v Millwall (h) - Saturday 19th February

[only2garners]

13 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I get the “ Observer “ I’ll have a look.

It's on page 5 of the Sports section in a short piece about postponed games. They got it right on the results page near the back.

[CAPT KAYOS]

Regardless of 'guess who' was to blame yesterday  and whether any of the fans thought it was playable its the way it was handled more than anything else  and was just a total shambles

All the ifs and buts of whether the pitch would have cut up are irrelevant as we we all know  that there are issues  and could have ended up playing snow or no snow and freak weather  and still have the same situation for the pitch not just yesterday  but in any week.

The issues are well documented  and there was enough warning about the weather for precautions to have been taken which for our pitch should be a standard.

Seems too much of he says she says' for me  and still no mention from the referee ... have no issue with  refs calling off games  and it wouldn't have been in his mind  whether it would cut up for the next game as not his problem - question for me is whether the ref was made aware of the issue of drainage when it was covered in snow as a logical decision could have been made at the earlier  pitch inspection if so,  to the likelihood  it wouldn't be playable if  the decision was because it was considered unplayable because  of a soggy bottom.

Edited February 20, 2022 by CAPT KAYOS

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

15 minutes ago, only2garners said:

It's on page 5 of the Sports section in a short piece about postponed games. They got it right on the results page near the back.

If you look at it one way they are right. It needed a pitch inspection before going ahead. They did the inspection and the pitch failed, so the game didn’t go ahead. I hope I’ve not started the debate off again.

[1864roverite]

14 hours ago, Mercer said:

I do recall something similar as well.

IMO, today was shambolic for a club with PL aspirations.

To me, smacks of the club being totally unprepared for any snow today - it was forecast yesterday.

As a minimum, I think the undersoil heating should have been switched on yesterday which as Revidge Blue has said would have helped prevent the build up of snow on the pitch.

Might be wrong here but whilst Bolton had something like 40 folk out on their pitch we seem to have had, based on photos I've seen and feedback I've had, between 4 to 10 people trying to clear.  The club could either have roped all the Academy youngsters in or asked for volunteers (and they would have been knocked over in the rush).

The pitch has been an issue for some while and Waggott and Mowbray must take responsibility for not driving this through with the Venkys - after all, we are often told the club only needs to ask.........  

A sad and embarrassing day for Rovers.  Waggott and Mowbray call the shots and, IMO, yet again have been found wanting.  We are right down there with the likes of Harrogate, Salford and Fleetwood - what an indictment.

You don’t just switch the undersoil heating on and it’s not there to melt snow 😅 it automatically kicks in as a certain temperature is reached and it is not allowed to be on one hour before the game starts nor during the game . Bits neither embarrassing or a discredit to Ewood, The club or its owners the bloody ref thought player safety was the  decisive factor and that alone stands as the reason. Both clubs wanted to play the ref did not allow it !

[chaddyrovers]

Mowbray saying in the LT that both he and Rowett wanted to play the game

Blackburn Rovers and Millwall managers wanted game to go ahead | Lancashire Telegraph

[RevidgeBlue]

14 hours ago, Mercer said:

Come on Gav, you can do better than this.

Firstly, unless I'm mistaken, the number of people clearing snow is less than ten.

Secondly, clearly you are no expert groundskeeper.  You can widely read about under soil heating systems and in general, the benefits flagged are all the same - one being "Under-soil heating involves installing pipes underneath the playing surface and pumping hot water through them. Even in the worst conditions, any snow and ice is melted quickly and the pitch can then drain fairly fast".

What I've stated is not misinformation and not 'crap made up' but simply fact.

Similar to what I read Mercer.

The situation yesterday is quite simple, if the Club had had the pitch in an acceptable condition, the referee would not have called the game off and it would have gone ahead. People are quick to blame the referee but it seems our manager and CEO could not even agree on whether the game should go ahead. It has been said Mowbray wanted the game called off due to the risk of long term damage to the pitch and Waggott wanted to "give it a try". What an absolute shambles.

It seems to me pretty clear that if you have operational undersoil heating and have remembered to switch it on and decent drainage you should never have a game called off due to the condition of the pitch caused by snow and ice. 

I dont think the temperature has actually gone below freezing in the last few days so maybe it wasn't deemed cold enough to put the undersoil heating on (if it still works) and maybe the flurry of snow caught us completely by surprise. (Though I don't know why it should).

What isn't in dispute though after the postponement last season and yesterday's debacle and the Preston game that we struggle to get the pitch into an acceptable condition when there is a reasonable amount of precipitation of either sort. That being the case, and given the fact the entire pitch wasn't replaced in summer, why cant we take one or two extra precautions to safeguard against this?

At the Preston game there were two blokes with tiny handheld devices trying in vain to remove excess water off the pitch prior to kick off. My mate who's a former professional golfer and who is familiar with the technology used to clear golf courses commented that the equipment (if you can call it that) was insufficient to clear an area that size and we needed a couple of large machines you sat on. If we're leaving the pitch for the time being, why can't we have the foresight to invest in /rent something like that and/or some pitch covers?

You'd expect better organisation at non League level. How much must that postponement have cost us yesterday? Especially with the ill fated 2 game bundle in effect? How many double refunds will we have to give?

[oldjamfan1]

7 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

 

It seems to me pretty clear that if you have operational undersoil heating and have remembered to switch it on and decent drainage you should never have a game called off due to the condition of the pitch caused by snow and ice. 

I dont think the temperature has actually gone below freezing in the last few days so maybe it wasn't deemed cold enough to put the undersoil heating on (if it still works) and maybe the flurry of snow caught us completely by surprise. (Though I don't know why it should).

You'd expect better organisation at non League level. How much must that postponement have cost us yesterday? Especially with the ill fated 2 game bundle in effect? How many double refunds will we have to give?

Sorry mate - most of that is horse shit. More than one poster has explained how the under soil heating works but you’re still insinuating that we ‘forgot to turn it on (if it still works)’. 
I’m the first and quickest to criticise the club but basically making things up and having a pop at them for those made-up things undermines all the legitimate complaints we actually have.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, 1864roverite said:

You don’t just switch the undersoil heating on and it’s not there to melt snow 😅 

Says who?

Surely the whole point of it is to have it switched on in advance of any anticipated snow so that it melts on contact with the pitch. If your drainage can't then cope with the amount of precipitation coming down then that's a separate issue.

[oldjamfan1]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Says who?

 

Says any groundsman who has operated at an elite level.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

Sorry mate - most of that is horse shit. More than one poster has explained how the under soil heating works but you’re still insinuating that we ‘forgot to turn it on (if it still works)’. 
I’m the first and quickest to criticise the club but basically making things up and having a pop at them for those made-up things undermines all the legitimate complaints we actually have.

 

I think myself and Mercer were the ones who attempted to to introduce some factual content to the debate by explaining how under soil heating works. And it backs up my complaints.

Ok, let's assume the heating is working but that we thought it wasn't cold enough for the heating to be on.

In that case the snow must have caught us on the hop. If the heating is on in advance of the snow the game goes ahead unless the drainage on the pitch isn't good enough to deal with the excess water. If the latter is the case, don't bother with tghe heating but cover the pitch instead.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

11 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

Says any groundsman who has operated at an elite level.

No point arguing about this, have to agree to disagree, if you're correct then seemingly the manufacturers of the pitch heating technology don't understand how their own products work.

Unless of course the 30 year old system at Ewood operates in a different way to modern ones.

[oldjamfan1]

6 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I think myself and Mercer were the ones who attempted to to introduce some factual content to the debate by explaining how under soil heating works. And it backs up my complaints.

Ok, let's assume the heating is working but that we thought it wasn't cold enough for the heating to be on.

In that case the snow must have caught us on the hop. If the heating is on in advance of the snow the game goes ahead unless the drainage on the pitch isn't good enough to deal with the excess water. If the latter is the case, don't bother with tghe heating but cover the pitch instead.

 

The facts are these:

The heating system is automatically triggered when the temperature drops to a certain point. Nobody ‘forgot to turn it on’ nor is it switched off. Those two issues are being assumed by you to suit your narrative.
Under soil heating is not designed to ‘melt snow’. That simply is not what it is there for or what it does. In any event snow on the pitch is not what caused the game to be postponed and I don’t think there is any dispute about that. 

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

The facts are these:

The heating system is automatically triggered when the temperature drops to a certain point. Nobody ‘forgot to turn it on’ nor is it switched off. Those two issues are being assumed by you to suit your narrative.
Under soil heating is not designed to ‘melt snow’. That simply is not what it is there for or what it does. In any event snow on the pitch is not what caused the game to be postponed and I don’t think there is any dispute about that. 

We haven't had any actual explanation of why the game was postponed.

If as you're insinuating it was postponed due to excess water on the pitch, pretty clear it should have been covered with two storms passing through and known drainage problems with the pitch then?

[1864roverite]

26 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Says who?

Surely the whole point of it is to have it switched on in advance of any anticipated snow so that it melts on contact with the pitch. If your drainage can't then cope with the amount of precipitation coming down then that's a separate issue.

Simon it’s an automatic function - the system is “on” permanently and “kicks in” once a certain temp is reached ie 3 degs above freezing. It will not melt snow it prevents soil from freezing and that is all it does. Drainage is a different issue there are drainage channels all under the pitch however if the river is high those channels do not allow for the outpipes to flow the water into the river especially if the underground tanks are already full. Yesterday saw an enormous amount of rain sleet and snow hence why the pitch didn’t drain much like Wimbledon a few years ago. 

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Simon it’s an automatic function - the system is “on” permanently and “kicks in” once a certain temp is reached ie 3 degs above freezing. It will not melt snow it prevents soil from freezing and that is all it does. Drainage is a different issue there are drainage channels all under the pitch however if the river is high those channels do not allow for the outpipes to flow the water into the river especially if the underground tanks are already full. Yesterday saw an enormous amount of rain sleet and snow hence why the pitch didn’t drain much like Wimbledon a few years ago. 

Taking all that as read and especially being aware of all the existing problems then surely that's all the more reason to take the simple precaution of covering the pitch close to a game during spells of exceptionally bad weather then?

[jim mk2]

Has there been any statement from the club, or an apology?

If I were Millwall FC, I'd be hopping mad and making a complaint to the EFL

What we did to them was worse than the Hull postponement

[garnersfags]

For me, the main issue around the postponement was the communication from the referee and/or the club about whether, at any point, the ref had said to anyone that there was even the slightest possibility of a 2nd inspection.

If there was even a thought about a 2nd inspection, this HAD to be communicated publicly. 

This would have had a direct health and safety impact, as fans would have factored this into the decision about whether to travel, based on road conditions etc.

I was following all sources, including social media, and didn't hear even a sniff about any ongoing doubts the ref had from 12.30.

Whoever is responsible for this should be formally investigated, and personally held to account. 

This was the shambles....

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Has there been any statement from the club, or an apology?

If I were Millwall FC, I'd be hopping mad and making a complaint to the EFL

What we did to them was worse than the Hull postponement

Waggott has sent the Millwall fans back with some "perishable food" according to Lancs Live. Adding "It's a little gesture but enough". Talk about adding insult to injury

Saves us having to throw it away I suppose. You couldn't make it up.

[speedies gonna get ya.]

3 minutes ago, garnersfags said:

For me, the main issue around the postponement was the communication from the referee and/or the club about whether, at any point, the ref had said to anyone that there was even the slightest possibility of a 2nd inspection.

If there was even a thought about a 2nd inspection, this HAD to be communicated publicly. 

This would have had a direct health and safety impact, as fans would have factored this into the decision about whether to travel, based on road conditions etc.

I was following all sources, including social media, and didn't hear even a sniff about any ongoing doubts the ref had from 12.30.

Whoever is responsible for this should be formally investigated, and personally held to account. 

This was the shambles....

Totally agree. I waited for confirmation match was on after inspection at 12.30 before driving in awful conditions from Lancaster with my daughter and Dad in car. A needless risk. I had no idea a second inspection was happening

[garnersfags]

15 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Yesterday saw an enormous amount of rain sleet and snow hence why the pitch didn’t drain much like Wimbledon a few years ago. 

This is interesting, and the 1st official comment on what actually happened. And even stranger that the ref thought it was unplayable, as there was no rain or snow after the 1st inspection. 

Where and when was this announced? 

[islander200]

22 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Has there been any statement from the club, or an apology?

If I were Millwall FC, I'd be hopping mad and making a complaint to the EFL

What we did to them was worse than the Hull postponement

Millwall manager and Ceo both felt the pitch was playable.

Their CEO has publicly said he didn't agree with the refs decision.

Christ some people just can't wait to stick the boot into the club.

[USABlue]

Seems to me some are just looking for sticks to beat the club with.  This was a refs decision so unless we briwn bagged him to make that decision it is sweet FA to do with Rovers.

[garnersfags]

Kaminski, Lenihan (c), van Hecke, Wharton, Nyambe, Travis, Rothwell, Buckley, Pickering, Khadra, Gallagher

Subs: Pears, Johnson, Davenport, Dolan, Rankin-Costello, Hedges, Giles

We didn't get the chance to discuss the team, most people didn't know it had been released. 

I thought the Pickering decision was interesting, and I expected the other changes. 

We would have exploded from the traps, and assuming Darra didn't get a 5th min yellow, I was optimistic we could overpower them.

Aaahhhh.....what might have been.🙂

Edited February 20, 2022 by garnersfags

[garnersfags]

15 minutes ago, USABlue said:

Seems to me some are just looking for sticks to beat the club with.  This was a refs decision so unless we briwn bagged him to make that decision it is sweet FA to do with Rovers.

I agree with this, but I'm still waiting for the club to explain why they officially announced, at 12.30, that the game would go ahead, with no mention of further inspections. I expect them to announce that the ref did not mention the need for further inspections, and then independently changed his mind. 

Or that there was always going to be a further inspection, but for some reason the club didn't announce this til 1.40.

This is the important issue, and I expect an explanation.

The debate about river Darwen-affected drainage, which I cannot believe is still an issue 40 years later.....( 🥱😕), is related, but we can't do anything about the ref's decision. 

As ever, clear communication to 15000 people is pivotal. 

Edited February 20, 2022 by garnersfags

[USABlue]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Mowbray saying in the LT that both he and Rowett wanted to play the game

Blackburn Rovers and Millwall managers wanted game to go ahead | Lancashire Telegraph

Surely, and I can not think of a good explanation why not, this should weigh very heavily on the ref's decision.  Clears him some what from responsibility should a player get hurt.  Points the blaming fingers at the managers rather than the ref then.  Has footy just gotten too soft and girly like?  Anyone remember the state of the pitch when we played Luton the day Keeley sent Fucillo sp? into orbit.  I remember many many pitches that were in a horrible state but games went ahead.