numpty

Coke being a bit "theatrical" today, according to the commentary...

Equally soft yellow for Fowler on Coke, by the sound of it.

Murph now booked for a challenge on the goalie-- sounded soft. First booking of the game. Then Coke with a good run and shot.

Goal, Murphy!

What, like we just did?

Yep: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/...86908-22058776/

Whether it is or not, they're not also living under a suspended fine for previous persistent pitch crapness. We were given the chance to put it right, and failed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...Park-pitch.html

Now, can we hang on for 7 minutes...

Murphy, 1-0!!

Cleared off the line from Las

Referee taking a pasting on the radio, for lack of fitness and failing to clamp down on Hibs timewasting...

Humph on for Coke.

Strong claims for a 'Well penalty there...

Nope, O'Brien booked. Lucky boy, but to be honest would be more confident of winning 10 v 10 !

They're not obliged to let you smoke there just because they legally could. Far easier to operate a blanket ban than have pernickety punters moaning about exactly where the mid-air boundary between the smoking and no smoking areas might lie.

First and last we'll ever hear of this, I hope! http://www.motherwelltimes.co.uk/sport/Mot...eria.6081733.jp

Not only in Scotland at all. Plenty of places around the world where you're not allowed to buy alcohol inside sports stadia.

Same way as every other sport deals with it: if video is inconclusive, referee's original decision stands. Video isn't supposed to make the decisions for him, just to override him if he's made an obvious error.

For the same reason Scotland and England fans will happily mingle in the rugby stands with no segregation, Cork and Kerry fans will happily mingle in Croke Park with no segregation, etc. A far tinier minority of morons, which are easily self-policed.

Well, almost

Don't have an account there, and don't want one What's it about?

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2010/02/15/m...-ease-to-title/

Well, another canididate might be Paul Elliott's 'goal' in the '91 semi-final replay, that would have put them 1-0 up very early on. Given offside, but definitely wasn't. Of course, it wasn't all that much longer until they went 1-0 up anyway, but I often wonder if the result might have been different had the first one counted. They were all over us at that point.

As the comment there says, what ever happened to giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team in offside decisions? If the linesman thought he actually saw Forbes in an offside position, then fair enough, honest mistake. But even Father Dougal is saying what we all suspected -- that the linesman most likely didn't see Forbes until the last minute, and ended up guessing, instead of saying "I dunno" and leaving it up to the referee to decide. And if the referee couldn't tell either, by giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team, the goal stands. Simples