Jump to content

craigkillie

Gold Members
  • Posts

    18,429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Posts posted by craigkillie

  1. 1 hour ago, Ginaro said:

    I don't attend Premiership games but from watching games with VAR on TV (both here and elsewhere) it still seems like fans can properly celebrate goals. Aberdeen fans didn't seem to have a problem celebrating their last minute equaliser in the cup semi. 

     

    Some people might still celebrate goals, but it is absolutely the case that a decent people don't do so with the same gusto when they're worried about a foul in the build up. I could list several this season which I have held back a bit because I've been worried about a foul or offside - our equaliser at Celtic Park perhaps being the biggest. The goal above didn't have any potential incidents in the build up which made it less of a worry.

    I can understand that people sitting at home with no vested interested in a game might see it differently, but they should never be the priority.

  2. 22 hours ago, Kyle Reese said:

    Well there you have it. I have laid out my reasons and backed them up with recorded incidents. I have stated reasons why I hold the position I do. 

    I take it from the post that I am replying to, that you did not get cheated as often as my team pre-VAR? That in itself just strengthens my resolve tbh.

    My position is that I would like to see the technology properly implemented to ensure more correct decisions than what we had to endure before its introduction. Also, pertinently, I want to see referees chosen on merit, and not because they scuttled through Strathclyde associations. 

    My club has not been cheated as much (we have still been cheated) as before VAR was introduced. For that reason I want to see it improved. It is human error that is causing the issues, not the technology. Let’s see us sort out the real problem.


    You sound like a 5 year-old when you start thinking every bad decision made is the result of cheating, which is probably why nobody else is engaging.

  3. 18 hours ago, Hedgecutter said:

    Worked out well for Morton when they tried to convince themselves they could compete at a level beyond their means:

     

     


    When they had a bad faith owner who was trying to run the club into the ground?

  4. 11 hours ago, Chewing Taffies said:

    I think Germany will win all 3 games. Plenty of players hitting good form at the right time - Havertz, Wirtz, Musiala etc.  Just beat Holland and France.


    I don't think there's much point in analysing friendlies (albeit that's obviously all they've played since 2022), and I think they have three quite stodgy opponents in their group where I'd expect them to at least end up drawing with one of us.

  5. The thing to note with all this chat about 3 points being enough for a best third place side ignores the fact that it could also potentially be possible to finish 2nd (or 4th) with 3 points in a group like ours. If Germany ended up winning all their games (albeit this is unlikely I think), and then us, Switzerland and Hungary trade wins, then it would come down to the head-to-head table across these matches.

  6. That's not quality control, these are deliberate "parallel stickers", just like the gold ones with the signatures on them. I'm not sure of the point but I think it's some American thing.

  7. 2 hours ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

    So if hes called up you think Clarke would be making a mistake?

    I'd be curious to hear your several available wingers in our league who are better than him?


    Danny Armstrong, Scott Wright, Blair Spittal and his own brother Alan Forrest for a start. Possibly Greg Kiltie as well. None of them really good enough to contribute either - Armstrong is the best of the lot but hasn't ever played at a higher level - but I think all of them have had far better seasons than James Forrest and would make a bigger contribution on the park if needed.

    Unless he's some amazing character around the dressing room, or he is fitter than I think he is, I don't think it would be a good pick.

  8. Forrest's legs are gone, there's no way we can even consider taking him as a wing-back option. As an attacking option, there's at least a tiny bit of a case that wasn't there a fortnight ago, but at the end of the day he's not a fraction of the player he was a few years ago, and even then he wasn't good enough against top level opposition.

    He is not even remotely close to Christie or Armstrong as a player right now, the fact he had an excellent few months for us 5 years ago doesn't change that. We also did actually beat Israel at Hampden more recently than that.

    Beyond the obvious attacking options, there are only two reasons to take a player along - either they have to be able to offer us something on the park or they have to be there to gain experience for the future. Forrest is neither at this point, there are several better wingers than him in the Scottish Premiership, let along elsewhere, and he is not going to be any use to us in the next campaign.

  9. On 30/04/2024 at 10:18, 10menwent2mow said:

    Killie secured a Top 5 finish and European football.


    This isn't true yet, is it?

    If Dundee win all four of their games, and St Mirren win their three which aren't against Dundee, and we lose all of ours, then Dundee would be a point ahead of us and St Mirren level on points.

  10. 1 hour ago, willywastecoat said:

    Are you saying refs never make mistakes?
    Personally the agreeing or disagreeing of decisions becomes irrelevant M8 because the decision gets made but not always with the on-field ref when he is getting influenced from a wee guy in a room,the same way the 4 guys are deciding on decisions that were made.
    The conclusion is the decision was wrong,the very fact it's in place should improve the consistency as the refs and the VAR team should get better the more they use it,plus form a level of consistency and a level of acceptancy.
     


    I'm not saying they never make mistakes, but I'm saying that most decisions being discussed are subjective and the findings of this panel aren't some magic "truth".

  11. The club simply didn't bother preparing for life after Clarke, and then had no idea what to do when he left, which led to the mess that was the hiring process that summer, where Bowie came across as being too starstruck to properly do the job he was actually there to do. Let's hope they've learned their lesson with McInnes, because they're all in on him now and he's clearly not going to be here forever. The whole board generally had their hearts in the right place and do have a bit more experience under their belts this time as well as having far more infrastructure in place, so hopefully it's a bit different.

  12. On 30/04/2024 at 09:41, Internet Citizen said:

    I think people can underplay just how bad we were before Clarke took over that season.

    I remember being at Fir Park when Motherwell turned us over 2-0. Broadfoot was so bad that the Motherwell fans were cheering his name. 


    We did finish 7th the season before though, and several of those players had good pedigree. It's not like it was some doomed squad circling the drain before he arrived, though the start had been awful.

    None of that is to underplay the clearly tremendous job that Clarke did. This current team is good, probably as good as any other team we've this century, but it is nowhere near the Clarke one.

  13. 4 hours ago, AJF said:

    Interesting to see that the amount of errors made by VAR is increasing. Kind of pisses all over those in favour of it that say it will get better with time.

    Also seems to make a bit of a mockery of our appeals system. One of the decisions that have been highlighted as being wrong was a red card shown to Sterling against Aberdeen. We actually appealed that and the appeal was thrown out. Now it’s being said that was incorrect.

    Shambles.



    There are four different decision makers here who are coming up with different interpretations of the incident:
     

    • On-field referee - Qualified and experienced referee. Has the "feel" of the game but only gets to see it once and may miss incidents or misinterpret them. Can sometimes get a second chance to view it at the screen, but only if the VAR intervenes. Could be influenced by crowd.
    • VAR - Qualified and experienced referee. Gets to watch multiple angles of the incident but may not have the feel of the game.
    • Appeal panel - Ex-players, managers etc. Don't think it includes any who is actually qualified as a referee. Could be influenced by the media clamour around an incident. Decisions not typically viewed in context of the game.
    • IRP - Ex-players, managers etc. "Guided" by someone with experience of the laws, but who knows what that means. Could be influenced by media clamour around an incident. Decisions definitely viewed in context of the game since it could be a couple of months later.


    If all of these groups disagree with each other, is a decision really "wrong"?

  14. On 29/04/2024 at 16:32, nate said:

    It’s not unreasonable to say that in a group with one superior team, and three others more or less at the same level, it comes down to whoever loses to Germany by the smallest margin. Getting Germany first looked ideal 5 months ago, but I’m thinking this is now a handicap. The goal difference situation is clearly going to be vital. I’d take a one-goal loss to Germany right now. Our probable back line of second-tier makeweights and guys out of position fills you with fear. Even a tube like Havertz is starting to get a bit tasty recently.


    Who do you think is going to be out of position in our defence?

  15. Which aspects do you think are fixed costs which wouldn't be reversible savings? A massive chunk of the money is mostly paying for the extra officials, the cameras (which you'd surely happily keep anyway), the rental of office space in a business park on the outskirts of Glasgow. The only sunk cost is surely the video screens and the branding.

  16. 25 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

    Sarwar openly saying "we need an election" rather than simply saying Yousaf needs to go, which if he's being serious rather than just ramping the pressure up through rhetoric does seem a gamble - an election that makes them the largest party now can backfire on them long term.

    Unless the thought process is simply to force Yousaf out without leading to an election with the SNP remaining in power, then you have enough time for leadership in general and Westminster election losses to taint Forbes or whoever else takes over as FM (which even with the Greens against could happen with support from Regan or abstention from Lib Dems). Possibly they'd rather that than Forbes or another coming in after Yousaf takes the fall for losses at Westminster with the SNP getting a new leader bounce at the same time as Labour's popularity potentially falls due to being the UK government.


    Would the Scottish Parliament rules not mean that if we had an election now there would still be another in 2026?

×
×
  • Create New...