arbitro

I think this episode has shown that the EFL are woefully inadequate when it comes to their own rules and regulations. There should be a report soon that explains the thought process and rationale behind their decision.

Sky are reporting that the three Championship club representatives on the EFL board abstained from voting which was absolutely the right thing do. Parry and Birch will more than likely led on this one.

The mention of an appeal from Rovers tells me this isn't over yet.

Your mention of that game out me in mind of another game which finished early due to a pitch invasion. https://www.fulhamfc.com/news/2013/september/19/throwback-thursday Fulham appealed but the FA (not the Football League) threw it out. Given it was the last match it certainly wasn't a dead rubber. There was plenty at stake as Fulham could have been promoted and Derby relegated. Slightly different circumstances here but the remaining 11 minutes of this match were played behind closed doors. https://www.theoldhamtimes.co.uk/sport/20089516.efl-issue-statement-oldham-athletic-v-salford-city/

Martin O'Neill nails it here for me.

I can only think that Rovers might include Ismael's comments from yesterday in their final submission (had they not already done so). If Ismael wasn't asked for his opinion by anybody yet the Ipswich manager was Rovers might point to Ipswich putting some pressure on the referee. Clutching at straws perhaps but the more evidence and doubt we can put in the EFL's minds might just help. Disclaimer: I still think it will replayed wholly and 11 v 11.

It doesn't count for anything but I was so relaxed about them not scoring. In fact just before the pause I said I fancied us to score again.

I suggest rerouting Suhail and leaving the River alone.

https://www.lep.co.uk/sport/football/preston-north-end/milutin-osmajic-preston-north-end-burnley-fc-fa-hearing-hannibal-mejbri-5329255 Nobbers Transylvanian international, Osmajic has today started his hearing into alleged racist comments made to a dingle.........after being charged on March 25th. A quote from Ridsdale about a swift conclusion to this whilst we are waiting for a decision he will be part of regarding our abandoned game on Saturday. “All I know is we've got the hearing towards the end of this month and then we'll, hopefully, find out quickly because the uncertainty is unhelpful.

That is pretty much what we gleaned at the game. The lad is 14 (only just 14 btw) though and is already huge. Incredible really that he was plying his trade with on league Irlam Town up to last year. Rovers would have had to get permission for him to miss school this afternoon 😂.

Really poor defending cost Rovers dearly this afternoon as they literally threw away after goal advantage on two occasions. It wasn't like there hadn't been warnings prior to Blackpool second comeback as over playing in the wrong areas really bit them hard. From an attacking point of view we were good and always posed a threat at corners but the opposite can be said from defensive corners. For one of the Blackpool goals they won the first and second headers from a corner to score and this gave them the belief to go on and win it. We did have a young side out but in fairness it looked like Blackpool did too. A lot is expected of Silver Eze but he looked cumbersome and slow today particularly in the first half. He did look a bit sharper in the second half though. The replacement for Valentin Joseph, Christian Mbonzale had us flummoxed but a quick search told us he was born in August 2011 (if the information was accurate) and signed last year from Irlam Town. Physically he didn't look out of place and showed some nice touches. The youngsters looked deflated at full time but the naivety in game management really cost them.

Given the reluctance to give first team squad players any game time I agree.

From afar (well the other side of the ground) it looked like Darragh Tuffy. The game itself wasn't much of a spectacle but to be fair it was one we could easily have lost. Our goal was terrific with an excellent touch from Mullarky-Matthews killing the ball which was a difficult one to control and playing in Boggan who made his mind up early and smashed the ball into the net. More worryingly was how sloppy we were in possession. Their goal came from Dunn trying to play a ball on the half turn without recognising that a Middlesbrough player behind him. There were many other examples of turning over possession cheaply through carelessness. Batty once again looked disinterested as he seemed to be going through the motions. On a night when the majority of players were worth 6 only Goddard rose above this. He was dominant when coming for crosses and made a few smart saves.

I haven't heard of it neither. If it's true it sounds a bit Pravda ish. There have been a couple of abandonments in the National and National League North this season and managers have spoken to the press. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/cz717vwg410t Comments from Paul Caddis after Herefords match at Sporting Khalsa was abandoned. Hereford manager Paul Caddis condemned the "disgraceful" racist abuse directed at Sporting Khalsa goalkeeper Ravan Constable, stating that anyone using such language is "not welcome at the club" and expressed pride in the way his team stood with Sporting Khalsa. He confirmed an individual was identified and the club would ban them while investigations are carried out, urging for public cooperation with the ongoing police investigation.

I wasn't aware that the managers weren't allowed to speak to the press in those circumstances. Where has this come from?

All good, clean fun though wilsdenrover 😂

The representatives from Preston, Middlesbrough and Norwich should be excluded as a potential conflict of interest with them being Championship rivals.

That is my expectation too.

One thing the EFL most definitely will want to avoid is lawyers becoming involved and their ruling (whatever it is) being challenged in some kind of court. Both clubs will present their case but this has the potential to run and run it the need arises given how open ended their regulations seem to be. I said in Saturday I have no faith in any current Rovers staff to present our case in a fit and proper manner.

But taking it one step further should Greaves start and then go off at the time he was sent off? There are so many worms in this particular can that arguments could ensue for some time yet.

I think it works both ways but you bring up a valid point. Watford were without arguably their best player against us recently after he was sent off late on in a match against QPR. It could be argued that QPR didn't really gain but Watfords next three opponents did. Natural justice would mean that Greaves shouldn't play against us when the game is replayed but I can't see that happening as I don't think there is anything in the FA's regulations that cover this (to be fair the circumstances are extremely rare). He will miss the next Ipswich match against Portsmouth on Saturday and his punishment deemed to have been served.

I think the logic is that, for example a player puts in a horrific challenge and hurts an opponent then he should be still punished. That is clearly an extreme example but for less serious offences they are seen as law transgressions and the deterrent of a yellow/red card will be enforced. In my view Greaves should be punished for his red card in Saturday but to be consistent that has to apply to all sanctions.

Disciplinary sanctions remain.

Logistically it doesn't help when it's raining so heavily that we are essentially in a valley. The rain coming down from the Bolton Road and Highercroft sides will just add to the swell of the River Darwen.

I said yesterday that Rovers have to put forward a case to put pressure on the EFL Board but it has to be reasoned and structured. Right now I don't think there is anybody capable of doing this down there so I personally would be speaking to our shirt sponsor to put together a letter that would put pressure on the people making the decision.