking somebody harmlessly on the back of the legs cause they're winding you up are not what makes fitba good. The footballers clearly called it right in this case, as your example of Ramos rolling about at the slightest touch clearly backs up.

In terms of decisions by refs and the overturning of those decisions? No, I think it's fairly balanced. I think the entire setup of Scottish fitba is designed to the betterment of two teams, but I don't think that the refs/panels are against us. Nor do I think they are pro anyone shouting loudest.

I don't think that's evidence.

Is there any evidence that the opposite works? Will be interesting to see what the club put forward as reasoning (link below to SFA page where it'll appear in the next week). The visible tug from Brophy surely undermines the decision? There can be no argument that it affected Devlin and thus he brought down Brophy. The only argument could be that the player still knowingly brought down the player who was through on goal (he wasn't) and so regardless of previous contact he still made a red card challenge. However, there is precedent in the Morelos case that would confirm that previous incident can be used in defence of the accused: I don't see any circumstance in which Devlin's red should not have been rescinded if we put forward the argument that Brophy pulled him back first (accepting that the ref didn't/couldn't have seen this). https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

Nope. Not sure why it would? You've misunderstood it. The severity of harm to the injured party is not relevant, it's the likelihood of harm. The two will often go hand in hand of course in that if I two footed tackle someone in the balls it is going to hurt and it's a red card, but there are a large number that will be only based on intent. Similarly, petulant kicks like Morelos' aren't intent on causing injury. You're clearly not addressing that incident, as you know it wasn't and so do every other non-partisan viewer. In those cases it's clearly easy. If McKenna had gone down screaming and clutching his knee then the red would still have been rescinded as there was clearly no contact with his knee. In other instances it may be harder to adjucate and so the red would not be rescinded (ie. the same as exists currently). Your point about refs in the grassroots game aren't pertinent to the point in question, you're putting up a strawman argument based on verbal threats or abuse that nobody is arguing for or against and are covered in the rules of the game (new and old). In addition, the arguments I'm making are based on the fact that the law has already been changed some time ago, I'm not arguing based on the laws of the game that don't exist anymore (like I was when Morelos was originally red carded as I was unaware of the actual rules).

Yes. One has the potential to seriously harm if it is deemed reckless or out of control (depending on the challenge it could be, and often is, complete luck that a player gets there before the opponent) and the other is an act of petulance that is unlikely to cause injury. I'd have thought that's exactly how we'd want to view it? What you're saying happens all the time unspotted by the ref. Little digs in the ribs, shirt tugging, barging (McKenna), standing on toes, slagging his ma, homophobic abuse, racist abuse (Tims™) etc. etc. The kick that Morelos did, and probably the barging that McKenna did (given he repeated it) are yellow card offences. The notion that you can do it all the way through the game isn't true, it's covered by this ruling - you can do it twice and get booked twice. Morelos and McGregor's incidents were both yellow cards by the current rules governing the game (which has fuck all to do with the SFA). The ref in our game made a misjudgement on the severity of the Morelos incident just as Thompson made a misjudgement on Brophy's goalscoring opportunity at the weekend - both acceptable mistakes for a ref to make in theory. The panel's decision on these may vary, but I'm struggling to see how anyone can possibly say that McGregor or Morelos' acts were in any way worthy of more than a yellow on looking at the actual rules of the game - it's very clear cut. There is certainly no hun-bias in the decision. There could indeed be anti-AFC bias if they don't overturn Devlin's card but that has nothing to do with the hun decisions which were blatantly obvious to any impartial reviewer (unfortunately, hun cunts). McGregor got away with not getting a yellow card, Morelos didn't as his was subject to review. It's taken us by surprise because we (me included) did not know the rules and neither did any manager it seems (judging by Stubbs' reaction) and no BBC pundit did either until confirmed by DB the other night (which they then proceeded to ignore). As for "if this happened in the street", it's a bit of a stupid argument. If I sliding tackled someone in the street then I'd probably be cautioned, similarly if rugby tackling. The notion that sport should adhere to those rules is ludicrous. If someone punched someone in a game then they may indeed face a caution as that could be deemed a criminal offence, but that would be up to the police. There is nothing currently preventing them investigating incidents like these and it is not up to the SPFL to decide that. Similarly, if I bump into someone's car and a wee bit of handbags insued then the police would likely just calm the situation down and leave the resulting damages up to the insurance companies (varies depending on the officer of course, but you can see that it's not just fitba where things are open to interpretation). In terms of Ramos' actions, they are supposed to/should be entirely irrelevant. Ramos would likely see the opponent getting a red card in real time, but when reviewed by panel they'd reduce to a yellow. I'm not sure it has any bearing on the argument - simulation being a different problem. It was clear thon Ajer cunt acted in a "Ramos-like" fashion as he went down like he'd been shot. In grass roots fitba, refs appropriately deal with this shite all the time as they did before 1998 when gently kicking an opponent (see Beckham v Simeone) became some sort of vicious assualt.