dennyc

I'm pretty sure the change in the Law was to remove the situation where a player was red carded AND a penalty given IF a genuine attempt was made by the defender/goalie to win the ball. In that situation a yellow card is sufficient and should be issued. So 100% agree, Gordon should have received a yellow card as soon as the penalty was awarded. Clancy took it upon himself to ensure Gordon stayed in the game. But will the invisible/silent Head of Referees ask questions or even make comment? No chance. No doubt Motherwell will seek clarification and be brushed off again.

Agree 100%. Saturday was a classic example. From one angle the Watt red card looks harsh. But when you view it from that other angle, it is a correct decision. I can only think that is the clip Beaton reviewed and so he changed his decision. And that is a pat on the back to VAR. Even if Beaton is not allowed to comment afterwards, surely it would be simple enough to issue the supporting clip the following day, if not before. Might answer a few, valid, questions. And minimise costly appeals. Dermott Gallagher on Sky Ref Watch said he had seen such a clip and so the decision to issue a red card was spot on. Sadly Sky did not have it to show. Perhaps DG is an avid Steelmen Online reader. If that clip was available to Sportscene I wonder what Stewart, Faddy, Miller etc would have said then? Maybe would have helped them to arrive at a different opinion, supportive of the referee and VAR. But, let's be honest. Everything is a secret.

I think perhaps you should say "That's how VAR is abused". See it every week now. Referees abdicate decisions believing VAR will bale them out if they miss something. So they play safe and it isn't working. Same with Assistants and offside. Then again if Collum referees as he used to, VAR interventions will result in matches taking over two hours to complete.

Pretty sure McHugh got sent off on at least two occasions when there was no contact. That might have been the Craig Thomson/Willie Collum effect right enough but the reason given was that, despite there being no contact, his challenges were reckless with potential of serious injury to an opponent. Intent or otherwise was not a factor as is still the case. And that was well before VAR and freeze frames. So the "interpretation" aspect which causes all the debate has existed for ages. I do think it was a pretty harsh red card and agree if a foul had been given and a yellow issued that would have been sufficient. I don't think it was violent conduct. And I doubt VAR would have intervened. My concern is that from less than 10 yards away and with a clear view, Mr Beaton saw nothing wrong with the challenge. There was high contact. As long as referees continue to be incompetent VAR is needed and will repair some of the damage they cause, but only if the Authorities learn from early errors and there is a clear consistency and accountability. Given that it is those same incompetent referees that are operating VAR coupled with the lack of openness regarding inexplicable outcomes then sadly I fear we will continue to be frustrated by its use. The wagons appear to have been circled regarding Andrew Dallas not intervening last week. The referee missed the foul on Lamie but if he was not pulled up by Dallas, then I can understand why he called time. No apology or "We got it wrong and need to learn from our mistakes". That does not give me much hope for improvement. Wonder whose turn it will to be aggrieved next week?

In Germany a referee even insisted a team be brought out of the Dressing Room to allow a penalty to be taken following a review. And Goodwin clearly knew it should have been reviewed given his questioning of the fourth official when the whistle blew. No doubt we will hear the usual "It is a new system and we will learn" standard response.

I guess the VAR official was finishing off his Bovril then. Before he had a wee look. It seemed to take forever.

That is the kind of situation that will evolve and common sense should prevail. Hopefully. But if they wind it back and confirm a corner/free kick leading to a goal was mistakenly given, should that not be overturned? The VAR refereee might already have had doubts as he watched the game in real time. Or is that just tough luck? It might all come down to how far individual VAR reviewers decide to go back. Same applies to "was the ball out of play?" I can just see Celtic and Rangers players badgering the referee about a corner from which they concede and VAR checking "just to be fair". Maybe I just don't trust our officials. I agree that reviewing to last dead ball seems to make sense though. But is there any firm guideline? And we need to see consistency.

According to explanations in response to the St Mirren game, not only do they look at the actual goal incident, they also look back to the entire build up to check all ok. How far back looking for infringements they go is unclear, but in that St Mirren game it was way back to when the attacking team got the ball. I would not have thought that depth of check is always required....as in that first goal yesterday... but I can understand why at the very beginnings of VAR use in Scotland if that is the general instruction then decisions will take time. Kick off after our goal also took ages so I guess they also ran that right back to check. God knows for instance what happens if a goal is scored from a corner that is wrongly awarded. I expect that look back instruction will be reduced. Might also depend on the teams involved as does all officiating in Scotland.

100% agree Rangers and Celtic were no place to throw in Miller or Ferrie. Could have set them back massively. I think we possibly would have seen them in the other matches as subs had things been going well and we were not chasing games. When confidence higher and pressure less. Hammell will introduce Academy kids but only when he believes it will benefit them and not set them back. There is a balance to be found, thinking long term. That said I do expect Cornelius to feature more before the break, but he is ahead of Miller and Ferrie development wise. Playing kids just because you don't rate Goss etc (as Yodo proposes} is crazy..............cue abuse! As for yesterday, Cornelius and O'Donnell made a positive impact when they were introduced so that should speak volumes to Hammell. And at the end of the day only officiating incompetence deprived us the chance of a point. Inept finishing might even have deprived us of a win. Subject to scoring a penalty that is. Depressingly similar to the home game v Hearts when we would have been level at 1-1 and on the front foot going for a win, but for the McGinn miss from a yard out, with Hearts then running up the park and killing us off. I still also believe finding a formation that includes McGinn, O'Donnell and Penney would benefit the entire team, including the under fire midfielders.

He'll probably blame Yorkyred as well.

So just to be clear...... and this is a genuine question as I am getting mixed messages....... Would you have preferred Alexander to still be our Manager? Bottom line. If not, why not given the robust support you give him? Most people who believed his time was up gave him credit for keeping us up and also the points gathered in first half of last season (securing our top six finish), However they also recognised his and his team's failings in the second half of the season. Our style of play and the Sligo embarrassment only reaffirmed that view. I assume you see it differently? I don't believe any Club in the country would have stuck by him any longer given that last seven months. And I cannot buy into the view that folk wanted Alexander out for any reason other than the performances on the pitch and his inability/refusal to alter his approach. I do agree the treatment he received in Ireland was despicable though. I also note he has not walked into another job despite declaring he is available. Hammell has not gotten off to the greatest of starts but there is a freshness, structure and a unity there which gives me hope for the season ahead and the seasons to come. And not just for the first team. Sure, he does not have the credit in the bank that both Robinson and Alexander had, but in my opinion he will prove successful if the Club and the fans stick by him. As is the case with every Club worldwide, if he does ultimately fail, he will go. That's the nature of the job he and Alexander signed up to.

I agree with this to be fair. And by the same logic, no matter how much success in the past, there comes a time when current form dictates whether a Manager has reached his sell by date. The survival of the Club is what matters and when that survival seems to be in doubt action is always taken. The previous success really only buys a Manager a wee bit more time to turn things round. And that applies whether the surname is Alexander, Hammell or Guardiola.

I was hoping for that set up on Sunday. But I guess injuries and suspensions put paid to that. Finding two main strikers that can link up effectively is a challenge. I assume that will have been worked on in training with Van Veen and Moult but circumstances scuppered that possibility.

How quickly they forget. "Apparently"? The bit you miss out is the drain we were heading down under Alexander. Evidenced by the last six months....not just December to March.... of his tenure culminating in that shambles against Sligo which likely cost the Club a fortune. That's a pretty important aspect to ignore. Alexander did well originally and deserves credit and thanks for that. But his reluctance to adapt or acknowledge the need for change when we were in freefall ultimately saw him leave. The football on show was unbearable when the points dried up. For those Alexander supporters who now question the merit of replacing him with Hammell or anybody else I ask you if you really believe we would be better off had he stayed? And if the answer is yes, then on what basis that takes account of his performance in 2022? Hammell has made mistakes and probably will make more. But he is learning and is a breath of fresh air. In time I believe he will secure enough points to keep us safe and from there take us forward. Much is being made of one win in however many and of Sunday's narrow loss to Rangers. Admittedly a weakened Rangers side coming off a humiliation from a team that were Champions League runners up. Depleted team or not, every one of those Rangers players on Sunday would walk into our team. As for the current run of results let's consider the Shields penalty not awarded at Easter Road and the assault on Tierney at Celtic Park. All ifs and buts of course, but things could have been so different. Two draws there and the Ross County win would have been seen as an excellent return. Small margins. And most fans and pundits were of the view the Hearts result did not reflect the game. I guess that's why Motherwell were applauded off the park. When Hammell was appointed everybody (even those who were against his appointment for whatever reason) acknowledged he would need time and probably a lot of it to turn around the shambles he inherited and to introduce his own structure and ethos. How long has he been in charge? Twenty years since we have beaten Rangers in the League yet Sunday is a disaster it seems. No leeway given at all for our own run of injuries in the week leading up to the game and the fact we had a load of kids on the bench. Feels like a few on here (not you David) are licking their lips at the thought of Hammell failing and them being proven correct. Well, Alexander has gone and Hammell is the man in charge. People need to accept it. And he has the support of the vast majority of fans. How long should he get to prove himself? At least this season and a couple more transfer windows in my opinion. Beyond that, if things have not worked out, he will be history. As for Sunday? it wasn't great but it was much more of a competition than the game last April. Who was in charge then?

My main concern is that, as is the case in England, we will see a circling of the wagons when obvious refereeing errors are ignored for no logical reason. I agree with you that in time VAR should improve the standard of refereeing. But it might be a wee bit painful to start with until several egos are able to cope with having to accept that "to err is human". I also hope we do not go down the EPL route of putting our own slant on VAR, which caused confusion from day one and resulted in Uefa asking them to simply apply the Laws of the game as they stand. I had thought it would be preferable to have ex players involved in the VAR studio in support of current/retired referees, Having listened recently to former players confirm an embarrassing ignorance of the Laws of the game I am not so sure. And no amount of the co commentator pointing out that football has moved on makes any difference. Steve McManaman being a classic example.

And I'm still waiting of evidence that the Club has spoken out about the behaviour of fans in recent away matches in Paisley and Kilmarnock. Or at Dingwall that evening. Maybe I just missed it. I do remember Burrows highlighting the damage caused to Fir Park by Celtic fans and then it all going quiet when Celtic reacted. I was told at that time there was an unwritten agreement that Clubs would compensate for damage, quietly. If that is incorrect I stand corrected. Not saying Motherwell are the only Club that shy away from challenging their own fans behaviour. You only have to look to Glasgow for other examples. Does not make it right though. Plenty of fans are embarrassed and angry at what we see on a regular basis. You may not like to accept but Motherwell have a poor reputation because of the fans behaviour. And that brings us back full circle as to why Ross County might have felt it wise to isolate our fans in a small, more secure area of the ground. I think it was also likely cost played a part.

Happened two rows in front of me. Round about the time the water was/was not aimed at O'Donnell. The lady in question asked them to rein it in at which point she was approached by one guy in particular who gave her a mouthful. A few folk were about to step in when thankfully one of the guy's mates came over and dragged him away. But she was quite shaken. I think the stewards were occupied keeping the fans from jumping over the wall onto the trackside...again. Cannot recall whether the Police where there at that point. But interesting you prefer to look at the actions of the stewards rather than the behaviour of our fans.

I certainly think it is shameful to threaten elderly female supporters. If you do not, then there is little point of continuing the discussion.

Did Celtic pay for the seat damage at Fir Park? I understand they did and that it was common practice for Clubs to pay for ground damage caused by their fans. Certainly plenty of talk about damage caused by fans hurting their own Club financially. But No, I don't have a copy of any receipts. Well done on deflecting from the behaviour of the fans though.

Ah, I understand now. Better nobody comment on the shameful behaviour of a minority of fans at away matches. Self policed or not. Poor wee souls are only having a good day out. Fair enough. I guess the same applies to those Celtic fans who delight in defacing Fir Park. The hands off approach you appear to support might just be part of the problem.

No Agenda whatsoever. Have you heard the Club speaking out about the behaviour of some fans at away games? If so i stand corrected. Do you think that behaviour is acceptable or reflects well on Motherwell? I'm commenting on incidents I have witnessed personally, including a female fan at Ross County being threatened with violence. Or is that just high jinx and therefore ok?

As one of those retired fellows who made the trip up to Dingwall for a midweek game last season, I personally saw a large group of non retired fellows spend most of the match abusing stewards, spilling onto the trackside and threatening any Motherwell fan who questioned them. If that behaviour contributed to the decision to place the fans where they did this week then why are we surprised? In truth St Mirren and Kilmarnock would be well within their rights to adopt the same approach following incidents this season, including flare damage to the pitch. Might help if Motherwell themselves publicly condemned some of the goings on rather than just paying for any damage and appearing to turn a blind eye.

The point that is being ignored by the blinkered is that it is not just football that is/was cancelled, in Scotland or elsewhere. It is not some royalist, SFA, police supported attack on the common Scottish man as some suggest. As for this weekend, if the Police are required elsewhere then sport will have to take a back seat for another few days. It is not the end of the world. I would imagine all sporting authorities are trying their utmost to ensure as much sport as possible takes place over the next week or so. But it is not within their control. The Country wanted to pay their respects. And that included many Scots as the queues in Edinburgh today show. Police resources are spread thin. As a non Royalist that does not include me. but I respect and accept that the majority of the UK population wishes to do so, annoying and disruptive as that may be.

All they have done is cover themselves in case the situation changes and the police end up short staffed. So taking their statement apart word by word is pointless. We all know what is being suggested without needing a Dummies Guide To How Football Games Are Staged. And I did not say the police asked for our games to be postponed. So let’s not push that angle. I suspect games all over were postponed as a mark of respect. And quite rightly so. Now each event is being looked at on an individual basis. As per London on Sunday. I wonder if this debate would be taking place if there was no Royal connection.

Nonsense. The football authorities have no power to override IF the police decide to cancel games because of staffing concerns. So their leadership is not in question over this issue. Those sporting events you mentioned went ahead after police approval and after earlier postponements. And they would not have gone ahead if the police could not have provided the security required because their officers were required elsewhere. As in Edinburgh yesterday had the Hearts game remained scheduled. Police called in an extra 1000 officers from all over to deal with events yesterday. Cricket matches, football matches, girlies championship boxing, golf tournaments and horse racing were cancelled in England/Wales on Friday and the weekend as a mark of respect. Just as happened with our game at Dingwall. So to suggest other sports not governed by the SFA were not cancelled is just not true. Our lords and masters have history as you suggest, but to use this situation as a means to have a go at them is wrong. And as I type, Premier League games in England on Sunday are cancelled or kick off times moved because of pressure on Police numbers given other events being planned for in London. Given your comments I guess that makes the English football authorities as weak as our lot.