Orraloon

Ramy picked a bad day to go on his holidays. 🤣

Your still in the Scottish Cup.

Hickey might be worse than pathetic after three months off. We just don't know yet.

I can sense a caption competition coming on. I'll start with the obvious one. "WTF are you looking at?"

Their head groundsman has just moved across the road to Dens. Best signing Dundee have made this season.

🤣

CZE.

Ah.....white van man.

🤣

Holy pitch covers?

Games get called off. That's football. The weather has been pretty unusual for Dundee this winter.

I'm still convinced his boots were two sizes too big for him. Maybe he has grown into them now?

Exactly. There is no ban, yet some folk just like to regurgitate unionist propaganda.

Guess when the rain is forecast to start. 1100. 🤣

Peddling unionist propaganda. Divide and rule, oldest trick in the book but we continue to fall for it.

Olly Burke would be first name on the team sheet.

He didn't say it after the referendum, it was before the referendum. The point of saying it was to emphasise to voters that the Tories had sanctioned this one off opportunity, and we might not get another chance for a long time. He wasn't specifying any timescale before we can have another one, just emphasising how important the referendum was. And it wasn't an emotional poor choice of words, after the event. It was written into the "Scotlands Future" document. He was basically saying to voters, not to expect to get a second chance at this as there is no guarantee that Westminster will allow us to have another go. So far he has been proved correct. "557. If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date? The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent."

If the ref deems it to be "careless" or "reckless" it's a foul, whether the ball is touched or not. The laws of the game don't mention "making contact with the ball". The only thing that the ref needs to convince himself of, is, - was the tackle careless? If it was it's a foul, if he decides it wasn't careless it's not a foul.

It doesn't matter in determining whether a foul has been committed. It's either a foul or it isn't. Whether a player touches the ball before, during, or after, only comes into play in determining the severity of the foul. The ref can consider that in mitigation when determining the level of intent, and hence it can be used to help him decide if it warrants a yellow or red card, for example. Touching the ball only plays a small role in the refs decision making, and should have no bearing whatsoever in whether a foul has been committed.

Do you have a definition of "indigenous Scots"? Is there a granny rule involved?

That bit is largely irrelevant. A foul is a foul, it doesn't matter whether the player touches the ball or not. Not that I've seen this one you are talking about, so I've no idea whether it was a foul or not.

It's just the old "divide and rule" tactic. Seems to work most of the time. You would think folk would have sussed this tactic out by now, but no, people just keep on falling for it. Maybe we are too ignorant to be independent?

Looks like they got some sand from the arabs. Looks perfectly playable to me.

I thought World Rugby told them they had to do it if they wanted to play in the World 7s. I could be wrong though?

Dens used to be consistently one of the best playing surfaces in the country. I wonder what has changed?