arbitro

Pears and Toth are the two first team keepers supported by Hilton who is with the first team every match although Eastham has a squad number.. That leaves Barrett, Michalski and Khan. Goddard Honor and Eastham are out on loan.

I mean the volume of matches we have coming up through the four competitors we are in. Mike Sheron likes to rotate often.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/september/25/michalski-recalled-from-bamber-bridge-loan/ Nicholas Michalski has been recalled from his loan spell at Bamber Bridge. No reason has been given but I'm guessing that the sheer volume of matches has a bearing on it.

I saw an under 21's match against Palace this season and noticed the referee with his fingers in the air and wondered what it was about. I knew the Delegate on the match and at half time I asked him what it was about and he explained although he didn't mention the option of a throw in or corner. I actually said to him (and he agreed) that this is already covered in Law but hasn't been rigidly enforced and as with most things in football it is only addressed when it goes to extremes. I can't see this trial become enshrined in Law.

It would mean for me that he has got away with a vile act and there hasn't been a deterrent. The worry for me now is that nothing has been said either way.

If he isn't charged by the FA it just sends out the wrong message. Whilst not entirely conclusive his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence. If it went to the police I'm pretty sure they would be happy enough to charge him given the evidence but as you say let's see what happens with the FA first.

I'm hoping that the FA's own timescales aren't applied due to the unusual circumstances. But as ever with the FA you just don't know.

Taking my Rovers had off it's as crystal clear when he has done but the FA have to abide by their own regulations however open ended they are. https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/rules-of-the-association/schedule-a-to-d---standard-directions.ashx&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjSw8nPyN2IAxWGaEEAHXXhIPgQFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw0OnH-_kOG8gdl3MpL3aA7W

According to the process in the FA regulations any allegations of unseen incidents of violent conduct in games played on a Saturday or Sunday are investigated and the player concerned should be charged by 6 pm on the Tuesday if there is a case to answer. Having read this I'm starting to think that Nobbers Transylvanian international has got off with it. If there is a case to answer a three man panel are asked for their opinion and the punishment is decided from there.

Rovers under 21's are playing Vampire North End in the Premier League Cup on Monday 30th at Victory Park, Chorley. For anybody interested the details are below.

Despite all that experience in the team Matty Litherland is captain. He is one for the future.

Anybody using a season card but are not in the category shown on it should know they are doing checks on Saturday.

I'm pretty certain that the windows are only open on match days. The real anomaly when buying tickets online is that you can collect them from Ewood after ordering them. So one of the shop staff have to still serve you and go and get the tickets. It's lunacy. I take this option because I pass Ewood a few times weekly but to have them posted is £1.50.

Once again Waggott/Pasha reiterate that there is no impediment (apart from matching it) to the Punekars sending money over. But the question still remains - have they actually sent some? I don't believe they have and we are still surviving off player sales, tv income and season ticket money. I'm happy to be proved wrong. And this looks like a cost cutting move https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/september/23/changes-to-opening-hours/. It was predicted with the move to digital ticketing. I hope it there are redundancies that the employees gets what they are entitled to.

Hopefully Andy. Fortunately biting is a rare occurrence in the game and there has to be a big deterrent laid down here by the FA. I would say exactly the same if it was one of our players.

Apparently this is the evidence of the animal bite on Beck.

The linesman is guilty of a dereliction of duty. He is a few yards away looking straight at the incident. Beck then says to him twice "he's bit me" and tries to show him the bite mark. The linesman doesn't even make eye contact and walks away. At the very least he should have alerted the referee to the allegation by Beck and the Nobber told that the allegation will be reported for further investigation. Had Sky and their many cameras not been there I think he wouldn't even be charged.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/13220612/erling-haaland-man-city-striker-to-face-no-retrospective-punishment-over-arsenal-incidents-in-2-2-draw There's your answer. So Buckley's was deemed violent conduct but Haaland's wasn't.

In fairness to Baker he looked like a fish out of water on the left. He kept drifting infield and on a number of occasions left Beck exposed. I thought it would have been better to have Hedges on the left and Baker on the right which would have given us better balance.

We really need to get Cantwell up to speed quickly but it's a catch 22 situation. I really hope something BCD is arranged this week to improve his match fitness. If there isn't I think it might be some time before he actually starts.

Yep that's nailed it. On the other hand Nobbers game management was good but at times it was aided by us.

Huddersfield scored a couple of goals against Bolton last week through Bolton over playing in their own penalty area. On Saturday they did this: Why on earth do lower league managers expect lower league players to play out from the back when they simply aren't up to it. Every week I see goals being conceded and chances being offered up in this way by Pep wannabes.

I thought exactly the same. Buckley was sent off for violent conduct which is categorised in law but Haaland threw the ball at Gabriel with a lot more force. If there is any consistency there should be a retrospective charge and a three match ban. Do I think there will be - no chance.

After sleeping on it I think it was a naive performance from us and Eustace particularly when they went down to ten men. Their game plan from then was to slow the game down and we enabled them to do this with low intensity play and players wanting too many touches on the ball. With an extra man we hardly moved their midfield and defence around and allowed them to stay in their shape. With hindsight we might have had a better chance of winning had they had eleven. And the naivety continued with the concession of lots of free kicks for them for silly challenges by our players. Some were soft granted but giving the excitable referee a decision to make helped them slow the game right down and stopped any flow or momentum from us. A frustrating day but the unbeaten run continues and the display gives Eustace and his staff something to work on this week.

I thought Yuki's movement in the first half was good and he moved the Preston centre halves around. The real issue for me was the lack of any quality service into him which prevailed through the second half too. To be fair Eustace mentioned the lack of quality in the final third and I thought he was spot on.