Rod1877

Are Celtic not playing Dundee at Dens with a 3pm kick-off on the Sunday while we play Rangers at 12.30 the same day?

I don't think they released half of the final block in the top tier, nor the first 4 rows of the lower tier blocks. So probably a few hundred less than this at the moment.

For accuracy, the attendance at the most recent St Mirren v Celtic premiership fixture was 6,943.

Yup, as I suggested in my post. If it wasn't over the line at that point, it wasn't over at any point. Anyway, I don't believe that it can be definitive in that situation any more than it can be for offside, regardless of the supposed compensating thickness of the red and blue lines.

I should probably have paid more attention in geometry and trigonometry (although in my defence it was a long time ago) ... but if you can't use indirect angles to determine if a ball is behind a line at a fixed moment, then it seems absurd to use them to determine if a player is millimetres in front of another player. In the case of St Mirren's non-goal against Dundee (which, by the way, I don't think could be definitively determined) you would surely just choose the frame (or three possible frames) that might represent the point of contact with Joe Shaughnessy's boot. Re the bits in bold, judgement is being applied at each stage. All the while, the multiple points of reference (the players) are in rapid motion and the precise point of contact with the ball may be somewhat obscured since the camera could be behind the player making contact. If determination of the moment of contact even has a 0.5 second margin of error, that could represent 25 frames of footage.

If the VAR system is as accurate and conclusive as you make out, it should be perfectly capable of determining whether a ball is over the goal line or not. You have fixed points of reference in the posts, cross bar and goal line. You wouldn't even need to worry about which frame to choose since any frame that shows a line drawn from the ball as being behind the goal line would be definitive. Tight offside calls on the other hand involve fluid points of reference and they require extreme precision in determining which frame exactly corresponds with the point of contact when the ball is played. They are also often affected by the presence of other players obscuring the image and require perspective judgement since the freeze frame images are rarely in line and aren't 3D so can't accurately convey body shape.

Ignoring Eriskay, the next "big" island up is South Uist. Not too many Rangers fans about there either ... North Uist on the other hand ... bluenose central.

Interesting pick of Mark O'Hara at right centre back. "Jonners" making a play for inclusion in the "journalists who know their stuff" category.

In sharp contrast to Jamie Murphy who was described by Kheredine Idessane on Sportsound last night as, "the former Rangers man." Even allowing for a Wikipedia margin of error, in a 526 game career, Murphy played a mere 29 times for Rangers (most of them while on loan from Brighton). His contributions to other Scottish clubs seem a little more significant with 215 appearances for Motherwell and, most recently, 50 for Hibs. A reasonable pitch from Kheredine for inclusion in both the Terrible Journalism, etc and the Sportsound Watch threads.

It could be both. Private companies can be not for profit. Any profit (surplus) is normally reinvested in the company and not paid out to shareholders.

There's zero chance that you'll be getting any points on Saturday.

If collective responsibility is the test, why is HY not being slated for "trashing" her record as finance secretary by accusing her of leaving £600m on the table during budget negotiations with the UK government? Why did he not resign in protest? Why, when he knew all along that she was not suitably "progressive" did he not protest her appointment or resign his post in protest?

Did Kate Forbes really "trash the SNP's record in government"? Or did she just suggest that Humza Yousaf's personal record in his cabinet roles, as distinct from the record of the government as a whole, has been less than stellar? I'm not sure that it's how I'd have gone about it, but it doesn't seem too out of place in that particular form of debate when candidates are trying to demonstrate that they're more suited to the job than others. It's not as if any of it hasn't been said before and it seems to me that she gave him a perfect opportunity to defend his record. The fact that he was unable to do so with any kind of conviction was more telling.

Arguments for what? You said that Kate Forbes' church thinks that adulterers should face the death penalty. It doesn't. So, again, if you want the rest of what you say to be taken seriously refrain from indulging in palpable nonsense. As for your subsequent anecdotes, the first sounds incredibly unlikely, and Lord Mackay was not a member of the Free Church.

If you want to be taken seriously, don't include nonsense like this. The openDemocracy article is also sensationalised drivel with its claims of "shadowy" Christian groups, "dark money" and the startling revelation that Kate Forbes had an internship with an MSP five years before becoming an MSP.