Doonhamers vs. Accies

[Guest Flash]

It might have made sense to explain on the OS before the game the reasons for the closure of the exit. If you know in advance why something is being done, it usually makes people less inclined to think it is just some sort of mistake. Would also allow people to plan when to leave. I take the point that people could have held back if they wanted and it wouldn’t take that long to clear. Just not sure why it had to be top secret beforehand and is only now being explained on here.

[Skyline Drifter]

40 minutes ago, Flash said:

It might have made sense to explain on the OS before the game the reasons for the closure of the exit. If you know in advance why something is being done, it usually makes people less inclined to think it is just some sort of mistake. Would also allow people to plan when to leave. I take the point that people could have held back if they wanted and it wouldn’t take that long to clear. Just not sure why it had to be top secret beforehand and is only now being explained on here.

It's never been open though. It's not like this was the first game back. Supporters have been on that terrace for 3 games previously and not able to exit that way. I take your point entirely but would guess it never occurred to anyone that it needed specified when it was made clear the existing Red Zone areas still applied in the pre-match info.

It's not like any of this stuff is by choice. Red Zones are still enforced by the SFA / Govt as part of the conditions for football to operate and the club are doing their best to make things as normal as possible whilst complying with those regulations. The Main Stand will be reopened to supporters as soon as the new extended dugouts are in place (though that certainly won't be before Sunday's game) but it's likely the match officials will remain changing in the portacabins for a while yet and therefore that the Arena side exit to the Terrace will remain closed.

[Guest Flash]

29 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It's never been open though. It's not like this was the first game back. Supporters have been on that terrace for 3 games previously and not able to exit that way. I take your point entirely but would guess it never occurred to anyone that it needed specified when it was made clear the existing Red Zone areas still applied in the pre-match info.

It's not like any of this stuff is by choice. Red Zones are still enforced by the SFA / Govt as part of the conditions for football to operate and the club are doing their best to make things as normal as possible whilst complying with those regulations. The Main Stand will be reopened to supporters as soon as the new extended dugouts are in place (though that certainly won't be before Sunday's game) but it's likely the match officials will remain changing in the portacabins for a while yet and therefore that the Arena side exit to the Terrace will remain closed.

Not all supporters have been at the three previous games and they wouldn’t all know where the Red Zones were. Probably everybody knew about the Main Stand but maybe not about the rest. I totally get that it is out of the club’s hands, just thought it might be better to explain as much as possible beforehand, even if it meant repeating the same message before each game.
Not a big deal and I think everybody appreciates the efforts being made to get fans in.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

There's absolutely no reason for any supporter who is concerned about it to "exaggeratedly bunch together". Take some responsibility for your own safety and wait a few minutes if need be for goodness sake. Do your classrooms have multiple exits or are the pupils told to take their time and give people space when changing rooms?

How many match officials, etc do you think were using the area as a Red Zone "shortly before full time" as a matter of interest?

You're really misunderstanding me here SD.

I'm not particularly animated by the threat of catching this thing.  I can assure you that my house over the last fortnight, has been far more dangerous in that respect than any other setting I might visit.

My point isn't that the arrangement was hideously dangerous for fans, although if it was, your "take some responsibility" line would be absolutely laughable.

My point is that requiring such bunching in the name of Covid safety, which is surely what Red Zones are about, is wildly contradictory and therefore, nuts.

[Skyline Drifter]

58 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You're really misunderstanding me here SD.

I'm not particularly animated by the threat of catching this thing.  I can assure you that my house over the last fortnight, has been far more dangerous in that respect than any other setting I might visit.

My point isn't that the arrangement was hideously dangerous for fans, although if it was, your "take some responsibility" line would be absolutely laughable.

My point is that requiring such bunching in the name of Covid safety, which is surely what Red Zones are about, is wildly contradictory and therefore, nuts.

I clearly am misunderstanding you because I really haven't a clue what your point is then?

No "bunching" is required by anyone. There is a large wide open gate exit. There were about 550 people on that terrace yesterday. If people take their time and have some consideration everyone can easily exit it in a few minutes with lots of space and anyone who is worried about being too close to others can wait a few minutes until it clears. Likewise they can sit in their seat a bit longer rather than head straight to the exit in the BDS Digital Stand.

I get that it's inconvenient and frustrating that the exit at one side of the terrace isn't open. It's also inconvenient that the Main Stand isn't open. I get Flash's point too. I accept maybe that should have been made clear in pre-match info, I was merely trying to explain why it probably never occurred to anyone to do so.

I don't get why you think any of this leads to some sort of "required bunching".

[Monkey Tennis]

10 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I clearly am misunderstanding you because I really haven't a clue what your point is then?

No "bunching" is required by anyone. There is a large wide open gate exit. There were about 550 people on that terrace yesterday. If people take their time and have some consideration everyone can easily exit it in a few minutes with lots of space and anyone who is worried about being too close to others can wait a few minutes until it clears. Likewise they can sit in their seat a bit longer rather than head straight to the exit in the BDS Digital Stand.

I get that it's inconvenient and frustrating that the exit at one side of the terrace isn't open. It's also inconvenient that the Main Stand isn't open. I get Flash's point too. I accept maybe that should have been made clear in pre-match info, I was merely trying to explain why it probably never occurred to anyone to do so.

I don't get why you think any of this leads to some sort of "required bunching".

Jesus SD, it's the fact that a step is being taken in order to comply with rules around Covid safety, that actually requires more 'risky' behaviour than would be evident if no such compliance was required.

I'm moaning less about the bunching than I am about how Red Zones are operating.  I know that everything Covid rules related is riddled with contradiction.  I suppose I'm just highlighting a particularly perverse example.

The defence that such rules still need maintaining is a pretty solid one.  In practice though, the Red Zone business at our ground is absurd.  Maybe there's no alternative right now, but your refusal to recognise the absurdity is a little odd.

[Skyline Drifter]

50 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Jesus SD, it's the fact that a step is being taken in order to comply with rules around Covid safety, that actually requires more 'risky' behaviour than would be evident if no such compliance was required.

I'm moaning less about the bunching than I am about how Red Zones are operating.  I know that everything Covid rules related is riddled with contradiction.  I suppose I'm just highlighting a particularly perverse example.

The defence that such rules still need maintaining is a pretty solid one.  In practice though, the Red Zone business at our ground is absurd.  Maybe there's no alternative right now, but your refusal to recognise the absurdity is a little odd.

Nope, still not got a clue what your issue is. Any 'risky' behaviour is absolutely self inflicted by those doing so. You're going on like stewards herd supporters out a door with whips and force them together. There's plenty of opportunity to take your time exiting and not be particularly near anyone at all if you want to and have a little patience.

I'm sure you think you have a point here but it just sounds to me like you are moaning about something for the sake of it. It's inconvenient, it's not absurd.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Nope, still not got a clue what your issue is. Any 'risky' behaviour is absolutely self inflicted by those doing so. You're going on like stewards herd supporters out a door with whips and force them together. There's plenty of opportunity to take your time exiting and not be particularly near anyone at all if you want to and have a little patience.

I'm sure you think you have a point here but it just sounds to me like you are moaning about something for the sake of it. It's inconvenient, it's not absurd.

Right, best leave it there.

I know you're not a stupid bloke, but you're behaving like one in insisting I'm claiming fans are being put at massive risk, when instead I'm at pains to say otherwise.

For whatever reason, you're not prepared to say 'I know it seems daft, but our hands are a bit tied' so let's not worry about it.

[Skyline Drifter]

13 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Right, best leave it there.

I know you're not a stupid bloke, but you're behaving like one in insisting I'm claiming fans are being put at massive risk, when instead I'm at pains to say otherwise.

For whatever reason, you're not prepared to say 'I know it seems daft, but our hands are a bit tied' so let's not worry about it.

I know you think it's absurd but our hands are a bit tied.

I know you're not a stupid bloke but you're behaving like one in trying to make a problem out of something that really isn't a problem at all.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Skyline Drifter

[Guest Flash]

Minor point - why were Queens playing in blue shorts? I thought it might be some daft new rule but Rangers and Celtic both had white shorts yesterday.
Had a look at the Rules and the only reason I can find for the home club changing is Rule G39 where the SPFL Secretary determines in advance the colours to be worn if there will be a clash. Which would be odd given that Rangers didn’t have to change.
Rule G40 allows the ref to decide whether there is a clash “in the event of any dispute”.  But Rule 42 says if there is a clash on the day, and the away club didn’t bring an alternative strip, the away club should play in the home club’s alternative colours and/or shorts and/or socks. If there is still a clash, the away club should play in a combination of the visiting club’s and the home club’s alternative colours. 
Am I missing something? Or does the ref not know the rules?




 

[Fae_the_'briggs]

30 minutes ago, Flash said:

Minor point - why were Queens playing in blue shorts? I thought it might be some daft new rule but Rangers and Celtic both had white shorts yesterday.
Had a look at the Rules and the only reason I can find for the home club changing is Rule G39 where the SPFL Secretary determines in advance the colours to be worn if there will be a clash. Which would be odd given that Rangers didn’t have to change.
Rule G40 allows the ref to decide whether there is a clash “in the event of any dispute”.  But Rule 42 says if there is a clash on the day, and the away club didn’t bring an alternative strip, the away club should play in the home club’s alternative colours and/or shorts and/or socks. If there is still a clash, the away club should play in a combination of the visiting club’s and the home club’s alternative colours. 
Am I missing something? Or does the ref not know the rules?




 

Noticed that. Pretty sure they had white shorts on warming up, can only think that they were made to change, or decided to change, as Hamilton also had white shorts. Our blue top should always have white shorts imo. Not sure of the rules though. 

[Skyline Drifter]

2 hours ago, Flash said:

Minor point - why were Queens playing in blue shorts? I thought it might be some daft new rule but Rangers and Celtic both had white shorts yesterday.
Had a look at the Rules and the only reason I can find for the home club changing is Rule G39 where the SPFL Secretary determines in advance the colours to be worn if there will be a clash. Which would be odd given that Rangers didn’t have to change.
Rule G40 allows the ref to decide whether there is a clash “in the event of any dispute”.  But Rule 42 says if there is a clash on the day, and the away club didn’t bring an alternative strip, the away club should play in the home club’s alternative colours and/or shorts and/or socks. If there is still a clash, the away club should play in a combination of the visiting club’s and the home club’s alternative colours. 
Am I missing something? Or does the ref not know the rules?

The referee has ultimate authority on the kits as per Rule G40. In a decade or so of doing this there have been occasional issues with sorting out colours but I've never come across one who cared about a clash of shorts colours before. We've regularly played games where both teams had the same coloured shorts. They care about socks clashes, top clashes (especially sleeves) and keeper clashes but not outfield shorts generally. Saturday's referee however wasn't happy with it and asked if we would wear the blue ones instead. I suppose technically it should have been Hamilton who changed shorts but we were happy to accommodate. It wasn't a decision on the day, it was agreed previous Tuesday.

[JessieField]

On 29/08/2021 at 13:55, Manwithnoball said:

Interesting to see how new guy plays against Broomhill as he will play that game. He has only played a total off 11 games and did not get a game for a poor Bristol Rovers side last  season. Only time will tell. 

Who you talking about?

[Skyline Drifter]

38 minutes ago, JessieField said:

Who you talking about?

Ben Liddle

[Manwithnoball]

1 hour ago, JessieField said:

Who you talking about?

Ben Liddle

[19QOS19]

Ben Liddle

Aye a wee bit harsh on the guy there. It's correct what you're saying in regards to game time though but even a shite English League 1 side will be competing at a level higher than us so I have faith the boy won't be a complete dud. I'm hoping he features on Sunday as you suggest. Certainly I'd have him ahead of Joseph just now, who seems to be the go-to midfield sub.

[Manwithnoball]

11 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

Aye a wee bit harsh on the guy there. It's correct what you're saying in regards to game time though but even a shite English League 1 side will be competing at a level higher than us so I have faith the boy won't be a complete dud. I'm hoping he features on Sunday as you suggest. Certainly I'd have him ahead of Joseph just now, who seems to be the go-to midfield sub.

 

[Manwithnoball]

Just now, Manwithnoball said:

 

A wee bit harsh!!

[19QOS19]

A wee bit harsh!!

You've highlighted the one area of your original post that I agreed with. I don't need to see how many games he's played as I wasn't disputing it.

I think the general point was harsh, almost dismissing the boy before you've even seen him play. There can be a number of reasons why he hasn't had as much game time. It doesn't mean he won't be a decent addition to us.

Have a look at Isaiah Jones's game time before he came to us

[qos1990]

You've highlighted the one area of your original post that I agreed with. I don't need to see how many games he's played as I wasn't disputing it.

I think the general point was harsh, almost dismissing the boy before you've even seen him play. There can be a number of reasons why he hasn't had as much game time. It doesn't mean he won't be a decent addition to us.

Have a look at Isaiah Jones's game time before he came to us

Have a look at most randoms we’ve brought in.