dennyc

The only difference between the two incidents was the distance from the goal, and that difference was minimal. Both players threw their body at the ball to defend the goal. Casey deliberately blocked the ball on the line with his arm. Souttar deliberately.......even McCann commented that he moved his arm to the ball......blocked the ball three yards out with his arm. Both were deliberate and intended to deny a goal. On that basis, why not both red cards? Consistency does not exist in Scottish football.

Exactly Motherwell boss Stephen Robinson acquitted of assaulting partner | Football News | Sky Sports Reading this paints a whole different picture to what some would like us to believe.

And of course had the game been at Tannadice the home commentator would have remained totally calm and not gotten excited at all at his team scoring from a penalty deep into injury time to book a semi final place. As others have said, any complaints should be directed to Premier Sports. In fairness I think the complaints from Utd are regards the Broadcaster rather than Motherwell. It is quite funny though.

I think it was announced on the night as 8337. But not 100% certain given I was struggling to make out the tannoy announcement.

Got me intrigued so i had to check out my seat. It is greyed out so fine, but what I did find when I started a fresh purchase was that not all seats shown in blue offer a seat number when hovered over. Some do but most don't. So I guess that despite the 'blue' coding on most, they possibly have been purchased but did not turn grey when sold. Certainly is confusing though.

I take it goals from corners, penalties, free kicks, own goals and substitutes don't count then? Are we even allowed to celebrate them? Can we then also ignore any goals we concede from corners, own goals, free kicks, substitutes and penalties? Or perhaps it does not apply both ways? You do have a point regarding our style of play at times and I share your frustration with Kettlewell's team selection at times. But the fact is we are doing ok at present and he seems to have improved our defensive set up. I do concede that I would also like to see more goals resulting from magical sweeping moves, but playing to a strength is hardly a poor option. And until we sign a Bellingham or De Bruyne I don't see things changing that much. Especially as you have already written off Tavares, Maswanhise and all bar one of our new recruits. I'll celebrate any goal we score no matter the source. England nearly won a World Cup playing to the same strength. Some of the goals we scored last season were as good as you will see anywhere. Whether from open play or free kicks. And was it McGhee that used to insist that every player be in our box defending at a corner because the majority of goals teams concede come from that source? Maybe some of those corners, penalties and free kicks we score from result from decent moves that our opponents have difficulty dealing with. Or maybe credit goes to Miller and/or Halliday for their ability to deliver the ball. And we have scored in 80% of the competitive games we have played so far this season. Fairly consistent. But I guess that positive assessment does not fit your agenda. But credit where credit is due. Ignoring the fact we were third top scorers last season and then dismissing goals not scored from open play to validate your argument is certainly creative. As is pointing out that we score some goals after making substitutions. Some might say that was also a positive and a direct result of some astute management decisions. I guess it all comes down to the argument you choose to promote.

69 games 20 Losses, or so Wikipedia says. I can't be bothered checking. Stats can be used in lots of ways. I agree SK can stubbornly stick to his guns and it drives me crazy. But harping back to that poor run last year proves nothing other than you have nothing more recent to cast up. He is doing just fine for now. Guess that's why his contract was extended.

Given the ovation the team, including every one of those players you mention, received at the end of yesterday's game you appear to be in the minority. You must have been spitting feathers if your stream picked that up, or the Bois chanting SOD's name at one point. Ask anyone who was there yesterday whether Vale showed quality. I guess he must have done though, given the calls for Kettlewell to start him against United. And his introduction helped Miller. But none so blind as those that refuse to see.

For me it is a close call between Halliday and Davor. And at the start of the season I would have opted for Davor given how rank Halliday was last season. But in recent weeks I think Halliday has moved ahead and his experience and ability to wind up opponents helps his case. I'm in no way getting at Davor but to include Vale given how he has improved the team when coming on as a sub, somebody needs to miss out. But Davor's energy replacing a tired Halliday after 65/70 minutes would be no bad thing. Hopefully with us ahead in the game and looking to stay that way. I think most agree that an isolated Robinson ( or any isolated striker) is not the way to approach the game on Friday. Also our set up is becoming too predictable. Aberdeen exposed that in the first half. But I am not convinced Kettlewell will see it that way.

So predictable. Yet another dig at Kettlewell. After we had won three in a row all you could talk about was the bad run we had LAST season. What did you think of Vale and Tavares yesterday? How about the impact Maswanhise had in previous games? Even Halliday is now earning his keep. Just to pick four you have written off because your favourite manager brought them in. Sure there has been a couple of questionable signings but 16 out of 17 failures! Utter nonsense.

The lone, isolated striker thing just does not work for us. No matter who that striker is. For all his effort yesterday,and the good things he did 30 yards out, Robinson was a let down anywhere near goal. Kettlewell needs to look at a formation that starts Moses supported by Vale. Would also let Miller play that bit deeper which suits him better. The difference at Pittodrie yesterday was there for all to see. Tavares could have earned a start as well, although Maswanhise might feel a bit aggrieved. That last 25 minutes certainly should have given Kettlewell food for thought. Amazing what can be achieved when we put our opponents under pressure rather than letting them dictate play as was the case for 60 odd minutes.

i've not been his biggest fan but Halliday is getting picked just now because he is playing well. The one that needs binned is Robinson with Vale, Ebiye and Tavares starting on Friday. With Davor missing out. Allowing Miller to play in his best position. All three of those substitutes were the reason we nearly grabbed a point yesterday. Vale driving forward made a huge difference. But I fear Kettlewell will again start Robinson despite him being terrible anywhere near goal. Might be a confidence thing but we cannot wait forever on him finding the net.

Still no answer to the yes/no questions then. Or at best selective of those you wish to address. In truth, no straight answers to anything that questions the conduct of those you seek to excuse. Just words that clarify nothing and fail to inform. Precursor? Go on then, what exactly? Share and allow people an understanding that will correct their perception and version of those events you insist are overstated.

‘What may have instigated some of these events’. Firstly, ‘ events’ suggest something positive. Like a Wedding or a Concert. What folk are highlighting are incidents that were far from positive. But play them down as you will. Par for the course. Secondly, Are you seriously suggesting that whatever led to these ‘events’ justified the outcomes? That is some stance. And still no Yes or No I notice. Events condemned or not? Comments justified or not? In your opinion.

Clearly it is only justice that any innocent parties were eventually exonerated and questions deserve to be asked about why they ended up being in that position. There are faults and actions to be exposed that put innocent parties through hell. Surely nobody is disagreeing with that. But the incident did take place. So what about those that did cause the damage. Any thoughts on them? Should the focus not be on them as well? And are you prepared to condemn any Motherwell fan that was involved and ask for them to be identified, if they have not been already.

Disappointing that you did not address any of the instances and comments I highlighted. Did they actually happen? If they did, do you support the justifications for playing them down? Yes or no, I’ll respect your view and call it quits but it would be good to know. Another poster to this forum warned me that some folk were not interested in debate, if an opposing view was expressed. Deflection and avoidance would result. Perhaps they were pretty accurate. So as you say, point proven.

Accepting that incidents have taken place is a start at least. Different versions or not the fact is that lines have been crossed and Police/Club are being forced to intervene. How many Police do you imagine will be at Aberdeen? I do get that innocent folk have been unfairly caught up and that is wrong. The sooner that stops the better. As for ‘not many’ denying events. Playing them down as high jinx, or youthful exuberance, or an exaggeration, or justified is tantamount to condoning them. A certain Society Board Member needs to think on that and achieve some perspective. And if you care to check back at previous discussions, I think you were one of a good few who forcefully said I was misinterpreting events when I highlighted the fact that a woman sat a few rows in front of me was abused when she complained about liquid being thrown at SOD when he attempted to take a throw in. Apologies if you were not that poster. But the gist was ‘That did not happen’. And in this thread we have one poster attempting to downplay matters when a fan and his wife were abused, by distinguishing between verbal threats of violence and actual physical violence. Really! I’m pretty sure whichever it was was pretty frightening. Or is one just high jinx and the other of concern? We also have another poster saying that football disorder is part of Society and we just have to accept it. It’s what folk do nowadays. And as we know that to be a fact, we can have no complaint if things kick off at matches we choose to attend. Any trouble I have witnessed has been at away matches, but that same poster confirmed he does not attend away matches that often. Perth was a huge step forward though so I’m hopeful that step forward continues. Look, I enjoy and respect what the Bois can bring to a game. Including the drum and the banners. Not so much the Ninja like face coverings we saw at the Clyde tie though. I certainly do not want to see them boycotting games or being banned. But I detest some of the behaviour (from a minority I am told) which I have personally witnessed inside and outside some grounds. I believe most fans think similarly and try to take a balanced view. But I don’t see much balance from those that appear to defend the Bois no matter what.

Folk acknowledge and support the good things that the Bois bring to games. Long may it continue. Perth last week being a great example of the atmosphere and support they can provide. Drum included. And the community work they have driven through various initiatives over the years. I have not read one poster decrying those contributions. Quite the opposite. But what I do see are a few, no matter what is reported and no matter what people who witnessed incidents say, refusing to acknowledge that the Bois actions at times are over the top and on occasion a throw back to the intimidation and violence of years past. Any mention of the incident in Dundee (which did happen), the trashing of a pub in Kilmarnock (which did happen), the street battle in Kirkcaldy (which did happen) or the threatening of a female Well supporter at Dingwall (which did happen) are met with 'That did not happen' or ' Get the facts straight'. To be clear, I and the people with me witnessed three of those examples, and a mate witnessed the fourth. No-one can deny pyrotechnics are an issue as well. Or does that not happen either? It may well be a small minority who are causing the trouble (I genuinely believe it is) but sadly the whole group then comes under the spotlight. If some have wrongly come to the attention of the Police and the Club have been involved in that, then that is wrong and needs addressed. As a separate issue. The fact the Bois are supported by some who are in complete denial and/or have influence within the Well Society only makes matters less likely to change and provides encouragement to continue the nonsense.. And it's not an age thing either, so let's knock that lie on the head straight up.. Another tactic used to deflect from the fact that there are issues which need sorted. Back to what I understand was an incident free Perth. There was a huge Police presence around the stadium and a large number of Stewards inside. May always be the case at St Johnstone of course, but from memory it was a lot more than usual. Interesting to see what police numbers turn up at Aberdeen. Are Motherwell now High Risk?

I hope you are correct regards Clarke, I don't know anybody who thinks he should have been kept on after Germany. And that includes a good number of the Tartan Army who went over. They have a great time bar the football side of things though so not all bad. I reckon it will get pretty toxic if Poland hit the front. But we are talking the SFA here so unless he walks I expect him to remain in charge.. I'm heading to Tynecastle and delighted Wilson might now feature. A pretty tough team to debut against though. Hope he does himself justice, if selected.

Agree 100%. And his recent interview was an insult to any fan who spent their hard earned cash going to Germany to support Clarke's Old Boys' Club. "I've earned the right to try to get the team to another Tournament". Really? He should have been punted as soon as the final whistle blew at the end of the Hungary embarrassment. We were a laughing stock. An honourable man would have walked. Well done Wilson. Deserves his chance and shocking that he was not included in the original squad. Then again, will Gemmill even know who he is?

I think we all know that no matter the result, no matter the performance, a few on here have made up their mind regards Kettlewell, So rather than praise a victory all we get is silence, or at best grudging acceptance of a decent result qualified by some nit picking nonsense over one or two incidents in the game. Three wins in a row and barely a positive word. Reading the match thread after a game is hilarious at times. Same blinkered approach applies to how Halliday and SOD perform. Anything they contribute is ignored but one misplaced pass and the keyboard lights up. Criticise by all means when justified but how about some balance? SOD was excellent last week and it was noticeable today that our midfield disappeared when Halliday had to go off. I'm not his biggest fan but credit where credit is due. What was pleasing was that both of them got a great reception today when the came over to take throw-ins/corners in front of the Motherwell fans. Changed days. Both have worked hard to improve their fitness and contribution and I think that fans who are prepared to open their eyes have appreciated those efforts. Finally, some praise for the Bois. They were excellent throughout the game today. Did what they are good at and supported the team throughout. The drum even sounded in tune.....ish. And not a hint of trouble from what I witnessed. Even the stewards and the police looked fairly relaxed. A good day all round.

Forgot to add Quote before replying. Comments in response to the following "We are talking about two different things here. I don't think young high schooler are the ones causing bother. As far as the bad behaviour goes I don't really care. It's part and parcel of football in a working class area, it's like going to Spoons and complaining that people are drinking irresponsibly. We all know that going to Motherwell games is a very safe experience and no one was crying out for any of this prior to Caldwell being appointed. " I don't think it matters what age we are talking about. It's about behaviours, respect and common decency. If it is not the youngsters, then fair enough, I accept that. If it's an older set then that almost makes the goings on more questionable. But, yes, if the youngsters are being accused of things they are not guilty of then that is wrong. But from what I have witnessed at games there is a mix of ages involved. As for accepting that the behaviours I described are part of football and should just be written of as life, sorry but that's just nonsense and a cop out. Will you still be saying that when someone you know gets injured? Maybe tell that to the young boy that got hit in the face by a flare at Dunfermline. " Man up son. It's life. You chose to go to the game so live with it" And these things were an issue long time before Caldwell signed up. But it is a good excuse for you to have a go at him and maybe his handling of things could have been better. Maybe it's just that he is the one that is addressing matters whereas others have refused to act. Type in 'Pyrotechnics at Scottish football grounds in Scotland' in Google and read the top article which pops up. Dated May this year I think and covers attending football matches. That maybe gives a clue as to why Clubs are now being forced to intervene. Might explain a lot in fact. Pressure has certainly been applied.

Seems fair enough. I could agree with what you propose and the logic behind it, along with the transparency, which should cut both ways. I do think there has to be a minimum age or else at what age does it become too great a risk....11. 10. 9? But what about the points you did not cover? Those other behaviours....I have witnessed all of them in recent years... and whether bans should cover all grounds, as long as the bans are based on evidence. Or is pyro the only misbehaviour you think merits a ban? And what about proof of age? Is that a compromise worth accepting to show willing? Might even make Stewards' jobs a bit more straightforward. If not, why not.... on both counts?

I don't. But the age limit whatever it is needs to be made uniform. That's the point. I suggested 14 because that's a middle ground that I think most parents and Clubs would be comfortable with. Maybe as a starting point to be reviewed. I really couldn't care less what age it is, make it 12 if you like. That way everyone knows exactly where they stand, every ground has the same rules, and security officers cannot make up rules to suit their own agenda. I thought that was actually what you wanted? But no matter where it is set someone will complain. I know 12 year olds I would have no concerns about but I also know 14 year olds I would not trust to cross the road. A number is only a number, but for clarity it needs to be set and uniform. But what age would you suggest? And do you accept that the Club have the right to ask for proof of age? Like happens at other venues, even the cinema you referred to. Or is that a step too far? More authority to challenge? I did agree with your point re Fire Safety by the way. If this is going to be resolved there needs to be compromise and willing on both sides. There appears to be no acceptance of that from some. Is the issue the rule? Or is the issue Bob Park? On a broader note, I asked you previously if you attended away matches. In response to your comment that you have not witnessed any questionable fan behaviour within Fir Park. You did not answer that one. So I'll give you another question. If a Motherwell fan of any age is found to have taken pyros into a ground, or set them off, or entered the playing area, or abused stewards, or thrown objects onto the pitch do you think they should be banned from all grounds in Scotland? Some folk suggest that if it does not happen within Fir Park it should not affect attending Fir Park. Where do you stand on that one? And how about away fans that do the same at Fir Park.....you can add seat damage to the list. Should they also be allowed to carry on elsewhere, regardless?

Liverpool appear to be 16 minimum as well. Strangely, and I know SPFL and SFA are different entities, The SFA have a ruling that U16s need to be accompanied if attending Internationals and the Scottish Cup Final at Hampden. But can Rangers apply SPFL/their own rules when hosting matches there.? And what rules apply for the League Cup Final which is SPFL run? Perhaps at Hampden SFA rules apply at all times. The whole thing is a minefield. The ruling needs standardised across Scotland, if not the UK. Surely the SPFL/SFA should just issue a uniform rule and take the matter out of Clubs' hands. In my opinion, 14 minimum age for unsupervised attendance makes sens but when did common sense ever come into it? Maybe some good can come out of this whole issue. And can the WS, via Motherwell, ask for it to be put on the Agenda for the next meetings of the Governing bodies? A uniform ruling might then stop individual club security officers interpreting guidance for their own purposes and establish a basis for discussion if matters are not operating smoothly. Meantime I'm off to Perth hoping for a decent atmosphere, plenty of team support and no goings on that break St Johnstone ' house rules'.