RandomGuy.

Suspect ill be getting quoted a lot in the next hour or so with laughing emojis, thanks @capt_oats

How's McClelland been played? He looked brutally slow to turn/adjust/run when he did play for us, so any balls in the channel were a nightmare as you'd know the opponent was getting the ball. His chances of playing for us probably depend on what division we're in, and there's more chance he stays if we're relegated if anything.

Fun reading all that back, then reading Queens Park fans currently complaining about only scoring in one of their last 6 matches, an ineffective system, and shiteheart players being endlessly played. Not surprising those who were fairly vicious in their defence of him, and lauded his form when he first went there and had a jibe at Saints fans who wanted him out, have suddenly decided to avoid all mention of it.

Watt was very good for us, FWIW, and it seemed to only fall apart after he rejected a new contract and Tommy Wright decided he wanted to give Chris Kane a run of games to see if he'd be a capable first choice the season after. I think yer man is just very pro-St Johnstone, to the point it's assumed we do everything right and if things don't work out then it's someone else's fault, so the easiest reply to Bair turning his career around is claiming its luck etc., rather than admitted we failed him via coaching/tactics etc.

I don't think it's fair to use Nicolsons opinion are an example of the entire support, the Callum Davidson saga should show you why. Most Saints fans wanted Bair to succeed, saw he was awful for us, and were shocked he got another top flight side, which led to the reaction when he signed for you last Summer. The reaction now is of a feeling of a missed opportunity with us, with fingers being pointed at Davidson/MacLean for what seems a clear inability to get him performing. I think I've seen one or two say Bair is still shite and that this season is a one off, most wish him well and use it as a dig at Davidson.

Again, they do this all the time and you, again, have repeatedly explained to me that they let play go on at offside situations without making any decision, knowing a review will take play once play stops.

I've been told repeatedly in this thread that the referee would be blow straight away if he thought it was a clear foul. If he didn't he thought it was inconclusive. If he thought it was inconclusive why did he make that the stopping point for the VAR review and not allow the whole thing to be reviewed? Him awarding the free kick on the pitch, for something he thought was inconclusive, made it the end point for any review. They do this all the time and it happened earlier in the exact same game.

He can make no decision, stop play as it's come to a natural stop anyway with players appealing/there's a player injured in the box, and review the entire thing thanks to VAR. He made the decision to make sure the review process stopped at the earliest point possible.

Everyone seems to simultaneously agree that the foul for the free kick was in no way certain or that the ref knew it was a foul, while disagreeing with me that he shouldve allowed the whole play to be reviewed rather than making it a "free kick or not a free kick" decision. The moment he gave a free kick for a foul he knew was inconclusive, he made sure there was no chance of a penalty as he knew VAR couldn't overturn his initial decision. Yet to hear why he made the right choice beyond "RuLeZ r rULz" as a blind defence ignoring what actually happened.

Being worse than Hatate/O'Riley != Not good enough to be Scotlands 7th/8th best attacking midfielder.

Because the first thing they check is the foul since he gave it as a free kick, and since it's inconclusive they have to stick with his decision as they can't say he was clearly wrong, so everything that happened after is void. If he blows for the penalty, or even just a stoppage in play after the foul for a potential penalty, then he can review the whole play again on screen as the VAR wouldn't be able to tell him if it should be a free kick to Celtic or not.

And yet again, I ask for an example of them doing this in the past. I've never once seen a VAR review for an aerial challenge, given as a foul, overturned, either in St Johnstone games or in the few Sportscenes I watch. In any game not involving Celtic (or Rangers), the referee either blows for a foul straight away, or blows for the penalty and pulls it back for the foul after reviewing the play. To me it's just another example of how things are refereed differently when those two are involved with things weighted towards them in the decision making.

And since it's unclear and subjective, they can't overturn his decision so the check ends there and the penalty is off the table.

We've played them, at least, four times a season each most years for the past decade, it's really not going to be gutting at all if we avoid it for a while.

This is my last post on this because it's clear you're just refusing to see the point. But it's nothing like this. Offside are black or white matters with VAR. They're either offside or onside, so letting play continue there is fine as you know that the correct offside decision can be made. A foul, especially in the air, has far more shades of grey in it and is open to "I can't see it's clearly wrong so we'll stick with the on field decision" decisions by the VAR. By awarding the foul, that he didn't seem sure was a foul (you claimed any ref who saw a foul of that style and thought it was a clear foul would blow and not delay) he automatically makes it massively likely no penalty can be awarded as the type of foul it was means there's almost no chance the on field decision is overturned. He saw the entire play, that ends in a penalty for Aberdeen, and decided to weight it entirely in Celtics favour by awarding them a free kick, for a foul he wasn't 100% convinced was a foul, that VAR was never going to overturn.

By blowing for the foul, that happened at the start of everything, VAR then couldn't do anything beyond that point. He delayed for the best part of a minute, let play unfold, then decided to make sure that whole part was ignored and he would blow for a foul he wasn't sure about instead and make the decision free kick or not free kick. Why do that and delay when you're not sure about that, when you can blow for the penalty you're not sure about and they can check the foul and penalty at the same time, give him another chance to view the whole play, then decide?

He was averaging a goal every 96 minutes for Celtic this season, before leaving. His time at Celtic came to end because Hatate and O'Riley are spectacular footballers and he couldn't get ahead of them, not because he wasn't good enough or mobile enough. 7 goals in ~700 minutes and I think about 11 starts.

The whole point of the delay now is so VAR can check an entire sequence. Trying to referee the "same way" as before VAR by stopping the play at the start of a move, while including a delay, is entirely counter-intuitive and defeats the entire point of it. The penalty was more clear cut than the foul, so it that not the fairer decision? He couldve balanced it towards a more middle solution rather than making it 100% certain there could be no penalty. You literally said in the post I'd previously quoted that any referee who sees a foul as clear cut will blow for it instantly, yet now you're saying he was certain it was a foul from the moment it happened?

I don't think this is fair on him at all, and this "immobile number 10" myth seems to have been built up around him by Celtic fans who never liked him from the moment Motherwell went all sassy about their pathetic first transfer bid, and then Turnbulls general indifference to their entire club and clear intention to use them as a stepping stone. Hes more athletic and impactful without the ball than hes credited for, as shown for Motherwell. Cardiffs manager has stated his lack of minutes is due to him wanting to play a midfield that all know each others games exactly due to them slipping down the league then hitting a great run of form and him not wanting to change it.

Which would be the correct way of doing it, so the whole play could be reviewed. Instead he "stopped play" at the free kick, which you yourself admits was inconclusive about whether it was a foul or not, and VAR couldn't over rule the on field decision as it wasn't clearly wrong and so the chances of the penalty being awarded become zero. You yourself admit the referee wasn't certain the foul was a foul yet he decided to make that stopping point for the review instead of the penalty. Do you understand yet why thats bad refereeing and how it shafted Aberdeen and benefited Celtic?

This is serious business, DC92, mistakes can't be allowed to happen.

I think Turnbull isn't as far away as people will think. Hes played 30+ games this season and has 7 goals, its not as if hes doing nothing as he sits in the stands.

If the Livingston example is more similar then why bother showing one thats entirely different instead?

He clearly thought it was clear cut if he blew for that as the foul, otherwise he'd have blown for the penalty, which was a clear foul. Otherwise he's just guessing in Celtics favour and weighting things towards them, as if its not a clear foul by the Aberdeen player then VAR can't overturn his decision to give the free kick.

Which is why I've asked for examples.