Jump to content

Today's games (Sat 28th March)


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Auld Jag said:

Nothing to do with football, but a bit of an anomaly for our away games in April. We play Ayr, Airdrie and Arbroath all teams like the month we play them in begin with A. :thinking:

Airdrie start with a C do they not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, laukat said:

 

Our bench on Friday looked quite strong and if we go to the playoffs hopefully we get a couple more back. I think livingston last year showed that to get through the playoffs you need a big squad, a bit of a rest and to catch the 11th placed team when they are on a downer. We look like we might be shaping up for that.

Agree with that.

However, I can't help feeling that if we get that far, however well we do, VAR will again be used blatantly to protect the current Premiership team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know how it will end - there are too many possible outcomes for my wee brain to grasp.  But we should be enjoying and savouring the situation, given that we were hoping for a safe, mid-table end to the season when this all started. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

Agree with that.

However, I can't help feeling that if we get that far, however well we do, VAR will again be used blatantly to protect the current Premiership team.

Do you really believe it's a conspiracy? Why on earth would the powers that be so desperately want to protect Ross County over Thistle? It's not even as if the top division is a separate entity any more, or that County bring lots of money into the division.

If VAR was used to "blatantly to protect the current Premiership team", why was it used to send off a County player early in the first leg? Why did the VAR refer a possible penalty for Thistle to be reviewed by the referee? In the latter case, while the referee didn't award the penalty, the VAR wouldn't have expected that- that was the on-field referee decision. 

Even the penalty awarded to County was the type of penalty often awarded since VAR came in (one of the reasons why all right-thinking fans hate VAR generally). And, as conspiracies go, awarding a pen to a team already 3 goals down with quarter of the game to go should have been too little too late, really. The conspirators would have also have had to plan for us to implode the way we did, then miss at least one sitter to win and then lose a penalty shoot-out.

It really wasn't a conspiracy. None of it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

Do you really believe it's a conspiracy? Why on earth would the powers that be so desperately want to protect Ross County over Thistle? It's not even as if the top division is a separate entity any more, or that County bring lots of money into the division.

If VAR was used to "blatantly to protect the current Premiership team", why was it used to send off a County player early in the first leg? Why did the VAR refer a possible penalty for Thistle to be reviewed by the referee? In the latter case, while the referee didn't award the penalty, the VAR wouldn't have expected that- that was the on-field referee decision. 

Even the penalty awarded to County was the type of penalty often awarded since VAR came in (one of the reasons why all right-thinking fans hate VAR generally). And, as conspiracies go, awarding a pen to a team already 3 goals down with quarter of the game to go should have been too little too late, really. The conspirators would have also have had to plan for us to implode the way we did, then miss at least one sitter to win and then lose a penalty shoot-out.

It really wasn't a conspiracy. None of it makes sense.

Individual VAR judges or whatever they are called can call decisions that are clearly wrong, and in a biased way, even if that is a non-conscious bias. That does not have to be an "official" conspiracy; all it takes is for one or two officials to have preferences, even if they deny it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

Individual VAR judges or whatever they are called can call decisions that are clearly wrong, and in a biased way, even if that is a non-conscious bias. That does not have to be an "official" conspiracy; all it takes is for one or two officials to have preferences, even if they deny it.

Yes, but they made three intervention in the tie overall- two in our favour (the red card and the penalty which the referee ultimately chose not to award) and one in their favour (the Graham handball penalty). This hardly suggests even an unconscious VAR bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

Yes, but they made three intervention in the tie overall- two in our favour (the red card and the penalty which the referee ultimately chose not to award) and one in their favour (the Graham handball penalty). This hardly suggests even an unconscious VAR bias.

Well, you think they are perfectly honest/objective with their decisions about what incidents should be viewed and then with impressive precision making objective decisions. That's fine, of course, though naive, in my opinion. I don't think they are; they decide what to analyse and when. The same goes for referees. No conspiracy in my eyes, just biases, pro one team and against another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Thistle_1876 said:

Scott Brown sacked by Ayr after the weekends result.

Damn! I was hoping they would keep him until after Saturday …. Hopefully no new (or interim) manager bounce 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

Yes, but they made three intervention in the tie overall- two in our favour (the red card and the penalty which the referee ultimately chose not to award) and one in their favour (the Graham handball penalty). This hardly suggests even an unconscious VAR bias.

My recollection is that the refusal to award a penalty for the challenge on Docherty was the only time in the entire season where the referee did not accept the VAR review and maintained his own decision. There was also a third VAR review in that game when the red card for the challenge on Tiffoney was overturned.

However I agree that there wasn't a conspiracy against us - we lost that game because Docherty passed the ball out of play from the restart after the penalty, Banzo missed a sitter and he, Docherty & Holt failed to score their penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If back then there was any bias I guess more likely it would be made in our favour. Other top tier clubs would prefer not to have the additional cost of an overnight up north.

We've little to blame bar ourselves and I suppose the play off set up. But in truth being fourth in a 10 team league hardly gives you that much much credence. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2026 at 9:11 AM, Duke Gekantawa said:

Do you really believe it's a conspiracy? Why on earth would the powers that be so desperately want to protect Ross County over Thistle? It's not even as if the top division is a separate entity any more, or that County bring lots of money into the division.

If VAR was used to "blatantly to protect the current Premiership team", why was it used to send off a County player early in the first leg? Why did the VAR refer a possible penalty for Thistle to be reviewed by the referee? In the latter case, while the referee didn't award the penalty, the VAR wouldn't have expected that- that was the on-field referee decision. 

Even the penalty awarded to County was the type of penalty often awarded since VAR came in (one of the reasons why all right-thinking fans hate VAR generally). And, as conspiracies go, awarding a pen to a team already 3 goals down with quarter of the game to go should have been too little too late, really. The conspirators would have also have had to plan for us to implode the way we did, then miss at least one sitter to win and then lose a penalty shoot-out.

It really wasn't a conspiracy. None of it makes sense.

The St Mirren decision was inexplicable. Only 2 people in the world thought that was a penalty. Conspiracy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

Yes, but they made three intervention in the tie overall- two in our favour (the red card and the penalty which the referee ultimately chose not to award) and one in their favour (the Graham handball penalty). This hardly suggests even an unconscious VAR bias.

Agree with your overall point but the VAR also intervened to overturn a red card to County in the second leg if I recall correctly (I try not to). 

The only scandal in that match was the decision to take the penalties at the RC end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Hopeless Unbeliever said:

Agree with your overall point but the VAR also intervened to overturn a red card to County in the second leg if I recall correctly (I try not to). 

The only scandal in that match was the decision to take the penalties at the RC end. 

Aye- I actually completely forgot about that red (PTSD maybe?). Still, two interventions each then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...