Raith Against The Machine

Upon reflection, and a quick Google, is it a case that the law is an ass, rather than the referee? "The handball rule now has extra clarity because it does not consider intent by a player. Another big change is to do with the position of a player's hand/arm. If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded. IFAB says that having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a "natural" position and a player is "taking a risk" by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding. It is, however, considered natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling, so long as the arm is not extended to make the body bigger." The dividing line on a call like yesterday's, as per the laws of the game, is whether "the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger" which is usually a penalty, or "the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger" which usually isn't. It's a really badly worded law. First of all, the idea of "unnatural" is ridiculous, unless a defender's arm suddenly detaches from his body and levitates somewhere near the top corner of the goal. But it's also clearly written to apply to "blocks". Hands by your side? No issue. Hands out wide to try and stop the ball? Penalty. And that's generally fine. But it goes to pieces with situations like yesterday. Is Davidson's arm in an "unnatural" position? As above, I wouldn't have said so purely on the basis that the limb is still attached to his body, rather than scuttling across the pitch in the manner of the Addams Family's Thing. But looking at the two examples given in the Law above, which fits better? (a) Has the ball touched Davidson’s hand/arm which has made his body unnaturally bigger? Maybe. His arm is sticking out, although it's nowhere near "above his shoulder" which is where the law gets specific, and the ball's probably going to come off his knee anyway. Or, (b) Has the ball touched Davidson’s hand/arm which is close to his body and has not made his body unnaturally bigger? Eh, again, maybe? His arm isn't particularly close to his body, he's turning at the moment of that screengrab, and his momentum is taking his arm wide. On balance, it's possibly closer to "b" than it is to "a", which the law dictates wouldn't "usually" be a penalty, but it's such a fine line for the referee to judge. Intent is so much easier for a referee to assess. Even when blocking a shot, this new law is still okay. "Would that have gone in if the defender hadn't thrown his arms out like that?" But situations like this, a ball dropping from the air, a defender unsighted, moving away from goal? The rule just makes a referee's life more difficult, because he's assessing largely arbitrary factors like placement of the arm, when (i imagine) most "football people" would look at that and tell you that it shouldn't be a penalty. And why should it not be a penalty? Because there's absolutely nothing Davidson can do. For it to be punishable, there really needs to be something you can point at to say "he shouldn't have done that". The ball comes down over his shoulder, he's visibly looking around trying to see where it's gone, and the first thing he knows about it is when it bounces off his elbow. How does he (or any other defender) prevent that? Defend any loose ball with your hands behind your back, like that spate of weird attempts to block crosses at the 2010 World Cup?

Watson at centre half is just silliness.

Until the penalty, the three centre halfs were imperious. If anyone's place is at risk following that performance, it's Munro. His goalkeeping is generally fine, but his kicking is diabolical. When we're relying on getting balls out to the wingbacks to get forward, it's an absolute killer. I don't think we've learned much that we didn't already know from that game. The back three is our strongest defence. Tait is a better replacement for Spencer than for Matthews, who's steel is required in the middle. We need another striker. Whilst John Baird produces moments like nobody else, neither he, Anderson, Bowie or Smith has enough consistency and quality to lead the line in a title tilt.

I've never muted anyone on P&B before. Congratulations.

Paul Smith dragging John McGlynn away from the referee at the end there.

That one looked more like a penalty, but I don't think a single Livi player claimed for it. Regardless, this game has been refereed terribly.

That looked incredibly soft. The ball definitely hit Davidson's hand, but he was looking in the other direction. Couldn't be further from deliberate. And there's a second. Collapse. We'd been near flawless until then.

Livingston have had 70% of the game, and for the other 30%, Ciaran Brown has had his arms around John Baird.

Did Craig Sibbald no used to be good?

Absolutely nothing has gone right for Tony Dingwall, except the assist for the goal. If the scoreline stays like this, I won't complain, but he can't be far away from losing his place to Victoria. He tries the right thing most of the time, but his execution is miles away from where it needs to be. He doesn't look like a player we signed from the Premiership. It's also been startlingly apparent how much we've missed Michael Miller. As much as Jamie Watson has come on leaps and bounds, Miller is just different gravy. He's had a relatively quiet half, but he just exudes calmness and threat (if that's not a contradiction in terms). Overall, the gameplan has been executed excellently. Livi must've had 70% of the ball, but they've struggled for any sort of cohesion. Lots of knocking it between Lamie and Sibbald, staring at a block of Rovers jerseys. As you'd expect with that much possession, they've had a couple of chances. One cross was turned up onto the post with Munro nowhere near, possibly via a deflection, and they've had a couple of efforts right at the keeper. Getting the goal was massive. I think it was the Rovers only shot on target, but they've shown glimpses of danger, particularly on the break. You'd think a handful of those chances will come along again, particularly if Livi don't square it up in the first fifteen minutes after half time.

In line with this post, the Rovers are disinclined to offer Livingston any space in the final third. As a result, Livi are having a lot of the ball in the middle, and haven't looked too creative so far. They have had an effort off the post, but it looked the result of accident rather than design. The Rovers have just had their first big chance. Matthews breaks into the box and his cut back is *just* intercepted to prevent a certain goal. Ya c**t. Bairdy has just scored an overhear kick from the corner. Brb, away for scenes.

Huge gap between the midfield and Baird. Asking a lot of Tony Dingwall in particular, and so far... He's no' in.

A welcome return of the back three, by the look of that line up. Really up for this one now.

"Thin skin" is staggering ignorance.

Thanks for this. Could you give us an update on McGlynn's pursuit of Craig Brewster, Luis Suarez and Roy Race?

The Times, of all publications, has Shane Sutherland going to Caley Thistle on a pre-contract agreement. I think it's fairly well established that PCAs aren't worth much from a legal standpoint, so we could potentially still swoop in with a cash bid this month, but the chances of him choosing Kirkcaldy over Inverness seem... slim.

As would I. You've got Nando as a back-up, and the option to switch back to two centre halfs is always there, but McGlynn doesn't seem keen. It doesn't immediately make sense. Anderson doesn't seem the type to be the deciding factor for a back three. He's very much a no-nonsense defender, when you'd think it'd be more of a ball-player who'd be the lynchpin for that system. It might be his organisational skills that he thinks are missing. Defenders are generally comfortable with a back four. Is McGlynn not willing to gamble on Davo and Bene talking McKay or Nando through a relatively drastic change of system?

I'd spit on my own mother to see Marc McCallum in a Rovers jersey.

Agreed. He clearly had a job to do in shutting down MacDonald, who proved to be our best creative threat. He lost out a couple of times, which is to be expected, but didn't let his head go down and made some crucial interventions.

Not having Steven Anderson is obviously a nightmare because of his individual ability, but the fact that it significantly reduces (or completely iradicates) our chances of returning to a back three is a real sickener. When you look at a game like today, where 90% of our creative threat came from the full backs (and that's without Michael Miller), letting them loose as wing-backs was a tremendous weapon.

Chalk up another one. Unreal stop from McCallum in the same move though. Best keeper in the league by an absolute mile.

Kieron Bowie seems to think his heid is twice the size it actually is. The number of crosses this season that've gone by two inches in front of his forehead.

MacDonald's cross headed back across goal brilliantly by Dylan Tait. Those two have been the only two to have really shown up this afternoon, to this point. Let's see what happens now the tails are up. Baird already looks transformed.

Tait does so well with his first touch. Which makes the finish even more unbelievable.

Rovers looking a wee bit more confident on the ball than they did previously. Still struggling to string together two or three good moves without making basic errors, though.