v Millwall (h) - Saturday 19th February

[1864roverite]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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?

Covering the pitch wouldn’t have eased flooding as water/rainfall/sleet and the like would still require to drain away hence a high river level means it’s still the same scenario.

I am still a believer that the game could have been played if time had been allowed to drain the surface but I am not too sure as to regulations if there any about how long a delay can be made and of course,local plod would also have an input on that and the impact of away fans travelling south by train

[1864roverite]

1 hour 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

Blame lies with the ref and ref alone, when do we see refs explaining decisions let alone postponing a game at a late stage?

[jim mk2]

Just now, 1864roverite said:

Blame lies with the ref and ref alone, when do we see refs explaining decisions let alone postponing a game at a late stage?

 

Refs should be contractually obliged to explain their decisions to the public when a match is called off

Transparency and courtesy - it's not alot to ask

 

[chaddyrovers]

32 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 

Refs should be contractually obliged to explain their decisions to the public when a match is called off

Transparency and courtesy - it's not alot to ask

 

Waggott's comment yesterday on the Rovers official website and Radio Lancs why after the decisions. 

You honestly think the referee body is going to allow make public why they make decisions?

Edited February 20, 2022 by chaddyrovers

[rigger]

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Waggott to the Rovers official website and Radio Lancs why after the decisions. 

You honestly think the referee body is going to allow make public why they make decisions?

If they are honest decisions, why not ? You are to the English language, what Les Dawson was to piano playing.

[jim mk2]

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

You honestly think the referee body is going to allow make public why they make decisions?

WTF not?

When they've made a decision late in the day that affects the lives of tens of thousands of fans it's not alot to ask

Football refs  will also be asked explain their on-field decisions in future. Several countries are looking at it and other sports already do it

[JHRover]

1 hour 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.

Come off it.

The pitch is Rovers' responsibility. As is Ewood Park. If there is an issue with either of those then the blame for it lies at Rovers.

Correct - the referee has to assess the surface and determine whether it is fit to play on. It seems he did that and decided it wasn't in a good enough state to start the match. I would say that photographs and cameras and the view of things from the stands might be very different to the actual condition of the pitch when walking/running on it.

Maybe the referee has got it completely wrong here. Maybe he has made an absolutely ludicrous decision when the pitch was absolutely fine, in which case he should be dismissed. But isn't it strange how every other club in the land managed to avoid getting such a referee and he happened to turn up at Ewood, a ground we know from experience has been deprived of investment over the last 10 years.

Anyone who has been to or watched games at Ewood in the last 4-5 years will have noticed a clear deterioration in the surface and its ability to withstand heavy rain/snow. 

These call offs are becoming more frequent. Up until 2010 I can't remember games being called off due to the weather, or perhaps on very rare occasions, yet now it is becoming at least a once a year event.

It won't get better - only worse. 

Waggott knows investment is needed - he has admitted as much yet failed to deliver it. If Waggott admits money needs spending on something you know it is in urgent need. 

[Gav]

4 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Waggott knows investment is needed - he has admitted as much yet failed to deliver it. If Waggott admits money needs spending on something you know it is in urgent need. 

It was suggested yesterday that Waggott asked the owners for funds to relay the pitch over the summer, the owners declined.

[Mattyblue]

… which is odd, as they ‘never refuse a cheque’.

[chaddyrovers]

15 minutes ago, rigger said:

If they are honest decisions, why not ? 

13 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

WTF not?

When they've made a decision late in the day that affects the lives of tens of thousands of fans it's not alot to ask

Football refs  will also be asked explain their on-field decisions in future.

Cos they didn't and never will. Its the way it is. 

I would like to know myself why they make these decisions but I don't expect it will happen any time soon

[1864roverite]

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

 

Refs should be contractually obliged to explain their decisions to the public when a match is called off

Transparency and courtesy - it's not alot to ask

 

But you and I both know referees are hidden protected from everyone and anyone !

[1864roverite]

49 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Come off it.

The pitch is Rovers' responsibility. As is Ewood Park. If there is an issue with either of those then the blame for it lies at Rovers.

Correct - the referee has to assess the surface and determine whether it is fit to play on. It seems he did that and decided it wasn't in a good enough state to start the match. I would say that photographs and cameras and the view of things from the stands might be very different to the actual condition of the pitch when walking/running on it.

Maybe the referee has got it completely wrong here. Maybe he has made an absolutely ludicrous decision when the pitch was absolutely fine, in which case he should be dismissed. But isn't it strange how every other club in the land managed to avoid getting such a referee and he happened to turn up at Ewood, a ground we know from experience has been deprived of investment over the last 10 years.

Anyone who has been to or watched games at Ewood in the last 4-5 years will have noticed a clear deterioration in the surface and its ability to withstand heavy rain/snow. 

These call offs are becoming more frequent. Up until 2010 I can't remember games being called off due to the weather, or perhaps on very rare occasions, yet now it is becoming at least a once a year event.

It won't get better - only worse. 

Waggott knows investment is needed - he has admitted as much yet failed to deliver it. If Waggott admits money needs spending on something you know it is in urgent need. 

We could have had grass surface like Wembley but the fact of the matter is the drainage was hampered by a high river level adjacent to the riverside - if it’s above normal levels surface water at Ewood struggles to drain away properly - the other fact being that Rovers have previously sought to deepen the channel and reroute part of the river to ease flow issues but were denied until the riverside undergoes a rebuild!

[Mattyblue]

18 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

We could have had grass surface like Wembley but the fact of the matter is the drainage was hampered by a high river level adjacent to the riverside - if it’s above normal levels surface water at Ewood struggles to drain away properly - the other fact being that Rovers have previously sought to deepen the channel and reroute part of the river to ease flow issues but were denied until the riverside undergoes a rebuild!

And that’s all well and good, we are all aware of the geographic make up of Ewood.  

However, despite that, from memory, we still only had a single game called off (Villa in the cup in 2009/10) for water logging/a frozen pitch (I stand to be corrected, but you get my point of it being few and far between) between Wimbledon in 1993 and this lot taking over the club.

How many we had since?

Edited February 20, 2022 by Mattyblue

[bluebruce]

18 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

No Jim its the reality of the situation with Referee official body

If we all just accepted things for how they are, we would still be living in mud huts, at best.

[rigger]

8 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

If we all just accepted things for how they are, we would still be living in mud huts, at best.

eg Burnley.

[1864roverite]

36 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

And that’s all well and good, we are all aware of the geographic make up of Ewood.  

However, despite that, from memory, we still only had a single game called off (Villa in the cup in 2009/10) for water logging/a frozen pitch (I stand to be corrected, but you get my point of it being few and far between) between Wimbledon in 1993 and this lot taking over the club.

How many we had since?

Like you I struggle to recall a game being cancelled however you tell me just how many times we have had such shockingly awful weather, downpours, sleet and snow that have coincided with a game at Ewood? I will help you out, not many at all.

Its faff all to do with the owners or the club, a weather phenomenon and a quick fire decision by a referee  are the reasons why he saw fit to use player safety as a reason.

Edited February 20, 2022 by 1864roverite

[Mattyblue]

What in 30 years? Plenty.

[1864roverite]

3 hours ago, garnersfags said:

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. 

Because at 1230 the ref said it was good to go, then later the ref changed his view! Pretty simple to me

[1864roverite]

33 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

What in 30 years? Plenty.

We have not had weather like this week that coincides with a rovers home game for many a year, Wimbledon aside, the game v the nobbers has come the closest with the teeming rain that should have seen that game abandoned! I cannot ever recall any weather like this weekend since 1987!

[had.e.nuff]

2 hours ago, JHRover said:

Come off it.

The pitch is Rovers' responsibility. As is Ewood Park. If there is an issue with either of those then the blame for it lies at Rovers.

Correct - the referee has to assess the surface and determine whether it is fit to play on. It seems he did that and decided it wasn't in a good enough state to start the match. I would say that photographs and cameras and the view of things from the stands might be very different to the actual condition of the pitch when walking/running on it.

Maybe the referee has got it completely wrong here. Maybe he has made an absolutely ludicrous decision when the pitch was absolutely fine, in which case he should be dismissed. But isn't it strange how every other club in the land managed to avoid getting such a referee and he happened to turn up at Ewood, a ground we know from experience has been deprived of investment over the last 10 years.

Anyone who has been to or watched games at Ewood in the last 4-5 years will have noticed a clear deterioration in the surface and its ability to withstand heavy rain/snow. 

These call offs are becoming more frequent. Up until 2010 I can't remember games being called off due to the weather, or perhaps on very rare occasions, yet now it is becoming at least a once a year event.

It won't get better - only worse. 

Waggott knows investment is needed - he has admitted as much yet failed to deliver it. If Waggott admits money needs spending on something you know it is in urgent need. 

I think you will find there were a few ganmes off on Saturday due to weather so there are other refs that make the same decisions . just wish we could have got all February's games off with our record in feb over the years.

[CAPT KAYOS]

3 hours ago, 1864roverite said:

Covering the pitch wouldn’t have eased flooding as water/rainfall/sleet and the like would still require to drain away hence a high river level means it’s still the same scenario.

 

Explain pls 1864 (genuine) - the water  wouldn't have been on the pitch just maybe would have been a running river around the edge

 

21 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Because at 1230 the ref said it was good to go, then later the ref changed his view! Pretty simple to me

Wasn't  it covered in snow at 12.30 - how can he have called it on then and not once the snow once cleared  - all seems a bit strange to me

[1864roverite]

1 minute ago, CAPT KAYOS said:

Explain pls 1864 (genuine) - the water  wouldn't have been on the pitch just maybe would have been a running river around the edge

 

Wasn't  it covered in snow at 12.30 - how can he have called it on then and not once the snow once cleared  - all seems a bit strange to me

The water would have remained in top of the covers and has to go somewhere when they are lifted. Water around the edges if the pitch would be even more saturated especially when snow is moved from the surface. Remember the rivers level still plays it’s part.

Once the snow was removed the pitch was still saturated hence the video that appears that shows the ball not bouncing properly.

The club wanted to play but the ref didn’t want to take a chance. It was his decision not Rovers or Millwalls.

 

 

[jim mk2]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

No Jim its the reality of the situation with Referee official body

Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn’t mean it is right.  It’s a non argument.

Football needs to communicate better with the public, for example the farce when Rovers fans made an unnecessary journey to Hull which could have been prevented with better communication and Saturdays farce which needed to be explained to a mystified and frustrated public

Saying “that’s the way it’s always been done” is just plain dumb. If that were always the case football would still have 11 a side with no substitutes and a rope instead of crossbars 

[CAPT KAYOS]

7 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

The water would have remained in top of the covers and has to go somewhere when they are lifted. Water around the edges if the pitch would be even more saturated especially when snow is moved from the surface. Remember the rivers level still plays it’s part.

Once the snow was removed the pitch was still saturated hence the video that appears that shows the ball not bouncing properly.

The club wanted to play but the ref didn’t want to take a chance. It was his decision not Rovers or Millwalls.

 

 

Thanks 1864 ...but this is the moral of the point of having the covers especially given the factors that are matter of fact with regards to the pitch and the drainage .. given that the storm wasn't necessarily out of the blue and enough warning was advised across the country  -  there is  enough  space around the edges for the snow to have been swept back to sides from the covers much as you used to see  in the 'old days'.

The club is not absent without some blame here but the circumstances of what happened is  unexplained at present.

 

[Mattyblue]

Come off it 1864, not had weather like yesterday in 35 years indeed 🙄