Kmcalpin

I'm not sure that it is the most blatant red card going Tweed. Its not quite as clear cut as that. Probably nearer 50/50. As far as analyses go the Scotsman's attempt is not unreasonable although I don't agree with all of it. My point however is that the Scotsman (and other newspapers) don't subject all similar incidents to the same level of publicity and scrutiny. They are very selective about what they cover. By doing this, for reasons articulated by Weeyin, they give rise to a distorted and misleading coverage of Scottish football. The uninitiated or naive reader can easily misunderstand what is going on. Their raison d'etre is to maximise profits for shareholders, not report news objectively, and this is often disguised and concealed by the publications themselves. One element of this is to maximise sales, and in a footballing context, give fans of the bigger clubs what they want to read. One of the most ridiculous footballing articles I've ever read was published some years ago by the Scotsman. It was around the time before Hearts went into administration and had a whopping debt of about £26m. When all around were criticising Hearts and Romanov the Scotsman published an article which defended him and more or less said that this level of debt was a great thing and that every club should do it. What utter nonsense. Even diehard Hearts fans saw it for what it was. Football fans and indeed readers in general need to take what papers print with a large spoonful of salt.

Any update on the club's view of the "revised" proposals? Papers are reporting that Malky Mackay is saying all clubs are now behind the proposals or words to that effect.

Of course and I've no problem with that as long as they're up front about it but they're not and thats what irritates me. Consistency, fairness and objectiveness are simply not factors in their reporting but they pretend that they are. In addition too many journalists allow personal prejudices to colour their work.

It will come to light at some point.

The Scotsman is still at it. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/why-referee-didn-t-show-red-card-for-foul-on-kieran-tierney-1-4372652 Do they intend to highlight and analyse every similar incident in future? If not why not?

Yes, you're right - apologies for that. I retract much of what I wrote, but my principle assertion that the media have a huge influence over what is picked up still stands.

It just goes to show the power and influence of the media and in particular TV companies. I'd not seen the game before but it must have been a real thrill a second stuff if this controversial incident wasn't deemed worthy of inclusion. Maybe I'm being paranoid but it was one of Scotland's biggest clubs and BBC media darlings at that (Aberdeen) which was involved. Had it been a player at fault from a smaller club, like us, they'd have been all over it like a rash no doubt catching the interest of the Compliance Officer. Sports editors are acting like God here.

Tait was given a single game ban.

A lot is down to media coverage ie what they want to highlight and what they want to conceal. The previous Compliance Offer, Vincent Lunny, said that his staff trawled through TV highlights on a Monday morning to pick up potential cases. So its not an objective unbiased evidence gathering exercise.

I'm sure we've discussed this situation before but can't recall the details. The only way it can be changed, as I understand it, is if the ref mentions in his report that he made an error and it should have been a red card ie Darren Randolph V Hearts.

Maybe that'll necessitate the involvement of the SFA's Compliance Officer. TV pundits seem to have some sway in the corridors of power.

Just watched the TV highlights of the game. Covering & marking on our left flank for Celtic's second was non existent - real schoolboy stuff from us. Hopefully this is something Stephen Robinson can sort out. Forrest had all the time and space in the world to do what he wanted.

Just what Ian Barraclough said. You can't avoid picking up "impact" injuries. However soft tissue injuries are, to some extent, avoidable and thats why a fitness coach was brought in. Poor training techniques or warming up can indeed exacerbate these kinds of knocks.

Agreed. There's no point in firing a manager at this point in the season. By all accounts Robinson is a good coach and tactician who knows the club and many of the players. By comparison Faddy is very inexperienced and still learning. His presence will also help when MM is away on international duty. He can contribute a lot between now and May. In short a good move. In the longer term it does raise questions about the management team however.

Ostensibly you're right Andy but this temporary appointment raises several questions and implications in the longer term.

Funny that, I have him pencilled in as a left back. I suppose it depends on who is fit - McManus or Hammell

Thought you meant Five Year Plan, as thats how I've always used FYP but more likely Fixed Your Post?

It was always going to be a case of damage limitation and 2-0 isn't the worst defeat in the world. Our fight for survival starts now. We need to beat Dundee next week but what goes around comes around and our rivals have tough fixtures on Saturday. ICT though showed that Hearts shouldn't be feared.

A strange substitution - Bowman on fair enough but for Cadden?

I'm not Chalmers' biggest fan but is anyone playing in front of him?

According to the BBC Carl McHugh was available for selection today!

Again??

Some truth in that. I thought Jules might have been favoured ahead of Hammell but thats not the case. We'll play narrowly in the middle with Hammy being exposed. I would have thought that Lucas and perhaps Campbell might have been selected ahead of Clay and Lasley. Again I can see our midfield being swamped. Presumably MacDonald will play deeper behind Moult as opposed to beside him?

I'd imagine that it will go into a fund. However I don't know that for certain. Why not contact the Society direct and ask them and then there would be no dubiety?

My understanding is that we did receive a fee for Robbie Leitch.