FAC Q/F v Sheffield United (a) - 19/3/23, 12pm K/O

[Polky]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Sounds more like a yellow lining…

Given this additional information, I’d contacting the club for a refund of the travel costs.

Link below in case you want it:

https://www.rovers.co.uk/club/customer-charter/ 

 

 

Thanks, I will look into that later 👍🏻

[rigger]

1 minute ago, joey_big_nose said:

 

I think the point in RU is intent has nothing to do with it now. If you meet the criteria you get sent off. Its up to the tackler to make sure he does not meet any criteria no matter how unintentional. If the criteria is too harsh then the criteria need changing.

They've taken red cards out of the referees hands with the protocol to try and make it predictable and drive down head injuries.

The thing I like about how VAR is used in both rugby codes, is that there is a conversation between all officials and they come to a concensus decision, rather than just one persons opinion.

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

 

I think the point in RU is intent has nothing to do with it now. If you meet the criteria you get sent off. Its up to the tackler to make sure he does not meet any criteria no matter how unintentional. If the criteria is too harsh then the criteria need changing.

They've taken red cards out of the referees hands with the protocol to try and make it predictable and drive down head injuries.

I know you’re just pointing out the authorities position but how can a player make sure he doesn’t do something unintentionally?

Sometimes these things are just accidental - not all incidents need to be punished so severely.

Sorry for going off topic again!

 

 

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, rigger said:

The thing I like about how VAR is used in both rugby codes, is that there is a conversation between all officials and they come to a concensus decision, rather than just one persons opinion.

Plus you can (at least on the tv, I don’t know about in the grounds) hear that conversation.

Sorry again!!

Edited March 20, 2023 by wilsdenrover

[rovers11]

Still gutted that we got so close but missed out. However, also very proud and excited that our club is on the way back. For the first time, I genuinely think we'll be a prem club again in the not too distant future. 

[yeti-dog]

33 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Sounds more like a yellow lining…

Given this additional information, I’d be contacting the club for a refund of the travel costs.

Link below in case you want it:

https://www.rovers.co.uk/club/customer-charter/ 

 

 

I understand your point but why should the club be liable for neanderthal like behaviour of fans?

It feels like there's no personal accountability these days - pissing in carrier bags and throwing them downstairs tells you everything you need to know about these reprobates.  

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

JDT said that we had been playing five across the back throughout when we lost the ball, in answer to a similar point made to him by Andy Bayes.

We saw this in the stand where I was sitting too. Hedges was very much RWB the entire second half. The system didn't really change in my opinion and the subs made were right for the occasion in my opinion, it just didn't work out in the end.

[Mike E]

36 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Plus you can (at least on the tv, I don’t know about in the grounds) hear that conversation.

Sorry again!!

I believe what you hear on TV is in fact the ground's tannoy.

[TheRovers1994]

Perspective is 

lee made a great account for ourselves and deserved extra time atleast 

why is jdt being blamed ? Yeah it’s not the changes anybody would have thought of but on another day it would have worked and if it wasn’t for soft lad we wouldn’t have lost like that, but jdt deserves full credit! He’s got them playing nicely and is bringing the best out of a short and young squad and has given us a chance in both competitions after years of mowbray throwing them away embarrassing us against lower league local opposition too, even back in 2017 he couldn't be arsed against a half arsed dingle team when we could have caused them utter embarrassment.

Another positive is if we had gotten through it would mean another midweek game at the business end inbetween Luton and millwall and a mauling off city, yes we would get our day out but that’s all it would have been and the hope of atleast getting to see our team score atleast once at the new Wembley since is completion 16 years ago. 
 

all focus on the league now, get rested and ready for the final run in, let them dirty cheating cloggers have their day out getting embarrassed off city, they should worry about their potential points deduction and actually paying for players they outbid us to buy 

[roversfan99]

Still absolutely gutted from yesterday, it's hard to escape this grinding feeling that no matter what happens under these owners, we will only ever go so far. Still part of a pitiful minority of mainly no marks never to have got to the new Wembley, will we get a better chance?

We was more than competitive and I get to a point people talking about pride but 10 minutes to go against a Championship side and you have to get over the line. I thought the changes were counter-productive and it led to heartbreak.

Lots of talk about Morton, I suspect especially as a loanee which for whatever reason people never take as kindly to his card is marked after his cowardice for the goal but also worth mentioning his excellent tackle leading to our 2nd.

Would have been interesting to see had we won if @chaddyrovers would have changed his mind on VAR considering it went in our favour! But we will never know.

[roversfan99]

7 hours ago, philipl said:

Perhaps I will be corrected but my understanding is the issue is the FFP limit, and we don't know if Venkys would pump more in if they could legitimately.

Ah yes, that same FFP that prevented them from fixing the pitch!

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Ah yes, that same FFP that prevented them from fixing the pitch!

Was at the Breezeblock (now renamed the Tough sheet Stadium) last week in one of the corporate suites for an event. Their pitch is threadbare and lumpy with hardly any grass in the corners. Makes Ewood look like a Crown Green in comparison.

[wilsdenrover]

45 minutes ago, yeti-dog said:

I understand your point but why should the club be liable for neanderthal like behaviour of fans?

It feels like there's no personal accountability these days - pissing in carrier bags and throwing them downstairs tells you everything you need to know about these reprobates.  

 

 

I understand your point too however whilst the club isn’t responsible for the behaviour of these people I’d suggest they are responsible for ensuring the safety and enjoyment of those on their official coaches.

Maybe they aren’t obliged to refund, but I’d like to think they’d want to.

Of course, if they’d been better organised  and ensured people got on the right coach, they’d find it easier to identify the culprits and ban them from using this transportation in future and/or seek their own recompense (eg for the cost of cleaning the coach in question)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by wilsdenrover

[Exiled_Rover]

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

I still can't fathom out how Robinson wasn't given a second yellow card for his challenge on Hedges which was from behind and reckless therefore ticking the boxes for a mandatory caution. This was the same referee who sent Ayala off at Bristol for two yellow cards, rightly in my view) but neither of his two challenges were as bad as Robinsons yesterday. He also sent Garratt off of Coventry which was overturned on appeal and reduced to a yellow (if I remember correctly). The referee clearly has an issue distinguishing between careless, reckless and dangerous challenges and unfortunately we paid the price yesterday for his incompetence and his failure to do his primary role which is enforcing the laws. I believe Rovers should be seeking an explanation using the examples I have quoted. It won't change the result but at least they would be making the referee accountable.

Maybe he just doesn't like us?

Where's he from and who does he support?

[oldjamfan1]

1 minute ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Maybe he just doesn't like us?

Where's he from and who does he support?

Is that you JAL? 

[Exiled_Rover]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Heckinbottom has just been on the radio saying that they're going to ask Citeh if they're willing to waive that rule.

I bet City are torn - on the one hand it would be good experience for the players and, realistically, whether they play or not isn't going to make a difference to the final result.

On the other hand, sods law is they scrap a winner.

[wilsdenrover]

7 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Maybe he just doesn't like us?

Where's he from and who does he support?

He’s from West Sussex - no idea who he supports (sounds like Man U territory 😀)

[TheRovers1994]

16 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I said pen right away and I was watching on TV. I couldn’t believe the shit McCoist came out with. In todays football it was a pen all day long.

It was nothing but a pen, weather he meant it or not is irrelevant the ball is goal bound and it hits his arm which takes the ball away from threat of goal so it’s stonewall otherwise any player could do that every week and pretend it’s an accident 

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, Exiled_Rover said:

I bet City are torn - on the one hand it would be good experience for the players and, realistically, whether they play or not isn't going to make a difference to the final result.

On the other hand, sods law is they scrap a winner.

It’s not a decision for them to make - the rules are very clear on this (posted earlier on)

[Gav]

39 minutes ago, Mike E said:

I believe what you hear on TV is in fact the ground's tannoy.

Just a word on that annoying swine with the mic, he welcomed the team on to the pitch as Sheffield Wizards and called Bramall Lane one the best stadiums in the world!

Now I'm all for a bit of home team biased, but that is stretching it a bit!

Has anyone ever heard of them being called the wizards? Wednesday fans call them the pigs and the ground is a corrugated iron mess!

On the flip side they played some decent tunes, got the blood pumping. 

[oldjamfan1]

2 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

I bet City are torn - on the one hand it would be good experience for the players and, realistically, whether they play or not isn't going to make a difference to the final result.

On the other hand, sods law is they scrap a winner.

City have absolutely no say in the matter, the two lads can't play.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

They don’t sound like the sort of people who would have used a toilet if it had been available to them.

Always take a can of Cola...Gav will know what I mean!😅

[Gav]

1 minute ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

Always take a can of Cola...Gav will know what I mean!😅

Crystal Palace away, I'll never forget it, stuck in that bloody traffic jam.

I can still feel the pain now...

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

Always take a can of Cola...Gav will know what I mean!😅

I’m not sure about that - I can’t even cope with a paper cut on my finger  😱

Edited March 20, 2023 by wilsdenrover

[Groundhog]

Yeah this loan business is getting out of hand - some Sheff Utd fan on 606 saying “it’s a disgrace that the our two loanees can’t play in the semi final and they should make an exception” even Sutton agreed with him. 

No one want to point out we couldn't play Sorba Thomas yesterday as he was cup-tied? One of our in-form players? 

Couldn't make the game yesterday and had to watch on TV - gutted as that away end looked class - the love in for the Sheff Utd and the two loanees was pretty hard to stomach, no mention of our Academy lads and the fact we got that far without loanees, thought it would have been worth making the opposing view.