All Activity

Caicedo challenge - Normal attempt to win the ball, no brutality or excessive force from either player, two genuine attempts to win the ball, one just got there fractionally before the other. - Any tackle presents a risk of serious injury to the opponent if you get it wrong. - In this case studs down not up. His foot has to go somewhere. It doesn't matter because your mind is made up as well but that's part of my point it's a very contentious and subjective decision. The referee on the spot made (imo) the correct decision on the field having witnessed it close up at normal speed and VAR shouldnt have intervened. Of course it's going to look horrendous in slow motion and winding a freeze frame back and forward.

Daniel Sturridge? Former Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea striker?.

Throw ins maybe but it ought to be possible to make a fairly snap decision. Corners there's a natural break in play anyway and the wrong decision either way could prove absolutely crucial. Off sides - if they can determine if someone has a toe nail off - why on earth wouldnt the technology be able to detect "daylight"? Wouldn't be subjective at all.

It is too forensic in many situations for sure but for serious foul play and violent conduct I think it has been a success.

Intent was removed from law several years ago so whether he meant to to it is a moot point. It won't matter as your mind is made up but these are the considerations taken into account. "Serious foul play" is a term used in sports, particularly soccer, to describe a challenge on an opponent with excessive force or brutality that endangers their safety. It is a severe offense, typically resulting in a direct red card, and can involve lunging tackles from any direction or challenges with studs exposed that endanger the opponent's safety. Key characteristics of serious foul play Excessive force: The challenge is made with brutality and excessive force, not just a normal attempt to win the ball. Endangers safety: The action poses a risk of serious injury to the opponent. Excessive force or brutality: This can include lunging with both legs from the front, side, or behind, or making contact with studs up. Dangerous: Even if the ball is played, a foul can still be serious foul play if the follow-through endangers the opponent, such as a studs-up tackle. Punishment: It is always punished with a red card.

If you started checking every throw in and corner though then you very much would be re-refereeing the game and it would take ages. With the offsides as it becomes more and more reliant on technology to speed up the process, I think bringing terms like daylight into it actually then brings in more subjectivity. The second yellow if it is clearly a wrong decision I agree should be changed. Caicedo definitely was correct to be sent off.

100%. Id scrap VAR but given we're probably stuck with it permanently, the only way it becomes tolerable overall for me is if the offside law is amended to require clear daylight. Other tweaks I'd make are as alluded to above, they should be able to intervene where a second yellow is clearly wrongly given/not given or if a corner or throw in is clearly wrongly given/not given as the latter are factual in the same way as whether the ball is over the line or not.

Always will be. Not enough core fans that are willing to voice an opinion.

Sunshine and Blue Sky's over Ewood...lets hope that transmits to the field of play FFS!!

We are and remain a divided fanbase.

Not trying hard. 4 game bundles at that price or bring a friend are not going to make much difference.

I think the worst thing about VAR is that they seem more interested in disallowing goals than allowing them. It's over-complicated things which don't need so much thought. Football has already changed far too much for the worse in my view, this just adds to it, for me.

Charlton game also billed as BRING A FRIEND FOR A TENNER

Really trying to get people down now. Needs to be more attractive tbh

This feels like a guaranteed loss after we had them well beat at Ewood months back and down to 10 men with 10mins left. I said I wouldn't go on principle but have been promised a pie and pint so against my better judgment will attend.

I don't think I've ever been as sure of a result as I am tonight. Rovers 1 Ipswich 2 The relegation thread will be lively after tonight.

He’s only gone & done it again… MOTM template.mp4

It would appear that Ipswich are planning on rain related chants according to their forum lmao Some replies... WE'RE NOT SCARED OF RAIN, WE'RE NOT SCARED OF RAAAAIN WE'RE BLACKBURN ROVERS WE'RE NOT SCARED OF RAIN! --------------------------------- “We’re singing in the rain, Just singing in the rain, What a glorious feeling, We’re winning again!”

We'll have to agree to disagree, the Chelsea one was studs down, Caicedo didn't leave the ground and his body wasn't out of control. There was no malicious intent whatsoever, and it was a purely accidental collision due to the Arsenal player getting there a fraction earlier. For me it ticked every single box why it shouldnt be a red. Not every single foul should be a yellow or red as Im sure you'd agree.

Both challenges ticked every box for a red card including endangering an opponents safety and therefore should have been dealt with accordingly. In my opinion VAR has done what it should by sending the referee for an OFR in the Chelsea game. Had VAR been used at Birmingham I have no doubt the same process and outcome would have happened. Tackles that could badly injure players should be dealt with accordingly in my view.

Just need it to rain later on when we are getting beat 1-0 in 80th minute

River is low and falling - game will be on

Arguably for me that's the only time VAR is useful rather than simply being a means to chalk off great goals for the most trivial of infractions. (On the Tronstad one I thought that should have been yellow, the one on Baradji should have been red and was so extreme it warranted an additional ban on top of the standard three games) For me the Watford one should have been red, the Chelsea one definitely shouldnt, and VAR shouldn't have got involved in the first place. On a similar note, I think it's an absolute nonsense that VAR can only intervene in straight red card offences but can't in the case of a second yellow leading to a red. Ditto when something factual happens like a corner or a throw wrongly being given or not given which could obviously lead to a goal being scored or stop a crucial opportunity.

Jeàn Bucklè