dennyc

According to explanations in response to the St Mirren game, not only do they look at the actual goal incident, they also look back to the entire build up to check all ok. How far back looking for infringements they go is unclear, but in that St Mirren game it was way back to when the attacking team got the ball. I would not have thought that depth of check is always required....as in that first goal yesterday... but I can understand why at the very beginnings of VAR use in Scotland if that is the general instruction then decisions will take time. Kick off after our goal also took ages so I guess they also ran that right back to check. God knows for instance what happens if a goal is scored from a corner that is wrongly awarded. I expect that look back instruction will be reduced. Might also depend on the teams involved as does all officiating in Scotland.

100% agree Rangers and Celtic were no place to throw in Miller or Ferrie. Could have set them back massively. I think we possibly would have seen them in the other matches as subs had things been going well and we were not chasing games. When confidence higher and pressure less. Hammell will introduce Academy kids but only when he believes it will benefit them and not set them back. There is a balance to be found, thinking long term. That said I do expect Cornelius to feature more before the break, but he is ahead of Miller and Ferrie development wise. Playing kids just because you don't rate Goss etc (as Yodo proposes} is crazy..............cue abuse! As for yesterday, Cornelius and O'Donnell made a positive impact when they were introduced so that should speak volumes to Hammell. And at the end of the day only officiating incompetence deprived us the chance of a point. Inept finishing might even have deprived us of a win. Subject to scoring a penalty that is. Depressingly similar to the home game v Hearts when we would have been level at 1-1 and on the front foot going for a win, but for the McGinn miss from a yard out, with Hearts then running up the park and killing us off. I still also believe finding a formation that includes McGinn, O'Donnell and Penney would benefit the entire team, including the under fire midfielders.

He'll probably blame Yorkyred as well.

So just to be clear...... and this is a genuine question as I am getting mixed messages....... Would you have preferred Alexander to still be our Manager? Bottom line. If not, why not given the robust support you give him? Most people who believed his time was up gave him credit for keeping us up and also the points gathered in first half of last season (securing our top six finish), However they also recognised his and his team's failings in the second half of the season. Our style of play and the Sligo embarrassment only reaffirmed that view. I assume you see it differently? I don't believe any Club in the country would have stuck by him any longer given that last seven months. And I cannot buy into the view that folk wanted Alexander out for any reason other than the performances on the pitch and his inability/refusal to alter his approach. I do agree the treatment he received in Ireland was despicable though. I also note he has not walked into another job despite declaring he is available. Hammell has not gotten off to the greatest of starts but there is a freshness, structure and a unity there which gives me hope for the season ahead and the seasons to come. And not just for the first team. Sure, he does not have the credit in the bank that both Robinson and Alexander had, but in my opinion he will prove successful if the Club and the fans stick by him. As is the case with every Club worldwide, if he does ultimately fail, he will go. That's the nature of the job he and Alexander signed up to.

I agree with this to be fair. And by the same logic, no matter how much success in the past, there comes a time when current form dictates whether a Manager has reached his sell by date. The survival of the Club is what matters and when that survival seems to be in doubt action is always taken. The previous success really only buys a Manager a wee bit more time to turn things round. And that applies whether the surname is Alexander, Hammell or Guardiola.

I was hoping for that set up on Sunday. But I guess injuries and suspensions put paid to that. Finding two main strikers that can link up effectively is a challenge. I assume that will have been worked on in training with Van Veen and Moult but circumstances scuppered that possibility.

How quickly they forget. "Apparently"? The bit you miss out is the drain we were heading down under Alexander. Evidenced by the last six months....not just December to March.... of his tenure culminating in that shambles against Sligo which likely cost the Club a fortune. That's a pretty important aspect to ignore. Alexander did well originally and deserves credit and thanks for that. But his reluctance to adapt or acknowledge the need for change when we were in freefall ultimately saw him leave. The football on show was unbearable when the points dried up. For those Alexander supporters who now question the merit of replacing him with Hammell or anybody else I ask you if you really believe we would be better off had he stayed? And if the answer is yes, then on what basis that takes account of his performance in 2022? Hammell has made mistakes and probably will make more. But he is learning and is a breath of fresh air. In time I believe he will secure enough points to keep us safe and from there take us forward. Much is being made of one win in however many and of Sunday's narrow loss to Rangers. Admittedly a weakened Rangers side coming off a humiliation from a team that were Champions League runners up. Depleted team or not, every one of those Rangers players on Sunday would walk into our team. As for the current run of results let's consider the Shields penalty not awarded at Easter Road and the assault on Tierney at Celtic Park. All ifs and buts of course, but things could have been so different. Two draws there and the Ross County win would have been seen as an excellent return. Small margins. And most fans and pundits were of the view the Hearts result did not reflect the game. I guess that's why Motherwell were applauded off the park. When Hammell was appointed everybody (even those who were against his appointment for whatever reason) acknowledged he would need time and probably a lot of it to turn around the shambles he inherited and to introduce his own structure and ethos. How long has he been in charge? Twenty years since we have beaten Rangers in the League yet Sunday is a disaster it seems. No leeway given at all for our own run of injuries in the week leading up to the game and the fact we had a load of kids on the bench. Feels like a few on here (not you David) are licking their lips at the thought of Hammell failing and them being proven correct. Well, Alexander has gone and Hammell is the man in charge. People need to accept it. And he has the support of the vast majority of fans. How long should he get to prove himself? At least this season and a couple more transfer windows in my opinion. Beyond that, if things have not worked out, he will be history. As for Sunday? it wasn't great but it was much more of a competition than the game last April. Who was in charge then?

My main concern is that, as is the case in England, we will see a circling of the wagons when obvious refereeing errors are ignored for no logical reason. I agree with you that in time VAR should improve the standard of refereeing. But it might be a wee bit painful to start with until several egos are able to cope with having to accept that "to err is human". I also hope we do not go down the EPL route of putting our own slant on VAR, which caused confusion from day one and resulted in Uefa asking them to simply apply the Laws of the game as they stand. I had thought it would be preferable to have ex players involved in the VAR studio in support of current/retired referees, Having listened recently to former players confirm an embarrassing ignorance of the Laws of the game I am not so sure. And no amount of the co commentator pointing out that football has moved on makes any difference. Steve McManaman being a classic example.

And I'm still waiting of evidence that the Club has spoken out about the behaviour of fans in recent away matches in Paisley and Kilmarnock. Or at Dingwall that evening. Maybe I just missed it. I do remember Burrows highlighting the damage caused to Fir Park by Celtic fans and then it all going quiet when Celtic reacted. I was told at that time there was an unwritten agreement that Clubs would compensate for damage, quietly. If that is incorrect I stand corrected. Not saying Motherwell are the only Club that shy away from challenging their own fans behaviour. You only have to look to Glasgow for other examples. Does not make it right though. Plenty of fans are embarrassed and angry at what we see on a regular basis. You may not like to accept but Motherwell have a poor reputation because of the fans behaviour. And that brings us back full circle as to why Ross County might have felt it wise to isolate our fans in a small, more secure area of the ground. I think it was also likely cost played a part.

Happened two rows in front of me. Round about the time the water was/was not aimed at O'Donnell. The lady in question asked them to rein it in at which point she was approached by one guy in particular who gave her a mouthful. A few folk were about to step in when thankfully one of the guy's mates came over and dragged him away. But she was quite shaken. I think the stewards were occupied keeping the fans from jumping over the wall onto the trackside...again. Cannot recall whether the Police where there at that point. But interesting you prefer to look at the actions of the stewards rather than the behaviour of our fans.

I certainly think it is shameful to threaten elderly female supporters. If you do not, then there is little point of continuing the discussion.

Did Celtic pay for the seat damage at Fir Park? I understand they did and that it was common practice for Clubs to pay for ground damage caused by their fans. Certainly plenty of talk about damage caused by fans hurting their own Club financially. But No, I don't have a copy of any receipts. Well done on deflecting from the behaviour of the fans though.

Ah, I understand now. Better nobody comment on the shameful behaviour of a minority of fans at away matches. Self policed or not. Poor wee souls are only having a good day out. Fair enough. I guess the same applies to those Celtic fans who delight in defacing Fir Park. The hands off approach you appear to support might just be part of the problem.

No Agenda whatsoever. Have you heard the Club speaking out about the behaviour of some fans at away games? If so i stand corrected. Do you think that behaviour is acceptable or reflects well on Motherwell? I'm commenting on incidents I have witnessed personally, including a female fan at Ross County being threatened with violence. Or is that just high jinx and therefore ok?

As one of those retired fellows who made the trip up to Dingwall for a midweek game last season, I personally saw a large group of non retired fellows spend most of the match abusing stewards, spilling onto the trackside and threatening any Motherwell fan who questioned them. If that behaviour contributed to the decision to place the fans where they did this week then why are we surprised? In truth St Mirren and Kilmarnock would be well within their rights to adopt the same approach following incidents this season, including flare damage to the pitch. Might help if Motherwell themselves publicly condemned some of the goings on rather than just paying for any damage and appearing to turn a blind eye.

The point that is being ignored by the blinkered is that it is not just football that is/was cancelled, in Scotland or elsewhere. It is not some royalist, SFA, police supported attack on the common Scottish man as some suggest. As for this weekend, if the Police are required elsewhere then sport will have to take a back seat for another few days. It is not the end of the world. I would imagine all sporting authorities are trying their utmost to ensure as much sport as possible takes place over the next week or so. But it is not within their control. The Country wanted to pay their respects. And that included many Scots as the queues in Edinburgh today show. Police resources are spread thin. As a non Royalist that does not include me. but I respect and accept that the majority of the UK population wishes to do so, annoying and disruptive as that may be.

All they have done is cover themselves in case the situation changes and the police end up short staffed. So taking their statement apart word by word is pointless. We all know what is being suggested without needing a Dummies Guide To How Football Games Are Staged. And I did not say the police asked for our games to be postponed. So let’s not push that angle. I suspect games all over were postponed as a mark of respect. And quite rightly so. Now each event is being looked at on an individual basis. As per London on Sunday. I wonder if this debate would be taking place if there was no Royal connection.

Nonsense. The football authorities have no power to override IF the police decide to cancel games because of staffing concerns. So their leadership is not in question over this issue. Those sporting events you mentioned went ahead after police approval and after earlier postponements. And they would not have gone ahead if the police could not have provided the security required because their officers were required elsewhere. As in Edinburgh yesterday had the Hearts game remained scheduled. Police called in an extra 1000 officers from all over to deal with events yesterday. Cricket matches, football matches, girlies championship boxing, golf tournaments and horse racing were cancelled in England/Wales on Friday and the weekend as a mark of respect. Just as happened with our game at Dingwall. So to suggest other sports not governed by the SFA were not cancelled is just not true. Our lords and masters have history as you suggest, but to use this situation as a means to have a go at them is wrong. And as I type, Premier League games in England on Sunday are cancelled or kick off times moved because of pressure on Police numbers given other events being planned for in London. Given your comments I guess that makes the English football authorities as weak as our lot.

So really no different to how it is for every game right across the UK. The Police have the right to veto any game should circumstances warrant. That'll be why they are involved in pre planning for all games then. Take yesterday as an example. Hearts were due to be at home to St Mirren. Would the police have been wrong to cancel that game had it still been scheduled, given extensive road closures and huge numbers lining the streets as the Cortege passed through? An event affecting the entire East of Scotland and the main access route to Edinburgh. I really think folk are looking for reasons to have a go. And how often in reality to the Police actually request a game be rescheduled? Mountains and molehills

Rugby

Do you really think a Royal somebody contacted the SFA and instructed them to cancel all football because it would keep the peasants in their place? If so then you are either deluded or obsessed. Given you now want to use the situation to have a go at the Scottish Government suggests it is the latter. I'm just surprised it is not all Burrow's fault. Or is that your next rant? Each sporting/entertainment organisation was left to make up their own mind regarding whether to cancel or not. Some chose to restart on Saturday/Sunday and some did not. I suspect football authorities up here were concerned that some fans (particularly of a certain Glasgow team) would shame the sport and Scotland by disrupting any planned minute's show of respect. So if you want to blame anyone for games being cancelled, blame the SFA and the cretins attached to every Club, including ours, who force them to be ultra cautious. For the record, I am far from a Royalist and am disappointed I will not be heading up to Dingwall tomorrow. But I can understand why that is the case. Just read the Proms have been cancelled completely for this year. How does that fit in with your opinion that postponements are a class thing?

When fixtures start up again there may be a minute's silence anyway. So those elements you highlight could still express their views. I suppose some Clubs could opt out if they felt it wise to do so.

And then we are no worse off than we were at midnight last night. Shields etc would have to step up for a couple of weeks. But any player we sign could get injured in training. In fact we have history in that respect. Very recent history. It's up to Hammell to have a plan for that situation. You never know, he might even have a free agent in mind as another addition. But Moult had to be taken on now because of the transfer window regulations. I think you are looking for the possible negatives rather than looking at the possible benefits. For me the potential benefits vastly outweigh the possible negatives and this was a loan signing worth trying. If you think otherwise so be it.

And if he gets (or is) crocked he can return to Burton. If it works out we have made the deal of the window. On and off the pitch possibly At no risk. I can think of some we signed up that were only at Fir Park to top up there pension fund. Ciftci, McCormack spring to mind. How fit were they? How much did they milk us for? I might be wrong but I don't imagine Moult falls into that category. Hopefully it works out. If not no harm done.

Where exactly is the risk many folk are exaggerating? If he is fit but only half as good as he was, then he will be the second best striker we have. If he is anywhere near as good as we remember then he will push and concentrate VV. And his work ethic and hunger will rub off on the rest of the squad If he is injured and cannot play then you would expect the terms of the loan to allow us to return him to his parent club. He has fond memories of Fir Park and clearly gets on with Hammell. So his commitment will not be in doubt. The wages have been freed up and I would rather we give Moult a chance than try some journeyman second rate striker. If it does not work out with Moult, there will be plenty Free Agents available and that option will still be out there. It is a punt, but I don't see any risk. Are we better off player wise than we were last night? Well we are certainly no worse.