RevidgeBlue

Gudjohnssen should have done better there before. His all round game is terrible as well. We've started off in far more positive fashion than we usually do at home though.

Just thinking that. Did their Club do free travel for them?

I was wondering who the guy who looked about 55 was. New member of Coaching staff? Then I realised it was Forshaw.

We know!

Did Barton ever play for England?

At this point it's hard to escape the conclusion that they're deliberately making one or two "offers" they know won't work so that Suhail can tell the FF that "We've tried doing X, Y and Z and it didn't work". Then they can try charging the same numbers of fans (or less) and even higher amount than currently to hit their target.

(Imo) The fact that it was apparently a majority decision but a large number of the panel abstained. On the other hand: a) We should have maintained our drainage facilities properly over the years and/or taken additional measures for this particular fixture given the forecast b) We could (should?) have appealed but chose not to c) There's nothing stopping us going out and winning the game again. Karma's a bitch sometimes but if we lose tonight that should be the end of it, and I hope we don't hear any whining about it from anyone at the Club going forward or heaven forbid if the worst comes to the worst.

Really surprised the Club didn't appeal the original decision. Especially given a large proportion of the panel abstained due to an alleged conflict of interest. We seem to love pursuing a lost cause normally but when we had (two) genuine grievances, we didn't.

Hope to god we win tonight to remove any possible controversy, we'll never hear the end of it from Ismael and Club apologists if we lose and end up going down by less than 3 points. His get out of jail free card for the rest of the season gift wrapped to him in a bow potentially.

Several posters on here thought it was a yellow and one didnt even think it was worthy of a card.

Quite possibly. 🙂 Having taken a bit more notice of what they actually said in detail they sort of contradicted themselves a bit. They said the referee saw it close up and made his decision and that the challenge wasn't as bad in real time as it looked in slow motion but that once called over to the monitor to look at the freeze frame a ref is realistically only going to award a red. It was the presenter who made the point that Taylor awarded a yellow, so was that "a clear and obvious" error and maybe VAR shouldnt have intervened.

Caicedo challenge - Normal attempt to win the ball, no brutality or excessive force from either player, two genuine attempts to win the ball, one just got there fractionally before the other. - Any tackle presents a risk of serious injury to the opponent if you get it wrong. - In this case studs down not up. His foot has to go somewhere. It doesn't matter because your mind is made up as well but that's part of my point it's a very contentious and subjective decision. The referee on the spot made (imo) the correct decision on the field having witnessed it close up at normal speed and VAR shouldnt have intervened. Of course it's going to look horrendous in slow motion and winding a freeze frame back and forward.

Throw ins maybe but it ought to be possible to make a fairly snap decision. Corners there's a natural break in play anyway and the wrong decision either way could prove absolutely crucial. Off sides - if they can determine if someone has a toe nail off - why on earth wouldnt the technology be able to detect "daylight"? Wouldn't be subjective at all.

100%. Id scrap VAR but given we're probably stuck with it permanently, the only way it becomes tolerable overall for me is if the offside law is amended to require clear daylight. Other tweaks I'd make are as alluded to above, they should be able to intervene where a second yellow is clearly wrongly given/not given or if a corner or throw in is clearly wrongly given/not given as the latter are factual in the same way as whether the ball is over the line or not.

We'll have to agree to disagree, the Chelsea one was studs down, Caicedo didn't leave the ground and his body wasn't out of control. There was no malicious intent whatsoever, and it was a purely accidental collision due to the Arsenal player getting there a fraction earlier. For me it ticked every single box why it shouldnt be a red. Not every single foul should be a yellow or red as Im sure you'd agree.

Arguably for me that's the only time VAR is useful rather than simply being a means to chalk off great goals for the most trivial of infractions. (On the Tronstad one I thought that should have been yellow, the one on Baradji should have been red and was so extreme it warranted an additional ban on top of the standard three games) For me the Watford one should have been red, the Chelsea one definitely shouldnt, and VAR shouldn't have got involved in the first place. On a similar note, I think it's an absolute nonsense that VAR can only intervene in straight red card offences but can't in the case of a second yellow leading to a red. Ditto when something factual happens like a corner or a throw wrongly being given or not given which could obviously lead to a goal being scored or stop a crucial opportunity.

Was Theo Walcott and another black player I didnt recognise called Daniel. There was a similar sort of incident in the Birmingham v Watford game last night. Two players challenged for a bouncing ball simultaneously and the Watford player might have got a tiny bit of the ball but caught the Birmingham player studs up high up on the knee. A much worse tackle than the Caicedo one imo but again the onfield decision was a yellow.

No it wasn't Carragher. I'll see if I can find the recording.

Allegedly they had 80 interested parties, and preferred bidders have to show they have £50m available to fund the Club. Is that in addition to the £30m asking price?

I'll believe it if he's still here in February. I think Cantwell thinks we're as thick as the Club do. "Hyperextension of the knee". Lol.

Simon Jordan was saying last week how he had put together a consortium to buy Wednesday but they were put off by the EFL having a "25p in the pence rule". Apparently the former owner Chansiri must get a guaranteed amount or Wednesday get an extra 15 point deduction on top of everything else. I've never heard of this before. Is that right, and if so what's the reasoning behind it? Sounds like it's a reward for running the Club badly to me. Could it have adverse ramifications for us if Venky's ever agree to sell?

The two players analysing in the studio didnt think it was a red, they thought as I did that the ref's decision should have been left to stand and that it looked far worse in slow motion than it actually was. Let's see if you are of the same opinion the next time a Rovers players makes an honest but fractionally late challenge!

Wasn't aware of this until you posted. Deepest sympathy and hope they throw away the key for the perpetrators. Prison is too good for them.

Im genuinely amazed at that. I thought the Chelsea Coach would be frothing at the mouth about it and backing up his player. Bloody soft foreigners. Bugger off back to La Liga! Lol.

Fair enough Parson, hope you have got to the other side of your health issues. I won't tackle you on this again but the tenor of your posts recently make it sound as if you are either full square behind the regime and/or you dont mind what happens to the Club, your support for the team won't waver irrespective of what Division or level we end up in or at. That may or may not be an accurate reflection of what you feel but if not I think it's a shame that as one of the leading authorities on the Club, we aren't privy to your true thoughts. You don't need to reply to this post if you dont want, Im not trying to trip you up or catch you out by drawing you into saying something you'd rather be kept private.