bobbybingo

The question is, when they have 6 cameras filming it, what possessed them to show the one from the back of the stand at the other end of the park as proof he was offside, when it actually makes it look like he was onside? Surely they used another angle to make the decision, so show that one to the fans. If the SPFL or SFA ever launch a rocket, duck.

If you watched it on Sportscene you heard McFadden say he thought the Celtic player did nothing wrong and the only complaint we have is whether he was on the park when it hit him. And if Collum, the linesman and VAR screwed us on that one, they saved us with Jota's goal, which was just as clearly onside.

I've read it. He was walking back onto the pitch - he didn't move towards Penney, and unless you expected him to stay off the park till we took the throw, he wasn't unfairly distracting him. I'd say the one complaint we could have is if he wasn't on the field of play when it hit him, and that's what Hammell seems to be claiming.

Ok, I only watched our own interview, so hands up to that.

Fair enough, different interview. I'm pretty sure they did look at it though, kept replaying it while the goal was being checked. They've obviously decided his head was on the field of play when it hit him. One of his feet certainly was.

Or maybe he saw it differently to you.

Ok. Hammell, who was right next to it, didn't mention it in his interview.

No, I'm no at the wind up. Here it is in black and white: If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue

You rule.

You're surely not serious about him heading it. Penney throws it off him, there's no movement of his head. Distance wise, the rule states all opponents must stand 2 yards back when the throw in is about to be taken. If you take a quick free kick before the opponent is 10 yards back and he intercepts it, play continues. Same rule applies?

What do you think's wrong with that - he's not 2 yards away, or his foot isn't in play when the baw hits his dome?

Yeah, that's the rule, but I think that's to do with the defender deliberately blocking the throw. The player taking the shy can legally 'deflect' it off an opponent and the game will continue, as long as it wasn't thrown violently or with intent to injure the opponent. Obviously, you'd only try that if you were trying to gain an advantage. We tried a quick throw in and made a complete arse of it. Don't think there was anything illegal about it, but we'll see if Hammell complains about it.

If the guy taking the throw hits an opponent with it, play continues. Doesn't say anything about the opponent being off the field of play - probably because we're the only team stupid enough to manage that.

This might even warrant a "Massively disappointing".

Could he no just use the window?

The fact we're in trouble now Efford's out just emphasises how much trouble we were already in.

That's a pity. I phoned them too, and that's the night I'm being inducted into their Hall of Fame.

Is Moult injured, or Covid/illness?

I'd rather see Ant in the squad than Porteous.

Yeah, it's not the end of the world.

Of course it wouldn't be taking place. Because, if there was no Royal connection, the entire football card wouldn't have been cancelled and many of this weekend's games wouldn't be off or hanging by a thread.

Funeral's on Monday 19th. Surely no reason to postpone the Hearts game then.

Awfy quiet on here. Everybody watching the cricket?

If the funeral's on the Sunday, obviously our game's screwed. If not, I don't see the need for matches the day before or after to be postponed. Not that I'd bet on it.

17 days of mourning announced. Irrespective of your views, everyone surely expected this weekend would be cancelled. As long as that's it.