RicoS321

If it's good enough for queens park.... Again, it should go back to what the players themselves want. If it's been their dream to play the national stadium, then it does seem a little shite to piss on that because of image, or whatever the justification would be for moving it. However I think, more generally, the women's game has missed an opportunity in this country by aligning itself with the clubs in the men's game. They've actually looked at the game in this country (and the wider men's game) and thought that was a model worth emulating. In that sense, you're correct, they could have toured their game across the country and not centred on Glasgow. They could have produced a model based on fairness and sporting integrity and marketed themselves as the antithesis of the men's game. Now that it is effectively amalgamated with the men's game, the question then turns to one of why don't we (the women) have what they (the men) have, rather than: this a women's game designed by women along our principles and for that reason it is different (and in our opinion, better). Questions about Hampden shouldn't even be on their radar.

Maybe just ask the players what they want? I was at pittodrie last night for the women v Montrose and it was a great game and atmosphere despite only the main stand being filled. Having been to several of their other games at Balmoral, last night's crowd was bigger because of the change in venue, with a decent away support too. I'm guessing that despite the venue being too big, the crowds are still always larger than they otherwise would have been.

Tom Ritchie? It's been a while since we've had a keeper through the youth (Esson the last to play more than a handful?).

Any chance of getting Mitov from St Johnstone? A year left on his contract. The keeper situation worries me, and I'd like for us to have a known quantity, and he's been very good any time I've seen him. Kicking maybe not brilliant, but not terrible either.

Yep, that's basically all it is. Very much like Shinnie, his footballing ability was limited, but his workrate and pressing were fantastic. It makes it even more unbelievable that Goodwin saw fit to play him as a holding midfielder in front of the defence when his main attribute was his coverage. The equivalent of playing Willow Flood there. You wonder how this isn't coached into more limited players more often. I'd like to think that most adult males would be capable of running long distance regularly. Imagine Polvara added fitness and mileage to his game for example? I'd love to see some stats around Miovski, this season versus last, as it's very clear he's added a mile to his game, with his workrate being a simple, yet massive, improvement. Edit: shoddy work from Ferguson too, always knew he was 12 yards short of being the real deal

Buckie fucked by the establishment?

Agreed. It's the usual pish, people get it in their heads that "his legs have gone" or some other shite, and then apply conformation bias to their view, ignoring all other evidence to the contrary. Polvara did okay in the first half against the Tims, but his overall coverage isn't great, neither his stamina. That second half passed him by, and it was then that we needed Shinnie's presence to do the hard work. He's easily got another season in him before any chat about legs going and the tired, clichéd pish needs to get rolled out. Also, we've seen plenty of instances where Shinnie and Barron have played well together, so there's no issue with the balance of the midfield. It really just does depend on those two turning up and playing well. More importantly, not throwing away ridiculous goals at the back.

You really wouldn't. You'd never get me off. Think of Michael Stewart, but more argumentative.

That's probably the weirdest take on BBC bias I've ever heard.

The assistant would have been slightly behind Miovski, horizontal to him, I doubt he'd have had any real view of the ball hitting hand. Similar to the real time view on camera. Penalties for those types of incidents are a nonsense anyway, they're entirely distorted when viewed back and slowed down. The suggestion was that it would have been a pen if it was inside though.

No you wouldn't

I should have added that I also think that you are right to highlight all the good output they do, I think you're correct. I thought their coverage was good at the weekend and the championship coverage on a Friday excellent too. Their main radio show on a Saturday is appallingly bad since Richard Gordon left.

A perpetuating cycle if that's how you design your system. The BBC's very reason is to not unfairly bias one or other because they have more money, more supporters etc etc. They are incredibly biased, sadly. Not as biased as the daily record (or whoever) isn't a barometer of anything and, if anything, the BBC should actively counteract it, as it would, say, gender bias. The problem of bias in our game is the leading cause of it going through its worst period in its history and the BBC perpetuates, refusing to even recognise, it. It's a real shame that our clubs don't do more to call it out but, as you say, clubs like our own benefit from getting slightly more coverage than St Mirren and so on.

As @BigAl says, he's played a few for Watford now, so he'll be looking at a higher level than us given his length of contract. I think we have to be going for a left sided player too, it's fairly important at the level of player we're going to be looking at. Macdonald's error at the weekend came because of him not being able to confidently stride forward on his wrong foot. We've seen Gartenmann be a little shakey when he played there too. Pollock's strong suit isn't his ability on the ball, so you'd never want to play him wrong side, similarly Rubezic. We've put our eggs in the Rubezic basket for now, I don't see us getting a similar player in on big wages. People will say that the left/right foot thing shouldn't matter in professional football, but it definitely does. It's basically giving a player a handicap unnecessarily, so you'd have to sign someone who's, say, 10% better than a natural left footer just to remain equal. We've got a blank slate to sign someone, so we can afford to be picky. I really hope we're not going with Jensen for next season.

This guy's shite. Should go for Lennon.

Whilst I had no issue with the commentary at the time, I agreed with their assessment, they didn't have access to that image, or anything approaching that. That's a bit like the SFA providing the lines after the event for our goal against Livingston to "prove" that guessing was the correct thing to do. The lads in commentary might have been correct, but they couldn't say so with any degree of certainty. In fairness, from memory, I think McFadden actually said "I don't know" in his assessment. Good to finally see a photo to put the incident to bed though, even if it has clearly been doctored by the masonic Catholic HunTims in the VAR room.

I'd be very happy with him, but I wouldn't be very happy with the inevitable months that the Tims will spend fucking us about only to tell us that he's only available for loan, one week before the window ends. The reality is that Scales will likely be backup there next season, but he won't be made aware of that in time for him to make an educated decision to join another side at the beginning of the window. It'd be far too high risk to go into another season waiting around to fill a key position, so if we've got options elsewhere, then it'd be best to pursue them. Ideally we'd be looking at someone with SPFL experience for centre half, but there's really only Findlay at Killie, who I don't think would come, or maybe Dunne that fill that criteria. Taylor at St Mirren looked excellent early season, but his form seemed to take a dip.

I thought it was okay, however they missed the fact that the ref was pointing towards our goal for the penalty incident, and they failed to find out, or show what the actual decision was given for. Also, MacLeod has a weird erection for all things Celtic for a Dons fan. Waxing lyrical about the number of finals, winners medals for McGregor etc without any hint towards the huge structural bias in their favour is just weird. Otherwise, it was decent I thought. Like almost every other provider these days, they can't have a second to breathe in their coverage, which is really frustrating. Every moment the ball is out of play must be filled with player close-ups, fan close-ups, manager close-ups, which means you don't get to see any of the positional play - how quick we are to gain shape, if we're pressing high on throws or whatever. I hold the BBC to a higher standard, as it's not just there to hold viewer's attention like the private channels, but I realise that's extremely unfair. I suspect they don't do their own production anyway these days.

I think their opinion on Scales has significantly changed for the worse over the last few months. I don't see him being in their starting eleven next year. The long stint in their first team will have put him beyond our means now though, which is fine - he would see us as a big step down, and will likely get a shot down South or abroad based on his initial performances. Which brings us to our defence. Somebody like Scales would be exactly what we need. Gartenmann had a really good game at the weekend, as he's had in many of the bigger games, but he struggles against the big lad that a lot of our crappier opponents deploy. We need that physical presence that Rubezic (or someone like him) offers to compliment a guy like Gartenmann. Howwver, Rubi is right footed, and that means Gartenmann having to play on his left. Given that he's just a loanee, I'd think that keeping him on is not good business for us unfortunately. MacDonald should be backup for Rubezic, Jensen should be let go, and we go into the market for a left sided centre back to play alongside Rubi. He should be good on the ball, with a good reading of the game, to balance out Rubezic's obvious flaws.

He's already downed tools, doesn't give a fuck. He's Aberdeen through and through now, just going through the motions with those Swedish losers.

The foul in the build up never gets called though, the Miovski one you mention was a VAR call after the event that the ref missed. There is no option for VAR to stop play that quickly. The ref on Saturday seems to be an outlier, in that he saw a foul and didn't blow. That only occurs for offside normally. Agree about the manufacturing of fouls. The Scales one on Saturday would have been such a case if it had been given. A total unintentional handball at point blank range, which everyone can see in real time that the player knows little about. Slow it down and repeat it enough, with the instruction to find a foul in this incident, and you can quickly remove all context and give a penalty. That type of thing wouldn't have even made the highlights a few years ago, and nor would Miovski have been claiming for it. Now, even the most anti-VAR of us are discussing these types of incident in a different way "we've seen them given" etc. We've been drawn into the VAR way of discussing the game. First, let's be clear, Bobby Madden is a dick. Secondly, he's talking absolute shite. We've had these discussions from way before VAR's introduction, it was obvious to anyone that it is impossible to limit VAR to those incidents that are "clear and obvious", because there is no possible definition of what that means. Why is anyone even suggesting that after seeing the thing in action? Is he fucking deluded? How, exactly, do you define the Henry incident (the lampard one is easily covered by goalline technology)? Where is the defining marker that makes Henry's incident a "big error", and one that isn't? What happens when the Tims get an error defined as big enough to intervene, and the Huns don't? The answer is that they slowly move back towards where we are now, as was predicted by me and everyone else that discussed VAR before it poisoned our game (in any country). There is no such thing as a clear and obvious error, it has no definition, so Madden can fuck off. Why on earth does he want the game ruining, time wasting, offside shite still to exist too? Is a guy 6mm offside a clear and obvious error that has gained the attacker an unsporting advantage? 20mm? A yard? Are there really that many offside decisions so egregious, where a player has gained a huge advantage, that the technology is worth it? Of course not, because Madden's world doesn't exist. If it did exist, then it'd only intervene in about four occasions per season and would be as worthless as goalline technology.

The idea is that you allow the attacking team to finish their move in case the original call is incorrect. It makes sense (sort of) for offside, as that is an exact yes/no call. It makes zero sense in a subjective call for a foul. You're basically then VARing for a subjective foul and then any other subsequent subjective events afterwards. If the referee sees a foul, then he should always blow for it. I've not seen an incident like ours before, and I'm not sure if the ref's approach was correct. The reason that you should just blow for a freekick, is otherwise there are two potential ways that exactly the same incident can be refereed. The referee could have let the incident play out and called the penalty (it was a penalty, apparently, that wasn't in question), thus VAR is making the decision on whether there was a foul in the build up. The referee's approach meant he was going to VAR saying: I have given a foul, is that a clear and obvious error. I have no doubt that in this instance, the two approaches would have garnered different results. Quite simply, if the referee thinks something is a freekick, then he gives a freekick. If he isn't sure, then it isn't a freekick. VAR offers nothing with his approach, and all he has done is sought to sway VAR's more accurate decision. Remember, in the case of offside being allowed to continue, the decision made by the onfield linesman has (and can have) no bearing on VARs decision, which is the important distinction. The linesman only actually raises his flag if a goal is scored in order to signal to the crowd, and also to make his decision in case of an issue with the technology. I'm glad you took this into the VAR thread, as I don't think the decision necessarily had an impact on the match, and it's not a case of partisan sore loserness, it's just a comment on the technology itself and how it was used.

Both calls were as they were if VAR hadn't been there. The Hoilett one saw Robertson blow for a freekick near the spot, making it look like he had given a penalty. He allowed play to continue (in a first for me) to see if we'd score, which caused all the confusion. That is VAR protocol and wouldn't exist without it.

I thought Robertson had a decent game in general, but the second pen is definitely a failure of some sort of protocol. Robertson let play go on as if it were an offside call, only giving the foul when the penalty incident occurred. He gave the decision in advance of the VAR check, which isn't the done thing, he should have given the penalty and let VAR decide on the foul, as he clearly wasn't certain on it. Because he made the call, the VAR can then just play the not clear and obvious card and avoid the call. Had he not made the decision, I'm absolutely certain VAR wouldn't have given that as a foul - because it fucking wasn't one. Again, just another inconsistency of VAR that makes it impossible for anyone to understand and follow what's going on.

Looking at the penalty one again, it appears that the ref let play go and called it once the penalty incident occurred, in the same way as linesmen are told to let close offsides go for the play to develop for the attacking team. Is that a first in football (that a ref has allowed play to develop following a foul rather than an offside)? I've never seen or heard of it before. It's intriguing. There's a good five seconds between the incident and him giving it, that's just not the done thing, anywhere.