weeyin

There's only 7 points between 3rd and 10th. Not quite as tight as the Championship, but any team that strings together a few decent results is going to make a positive move up the table.

It would be like watching a GA team, but without the flowing football.

I remember I was gutted when we let him go. Letting him go to Accies was just rubbing salt into the wound.

The great thing about Graham and Pettigrew is that when you watch some of their highlights today on Youtube, they are as good as you remember. Which can't be said about a lot of players. They did set my expectations way too high in my formative footballing years, though. I thought players like that were just how it always worked. Give them the ball and they score. Easy.

Bobby Graham the latest inductee. I loved watching him as a kid - Graham/Pettigrew, what's not to love? Fantastic player, but it wasn't until I was much older I discovered what an impressive record he had at Liverpool despite a restricted number of appearance thanks to the St. John and Hunt partnership. As well has his time at Fir Park, one of my other memories was seeing him after he moved to Accies. I was in the supermarket in Hamilton (Fine Fare probably) and spotted him, cigar in hand, gold bracelet and 1970's issue shearling coat.

We don't need additional height in our defence, we need a bit of pace.

26 shots at Fir Park, we lose 3 - 0. 17 shots at Tynecastle, we lose 3 - 2 If we take 8 shots or less in our next game against them, we should win. While you ponder that, take your pick...

At least we got to practise last week.

Delighted to see VAR is eliminating the poor decisions and controversy in the game.

Not to mention that when we take advantage of the system to sign a player we like = creative bit of business

I get the feeling KVV just does what he wants regardless of instruction. Having said that, I don't think he's cut out to be a lone striker. Much more productive when he has someone along side him.

Not really. How many game changing bad decisions can you remember being awarded against us last season? Then how many of those would have been eligible for review by VAR? And how many of those were clear and obvious errors that should have been overturned? And if they were clear and obvious errors that should have been overturned, how many would actually have been overturned by our VAR officials?

If you weren't laughing he was definitely telling a joke.

Why was it pointless? SH had almost zero time to add to his inadequate squad when he took over, so he brought in a loan for a player he knew in a position we were lacking. Not only that, but our loan agreement said if he picked up a long term injury we could terminate the deal. Pointless would have been signing him on a 1 year permanent deal.

They've had VAR in England for much longer and its still a bit of a shambles there too. I was listening to Bob Mills on Fighting Talk at the weekend, and having suffered it for longer, he has the same perspective as me. Basically, VAR has sucked much more spontaneity and enjoyment out of the game than one or two incorrect decisions against your team in a season ever did.

It's always worth taking your case to the disciplinary panel as, regardless of how valid a decision was on the pitch, they have a long track record of overturning decisions for no good reason.

If we perform our usual trick during the world cup break we'll manage to add two or three more to the long term injury list.

I think we just bottled it in the second half, scared we'd give up the three points. Although, tbf, Kelly wasn't tested much,

A few more details from The Record:

If Hearts field their U20s side in their Euro tie we'll know they are taking us seriously. 1 - 1 with a late Hearts effort chalked off by VAR (sending Craig Levein into a rage).

I think the entire Utd video team had the day off. There were pictures on the live stream on Saturday that were so distant and wide-angle they looked like they were using the cameras in Dens Park.

Completely agree that it should be a basic requirement that pundits should know the laws of the game. I also agree that it would be ideal if refs were allowed to explain their decisions. Even if we disagree with them, they are a lot easier to understand and accept if they tell you how they saw it from their vantage point and what law they applied in the circumstance.

Now we're just getting silly.

The ref gets to to see full speed, slowed down and freeze frame. He also knows the rules better than most fans. A good example of that is when Spurs had their goal disallowed in midweek. Most players, pundits and fans thought you can't be offside if the ball is played backwards, when there's no such rule. ( It's just that 99 times of out 100, when you pass the ball backwards there isn't anyone else in an offside position interfering with play.) And then there are the rules that rarely, if ever, come into play. Did you know, for example, if a red card offence is committed and the offender can't be identified then the red card is given to the "senior team official in the technical area"? For red card offences, the law is pretty vague. The relevant wording is "A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent" - the other part of that law is " or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play" which I think we can rule out in this case. So the ref has a lot of latitude here. I'd likely have been upset if our player saw red for that, but given incidents like Mugabi's red against Hibs in the cup, it's no surprise to me when they happen.

Is that the BBC ratings? They are just randos clicking buttons, a lot of them not even at the game.