arbitro

They have been given another 1500.

If the boot was on the other foot I would accept the red card without question. Pretty much every decision can be subjective but in the balance of probability the incident ticked every box in my opinion.

The likelihood of him controlling the ball was high, having not touched the ball is a red herring. A couple of yards ahead is enough for me for him to run clear. He was running quickly and the Ipswich player would have struggled to legally get a challenge in. 30 yards out is close enough given the circumstances ie in front of the Ipswich player. It wasn't too dissimilar to the incident when Greaves was sent off in the abandoned game and I can't recall too much debate about that. Edit: Given my background I really like to back referees where possible but in my view that was unsupportable. I'm hearing today that the senior figures in the PGMO think so too.

I actually thought there was more anger about this incident than I have seen at Ewood for a long time. I sit in the JW Upper towards the Darwen End and there was genuine anger towards the referee. The boos at half-time told it's own story to me. In a strange way though I thought it really lifted the atmosphere and the crowd, after being understandably quiet for several home games really got behind the team in an almost siege mentality.

You cite several reasons for it not to be a sending off and then say 'just about a red'. For it to be 'just about a red' the criteria you mention has to be fulfilled. I'm confused by your rationale.

He is going to get to the ball first and the likelihood of him controlling the ball was high. Likelihood of keeping or gaining control: Whether the attacker would have been able to control the ball.

I do know because I have been told by someone still involved. The key word is denial and I don't think anyone can say he wasn't denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

You are making assumptions again. No U turn here, I still think he is aloof and arrogant but on this occasion I believe he is right. Sometime being objective is the best course of action - you should try it.

He said he thought Davies would have got to the ball.

Enlighten me. Which two? Distance to goal: The distance between the foul and the goal. General direction of play: The attacker's direction and position relative to the goal. Likelihood of keeping or gaining control: Whether the attacker would have been able to control the ball. Location and number of defenders: The positions and number of defenders between the attacker and the goal.

Another Tronstad then. 😉

The referee gave nothing. Personally I didn't think it was a foul and it wasn't dissimilar to the Hedges challenge on Saturday.

If you think it's a deflection tactic that is your prerogative but many think he is justified in doing so. Whether or not he is 'piss poor' is irrelevant to this point.

I honestly don't know how anyone can say that isn't a DOGSO.

I think the Ipswich player who scored deserves some credit for dropping his shoulder and coming inside. In my opinion it didn't matter who was close to him, the same thing would have happened.

We can't do anything about them now only highlighting them and bringing them to the attention of the PGMO and I think those wheels will be in motion today. For me it's borne out of frustration because an inordinate number of key decisions have gone against us. I honestly don't see any harm in that.

Against QPR De Neve was badly at fault for their goal (as was Miller) but I really don't understand how bringing him on in the Wrexham and Ipswich games cost us four points. I don't particularly rate him but I'm intrigued to understand your logic.

Although it didn't affect the result but to highlight how poor the referee was he actually was incorrect in law in one incident (failing to apply law Is a cardinal sin in refereeing terms). Young went down with a head injury in the penalty area in the first half as we had the ball out wide towards the Riverside. He stopped the game. His incorrect law application was not making Young to off for 30 seconds. The change came in this season whereby if the referee stops the game for a head injury the player has to go off for 30 seconds irrespective of whether he has had treatment. On the theme of players going down I thought Ipswich were the worst I have seen for a long time. They certainly took advantage of a weak referee.

It certainly is a big help.

Fair enough if he is but I read it as he would have kept him on.

I played up until I was 24 but was involved in an RTA and sustained a fractured femur. During my rehab the physio (Steve Foster who became Rovers physio later) said it would be unlikely that I would play at the same level again. I weighed up my options and to stay involved refereeing was my best option. I went in completely blind with no aspirations or idea about the promotion pathway. I recall my first game at Houghton and alone in the changing room feeling isolated with no team mates around me. Having played was definitely was but he'll and I soon felt comfortable. After various promotions I ended up as a Football League referee in 1995 and stayed until I retired in 2006. Significantly the group I came through with in 1983 were in their mid twenties as I was and had played. To varying degrees we were all successful which gives some credence to my thinking about youngsters who have never played not having a feel for the game.

Hedges was injured. Surely you saw that.

It's frustration like it has been for many of us and last night was the culmination of several incorrect decisions. I believe he is totally right to put it out there. Do you think we should just accept them?

Another hugely disappointing end to a game so soon after Saturday but I really take heart from those two when we had done enough to win in both. I thought tonight was the best we have played at home this season and for a change we started on the front foot and played like a home team should. The big talking point was the potential sending off of the Ipswich number 5. For me it was a straight forward decision and they should have been down to ten. Davies is never going to get across to challenge Morishita and probably the weakest referee I have seen for some time for some unfathomable reason didn't see it that way. We took the lead deservedly and made a few changes which upset our rhythm a bit but we still should have seen the game out. I haven't seen their goal again so I'm not sure if anyone was at fault. It was a sickening end but I think there were lots of positives and if we can win in Saturday and Tuesday then eight points from four games is a decent return. I liked the huddle from the players and staff at the end and hopefully we turn these last two sickening ends to the games into a siege mentality.

Pickering not even on the bench tonight. Surely he's done here.