5 minutes ago, Hasta said:

If you watch the sky coverage it shows that replay during the main the game from 38.40 onwards. I can't post the video on here (on which Don Goodman actually changes his mind about whether he's offside when he sees it), but can only post the stills in sequence. If you still think this clearly in the keepers line of vision then fine, but I disagree.

edit - I'm just going to crop and repost these to make them bigger.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think he is directly in the keepers eye line but enough to be interfering with it. If course it's subjective and some are given, some not but there is definitely enough in this to support the referees decision in my view. Another point is that having seen it back he didn't need to be offside. As good as he has been He frustratingly gets caught offside a lot.

4 minutes ago, Hasta said:

In the keepers eyeline? This is as JRC hits it and Szmodics has never crossed the keepers view of the ball at all, even in the build up. I've seen far worse examples of goals allowed after these kind of incidents even after being reviewed  by VAR.

That is from an angle which skews Szmodics' position. The actual replays rather than a still show him a lot closer to the keeper and in his eye line. I too have seen goals allowed for similar but felt they should have been disallowed too. Cardiff had a goal disallowed at Ewood this season for something very similar and as I recall it was pretty much unanimously supported on here.

17 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

I believe that deals were already in place for two players but it required Rothwell being sold.  Unfortunately, the owners opted to keep Rothwell which meant the other two deals couldn't be done.

I was told similar. In fact I have a recollection of Mowbray saying so too. I suppose the bigger issue for me is who told them not to sell. I'd be amazed if they even knew who Rothwell was. My guess is Pasha.

1 hour ago, Tom said:

The shot was heading towards Sammie; who was in an offside position until it took a deflection.

Whilst it wouldn’t have made much difference the keeper and defender have to be aware of his potential involvement therefore he’s in the line of sight and potentially interfering with play.

You can call it harsh, but it’s correct

It was totally the correct decision. I'm making an educated guess that the linesman informed the referee that Szmodics was offside but from his side on view couldn't tell if he was in the keepers eye line. It was up to the referee then to judge whether this was the case. It was one of the few decisions Atwell got right because in my view he was poor for both teams.

25 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I personally wouldn't have complained at selling Rothwell or Brereton when it was clear neither were signing new contracts IF the money was used to replace them,

Unfortunately the very reason they weren't signing new contracts, why virtually nobody other than academy graduates on their first professional deals have signed extensions, is that the club has systematically and rapidly reduced the wage bill.

So I doubt they were even offered sensible terms, or if they were they were never going to sign them as they simply weren't competitive for the standard of player in question. 

And for the same reason we were never, ever, ever, going to see the money reinvested, which is why the McGuire and O'Brien stunts were little more than con jobs orchestrated by liars. Serious money was never changing hands.

I have never wanted to keep unhappy players particularly when they are nearing the end of their contracts. For all his failings Mowbray was right about Rothwell and Brereton who added very little to the club in their last six months. For the idiots to turn down good money for the was stupidity of the highest order. In a similar vein I wasn't disappointed to see Travis to after his displeasure at not playing was made public. The real idiocy about this was letting him go out on loan rather than selling him.

16 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I know it's all on them, I'd have expected better from you.

Does that therefore mean that Singh/ Shaw/ Agnew/ Hunt /Senior/ Silk/Waggott/Broughton et al should be left alone and get a free ride?

These people are still actually meant to have jobs at the end of the day. - Whilst it's ultimately the owners overall responsibility is it their fault in the first instance that Singh comes up with a brainwave to sign a load of Portugeezers or Shaw fucks up Berg's departure or Waggott tries to repeat what he tried to do at Coventry and sell the training ground or Broughton as DOF oversees multiple transfer cock ups or Broughton and Waggott bring in players that aren't up to scratch and in some instances aren't even fit enough to play?

The 'I'd have expected better from you' does you no favours.

The owners employed these people and the common theme is incompetence which I think you agree on. So then surely any chancer would look at this job and fancy it. No pressure from the owners to lead a successful club but happy to tread water and even regress. Do you agree that under proper owners these people wouldn't have got anywhere near this club? If you do then you can say they are the real problem. If not then you are in denial.

And that isn't even mentioning the absolute carnage created by Anderson on their watch.

Well I suppose somebody has to start the thread 😄.

Another huge game in our relegation scrap against a Sunderland team whose season is pretty much over. I looked at their team yesterday and noticed that Jack Clarke is doubtful and Patrick Roberts is coming back from a hamstring injury. In the recent past those two have been a real thorn in our side and if they don't play it gives us a better chance of getting a result. I guess the big question is how Eustace approaches this game. My gut feeling is that it will essentially be the same side and shape as Good Friday with perhaps Gallagher coming in. I'm reasonably confident that we can keep a clean sheet as Sunderland have struggled to score this season. It's scoring that worries me as we are far too reliant on Szmodics and we have only scored seven goals in the nine games since Eustace came in (I'm not giving him the Stoke game). Despite that I just have a feeling we can nick this. We have played well in the last two league matches which gives me hope.

For anybody who is driving up the A59 is closed over Blubberhouses and diversions are in place. However these diversions added half an hour to our journey time to Middlesbrough so please factor this in along with the usual Easter Monday traffic.

8 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

All three need to go but if was only one I would be tempted to go with Waggott currently and get a competent and genuine CEO in. The owners won't go unless they either want to at some point or are forced out by the Court proceedings

Your question was framed somewhat unfairly so let me flip it on its head and ask Do you think ANY owners could make a success of the Club if they were forced to carry on for a couple of years employing Waggott as CEO and Broughton as DOF bringing in the players?

They have been the owners for fourteen years. What about Singh, Shaw, Agnew, Hunt, Senior and Silk? They were up there in the incompetence stakes with Waggott. Whilst Waggott is useless he is just the latest in a list of useless appointments by exactly who?

It's all on them and if you can't see if admit that then posters will draw their own conclusions.

6 hours ago, den said:

Venkys needed the cash, got an offer and that was it.

No thoughts of his future value or his current value as a player in a squad threatened with relegation. 
 

Just the cash. I loved the lad but sad to say he’s better off away from here.

Absolutely Den. My point was about silver tongue Broughton insulting our intelligence with his 'met our valuation' crap. He was always going to go at some point but the owners nefarious business dealings meant we sold him at the first opportunity. And it could be argued that selling our most creative player was a huge nail in the relegation coffin.

7 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Agreed that we were good. We've played a lot teams under Eustace and generally we have looked solid and competed well - Plymouth and Swansea notable exceptions. Ipswich are top of the table but very lucky to come away with the win today.

All that said its no use if we can't win games. We really really really need a win at Sunderland.

We'll never know for sure but I'm convinced we would have beaten Millwall and Plymouth if Eustace hadn't played a back five. Today, the Middlesbrough game and the second half at Swansea was the best we have played under Eustace. The common denominator was a back four.

1 hour ago, neophox said:

Isn't Chest on Silversters boss so he might be responsible...we will see Silvester leave soon.

I have been told that Ian Silvester will be 'retiring' at the end of the season.

1 minute ago, Waggy76 said:

When they sold Adam Wharton , the powers that be , knew exactly what they were doing !

To make matters worse , we replaced him with a croc and a has been! 

 

That was another aspect of the Broughton interview that annoyed me. He said that Palace met their valuation of Adam. However that didn't mean we had to sell him but they got him on the first train to London the following day. There was no clause about clubs meeting a certain fee, it was Rovers and Rovers alone who decided to sell him. And right now that looks like a decision that will pretty much cancel out the fee given what the cost of relegation will be.

The body language of the Leicester players after going behind was shocking. Out of the current top three they might be the ones to miss out on automatic promotion.

15 minutes ago, Waggy76 said:

Thanks for the info , all sorted just rung ticket office ...

If you are driving there is a road closure on the A59 on the way to Blubberhouses with a diversion in place. We got caught going to Middlesbrough a fortnight ago and the diversion added half an hour to the journey time. The roads will be busy enough anyway with it being Easter Monday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c724evry766o

1 hour ago, Waggy76 said:

Off topic  but can you pay on the door at Sunderland ?

Ticket office appears to be closed ! Or cant be bothered to answer phone ..

There is no pay on the day unfortunately.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/march/12/ticket-news--sunderland-v-rovers/

4 minutes ago, roverblue said:

You can’t mention that on here as apparently we were Barcelona esque up until December. 

Relatively speaking we were

13 hours ago, K-Hod said:

Not shooting the messenger here, but how many deals do we nearly get over the line, but ultimately don’t? Must be a record, I swear! 

I really think that under these owners transfers are done too late in the window. With them apparently having to sign everything off and their penchant for mind changing it's a bad combination. I remember Samba and Nelsen, two of our best ever signings coming in on trial in the first few days of the January window. Under this lot everything is late or delayed.

9 minutes ago, Penwortham Blue said:

I hope not, I think McFadzean will be exposed against this opposition. If we go with 3 CH’s, I would much rather Carter comes back in.

Playing Carter after a lengthy absence might be considered too much of a risk. I don't know if Moore will start after his midweek exertions but he clearly represents an aerial threat which we will have to cope with. They are in the top three for goals from set pieces so we will have to be wary of that. I'm convinced if we keep a clean sheet we win the game.

It's disappointing that Scott has come out with this. It seems to me that his grievance started with not getting in the team for the Burnley match (which Tomasson screwed up in) and the good form of Hyam and Carter coupled with his individual errors meant he wasn't picked. That's football and to bleat about it now doesn't do him any favours.

It will be interesting what Eustace does when Carter is fit.

1 hour ago, MarkBRFC said:

Wasn't this the Fleck deal?

I thought Broughton said it was a transfer that didn't to through. To be honest I can't be bothered listening again

Broughton actually said another deal nearly happened but didn't. He name checked our CEO as agreeing the deal with a club where he has contacts. PerkS would and that to the catalogue of errors and undermining which caused Tomasson to leave. Broughton must have felt usurped undermined too with that and the Fleck deal.

He talks about the Watford game as a turning point when we were one up, relatively comfortable but doesn't mention why. Our keeper threw two into his goal costing us badly. This is a keeper who has individually cost us more than any other player.

Who signed him again?

1 hour ago, Exiled_Rover said:

He wasn't quick to accept responsibility last year - he was the only one willing to put their head above the parapet after a PR disaster, knowing the fans and media demanded an explanation. There was an uncomfortably long period of nothing coming out of the club explaining how the paperwork for 2 players had been fucked up on deadline day. 

He was on a hiding to nothing then by being professional.

He's been stabbed in the back again by the same charlatans this January so unsurprisingly doesn't feel the same sense of professional duty to front up for the club.  

He did an interview on February 3rd last year accepting full responsibility saying 'the buck stops with me'. He also said he didn't think we would win an appeal but, at great expense we went ahead with it anyway. I believe he gets too easy a ride primarily because of his media friendliness.

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/blackburn-rovers-transfer-news-broughton-26150989

7 minutes ago, J*B said:

I don't think our midfield can compete - i'd be tempted to go back to the 3412 / 5212 from before Middlesborough personally.

3412 when attacking:

Pears

Carter Hyam Wharton

Brittain JRC Tronstad Christene

Szmodics

Gally Dolan

5212 when defending:

Pears
Brittain Carter Hyam Wharton Christene

JRC Tronstad

Szmodics
Gally Dolan

In the game and a half Eustace has played a back four I think we have played the best under him looking tight and compact. In the other games whilst playing a five we just haven't really laid a glove on the opponents midfield. I personally don't think he will play a back four but will bring McFadzean back.