arbitro

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.

I heard that too. It's crazy that Rovers wouldn't want to be part of a globally successful brand - I can't think of one reason why. The obvious Rovers link between Adam and Gary has been utilised in this latest advertising campaign.

I felt that Rovers were poor in their communication yesterday. We only heard the PA twice. One to say the game was suspended and another to say it's been abandoned. The Rovers safety officer should have been in constant communication with the match officials and this relayed over the PA system.

There does seem to be a growing 'victim culture' in football with fans of many clubs believing the authorities are against them. After conceding a blatant penalty last week Burnley fans were chanting 'Premier League, corrupt as f***)', a chant which I have heard many times when decisions go against teams.

I didn't think you would. Alebiosu slid into a challenge and couldn't stop and Miller did likewise and in my view should have been cautioned. I'm not saying they were deliberate but more because of the surface. Whether you agree or not it's a fact that the pitch had become dangerous which, according to reports (I personally haven't read them) Ismael accepted on those grounds. The pitch was fine at kick off. The persistent rain and nowhere for it to go caused the problem.

Adam has teamed up with Rovers fan Gary Aspden for the launch of the new Adidas SPZL.

I would be mindful of the ball holding up in the water when players are fully committed to a tackle. Alebiosu went into a sliding challenge yesterday and couldn't stop. Had he caught the Ipswich player it could have resulted in an injury. And the farcical aspect too. The straw that broke the camel's back was when the referee called a halt. An intended pass just stuck in the water.

From the referees perspective he would have been mindful of the potential of litigation should a player have sustained a serious injury. Many years ago I was contacted by a firm of solicitors concerning a game I had refereed some time before. A player in the match was suing Blackburn Council as he said he had got injured on a pitch that was unfit. As the referee I had passed the pitch fit so I was implicated. They asked me about the player getting injured and going off because of it. I genuinely couldn't recall anything. I never heard any more about it but I reappraised my inspection method and from then always included managers or club representatives by taking them on the pitch and gauging their opinion.

It was lip service for the benefit of the media and people in the ground. I'm pretty certain that the referee would have known when they went off that the game was finished as most of us did. How long was it before the ground staff appeared on the pitch for the forking token gesture? If was almost like Canute trying to hold back the tide.

I'm pretty certain in my mind that had the situation been reversed and we were down to the men and losing you would be saying the opposite. And I'm also pretty certain you'll deny this.

There is no prescribed way of doing it. Personally I thought the referee did the right thing by focusing on the worst area. I really didn't think there was a cat in hells chance of the game restarting and the cursory 'inspection' was purely aesthetic in my view and perhaps a bit of arse covering for when he compiles his report.

I have already mentioned player safety which will have been paramount in the referees decision. And anybody with a modicum of sense would agree with this.

I saw the River Darwen by the Empire Theatre and it was like a raging torrent. The noise was frightening.

I'm pretty sure that any disciplinary sanctions will still apply.

The referee will cite player safety for which he has a duty of care. As much as I'm frustrated it would be difficult to argue against. And if the boot was on the other foot we would be delighted.

A hugely disappointing end to what I thought would have been three deserved points. In fact I fancied us to get another goal but it just wasn't to be. It was a difficult decision for the referee to make and it was a darned if you do situation for me. Personally I would have toughed it out but the referee will undoubtedly cite players safety as his reason and I fully accept that as frustrating as it is. There is no hard and fast ruling here - it's simply down to the referee. What I would criticise was the poor communication via the PA system. In the game I thought we were once again really good all over the pitch and took the game to Ipswich and didn't let them settle. Defensively we were solid, in midfield we were industrious and creative in equal measure whilst the attackers out a really good press on the Ipswich back four. It's such a shame that the performance will not be rewarded by anything but the real positive for me after that is the way we played which gives me plenty of hope.

I haven't heard anything. As we discussed earlier last week the coming week will be telling in terms of resources and availability.