Kmcalpin

Mark McGhee picks the team Iain and he rates Laing highly as a midfielder, so he must be a serious contender whether we agree or not.

Well said. Usually there is a lady at the corner of the Cooper stand car park, Wendy I think she is known as, who sells tickets. However from time to time she has not been available and so no tickets were sold but on Saturday, for the first time, someone else stood in for her. As far as the Main Stand is concerned, I can't ever recall anybody selling tickets there. In effect this excludes anybody approaching the Stand from Edward Street. In short the club must have lost several thousands of pounds every season by overlooking this. Not a fortune granted but the extra cash would be very useful.

I'm not sure that your assumption is correct. Given that Las was booked it would seem that the referee took the view that it was deliberate handball. Going by the above photo I'd say that Las is about 8-10 feet away from the ball, which doesn't give him a lot of time to react. Were his arms up to protect his face? Interestingly of the 15 outfield players in the photo, excluding Conor Ripley and the striker hitting the ball, about 10 could be deemed to have their arms in an unnatural position. What would have happened if the shot had cannoned off Las's leg and hit a Hamilton player on the arm or another of our defenders on the arm? Our officials need to use more common sense here in their interpretation. Generally speaking a penalty should only be awarded if its a case of hand/arm to ball or a player adopts a stance with his arms spreadeagled quite deliberately to block a shot - which would be clearly unnatural. We will see many more incidents like the above this season where no penalty will be awarded. If more referees take such a strict interpretation then what is to prevent a manager from instructing a player who is on the edge of, or in, a packed penalty area and with little or no prospect of getting off a clear shot on goal, from deliberately aiming at a defender's arm which wasn't by his side?

Or Laing?

Interesting, I wondered if this would come up.

Going by the above guidance the referee clearly decided that it was a case of hand to ball, ie Lasley's premeditated intention was to handle the ball. He does not appear to have taken into account the very short distance between the attacker's boot and Lasley, nor the power with which the ball was struck. As regards the clause "an arm moved from the player’s side, risking being struck by the ball", I would say that its almost impossible to move or jump without moving your arm from your side. The only way for a player to avoid that scenario is to move carefully with your arms at your side or simply avoid trying to block a shot - both clearly absurd. Going back to last Wednesday and Marvin Johnson's cross, and applying the above interpretation then it was a clear penalty and a yellow card. The referee gave neither. The difference in opinion between us on this forum is perhaps understandable but what isn't understandable and very worrying indeed is the difference in interpretation between individual grade 1 referees.

Scunthorpe's TV cash will be way above what we receive - maybe twice or three times. Maybe someone else at the club wants to move Ainsworth on.

Absolutely Allan. Some young players, maybe Faddy, on the bench to bring on once the business has been done. Maybe five from from Samson, Watt, Laing, Thomas, Cadden, Fletcher, Mackin and Faddy.

Just watched TV highlights on BBC. Two observations: * No evidence of a handball by Skippy at his second goal. Camera angle isn't perfect but nothing obvious. * Technically a penalty but a very soft one. Given that the ball hit Las's arm at point blank range there was nothing he could do about it. Probably the same as Stephen McManus's red card penalty against Aberdeen. The conclusion though is now that every ball in the box that hits a defender on the hand or arm, that isn't by his side is a penalty. We had a similar claim last Wednesday when Marvin's attempted cross struck a defender's outstretched arm in the box - no penalty. From now on our players should be instructed to claim vehemently, and in numbers, every time a ball strikes an opponent's arm or hand in the box.

Yes, although a physically big guy would be more important. Someone able to withstand a solid challenge and capable of flattening an opponent fairly. Good players who fit that bill don't come cheap though. To some extent though Pearo fits that bill, although he's not defensive.

Interesting you say that. We timed the penalty at about 93 minutes. After Crawford scored the ref allowed Accies to celebrate for a full minute. When the game resumed he blew for full time a few seconds after. Refs usually add on about 30 seconds for every goal scored. By my reckoning he blew his whistle at the 93:30 mark, despite the 4th official indicating a minimum of 5 minutes extra. Anyway, 2 points dropped but can we really be surprised? We did not match Accies' workrate off the ball and allowed them too much space and time. Not for the first time recently we were the better footballing side but couldn't match our opponents endeavour. A tremendous goal by Louis Moult was the highlight of the game for me. At times our defence looked a bit disorganised and again the central midfield went missing when it mattered. I felt a bit sorry for Marvin Johnson as he looked to be in the mood but received poor service. Accies were able to mark him out of the game after half time and were happy and indeed able to deploy two men to do this. The referee was weak and inconsistent and most of the ground knew a red card was coming to us at some point. The TV evidence on the penalty is inconclusive but it was galling to see Crawford being on the park to take it and score - that was the big disappointment for me. Both he and Imrie ought to have been given 2nd yellow cards and the ref's failure to do this influenced the outcome of the game. This was always going to be the hardest game in our run of 3 home games.

If Ainsworth's move turns out be true and Dom Thomas goes out on loan, as I would expect him to, then we will need to bring in another wide man. That said I expect a few fringe players to depart and that may make room for us to bolster our defence and midfield.

Didn't know it was Scunthorpe but heard a rumour on Wednesday that he was off. Another 3 fringe players to follow?

Probably true Iain although it may also hinge on whether any of our better players leave.

In terms of Faddy, money is not an issue, and that speaks volumes for the man himself and his connection to the club.

I expect at least two and possibly three signed players to move on permanently. However, we do need to retain striking cover. I would imagine the likes of Dylan Mackin, Dom Thomas and other young lads will go out on loan deals. If all that goes through then there may be leeway to trim the budget and/or bring in one or two new faces.

I suspect that he'll put some out on loan again. There's also another option ie a player(s) moving out permanently. I think he mentioned that Dom Thomas might benefit from a loan spell elsewhere.

On balance I agree, but what I don't get is why this "Accies mentality" has gone on for decades. Numerous managers and players have come and gone for them but they still seemed fired up i games against us - in many cases involving personnel with no knowledge of the history of the fixture.

Agreed. He seems to have come from nowhere although I had heard his name in terms of the Under 20s. Never mentioned previously as being one of our brightest prospects. He's done really well and scoring that goal will do his confidence a lot of good. A big lad he isn't being pushed around by older more streetwise strikers.

A bit biased Colin. Not much between the 2 sides but we had more of a cutting edge. By no stretch of the imagination a smash and grab. We had quite a few dangerous efforts just off target.

I'm being greedy and want to see us give them a bit of a hammering as payback. Is that being unreasonable? Bottom line though is that a single goal victory would do us just fine. It won't be easy though.

What exactly happened? We were at the opposite side of the pitch and heard the East Stand react angrily at a throw in. Overall a good though not great performance against a robust and streetwise Saints side. Ripley, Hall, Pearson and MacDonald were the pick of the bunch and it was good to see the youngster score his first senior goal. Certainly the withdrawal of Davidson and O'Halloran was clearly influential. I was a bit surprised to see Johnson play on the right - seemed a bit uncomfortable there although he had a decent game. Not the best of second halves but Saints, although powerful, were pretty toothless up front. A surprisingly ill tempered and niggly match. Referee had a poor match generally although fortunately made no major blunders. Pitch was in excellent condition.

Not sure we had much luck. Yes Saints lost 2 influential players but the ref gave them more than than their fair share of 50/50 decisions and they got the break of the ball more often than not. They could easily have finished the game with 9 players.

Great result for us tonight with Killie getting beaten. It gives us a better cushion and may ease the pressure slightly.

The critical period will be between 0200 and 1000 tomorrow morning, as that is the expected period of heaviest rainfall.