ContinueWe use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website; if you continue without changing your settings - or dismiss this message - we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on Forums.Football Web Pages.co.uk

Return to front page

Newest article: Re: Big freeze. by boropodToday 18:54Today at 18:54:21view thread

Oldest article: Fixtures and Results by Moderator14/2/2015 11:54Sat Feb 14 11:54:00 2015view thread

MenuSearch

Next thread: 'Give it a chance' by Moley8515/2 09:26Thu Feb 15 09:26:02 2018view thread

Stockport off

By almost average 210/2 13:46Sat Feb 10 13:46:23 2018

Views: 1047

That's twice recently Boro have arrived at the ground only for the game to be off . Something to be said for an early decision imo .

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Moley8510/2 14:28Sat Feb 10 14:28:00 2018In response to Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 994

Shit for those who have travelled.

On the plus side, I couldn’t make today but can make a rearranged Tuesday. Bonus match.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By ,shifter (Shifter)10/2 15:10Sat Feb 10 15:10:30 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 955

The lad and his gal travelled up,ref called it off immediately ,must have been earlier doubt.
He's well angry.,waterlogged pitches take time to saturate.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Shrewblue10/2 18:59Sat Feb 10 18:59:42 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 826

The BISC coach arrived at Gatley, 3 miles from the ground at noon, reassured through out by messages from Stockport that the game was on.
Referee Rachel Welch decide to call the game off at 13.40, despite both clubs wanting to play and Stockport insisting the pitch was playable. Clearly she has no understanding of wider implications - well she would not wish to slip over on her a***.

Although the club will be reimbursed for aborted trip, fans will all be out of pocket. Many made the journey by car only to find game off at the turnstiles. BISC paid £500 for coach and arranged for free meal for the 35 fans on board. So again it's the fans that lose again.

Can only hope the authorities investigate this farce.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By joetowny (Joe)10/2 23:41Sat Feb 10 23:41:42 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 671

there is nothing more annoying than travelling in vane.
remember a few years back, Boston.
the then Boston manager hounded the ref to call the game off at HT. icy conditions
they were going for the league and were not winning hence the ref finally succumbed.
have to say travelling at this time of year includes some risk taking, we all know this prior
but that is of no consolation when its your time and money that goes down the drain.
the recent Boro game was imo the right decision if there is a doubt and it needs sorting do it
yes it might mean a midweek journey but surely better than a wasted one.
for the fans if nothing else

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By almost average 211/2 09:11Sun Feb 11 09:11:44 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 644

I think clubs need to look at themselves on this issue . Sometimes there so desperate to play a game they ignore the state of the pitch and the forecasts until far too late in the hope of some sort of miracle .

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By joetowny (Joe)11/2 09:22Sun Feb 11 09:22:39 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 637

as i said if there is serious doubt do what the boro did and cancel
yes on that occasion the weather did improve iirc which annoyed some on here
but surely a far better solution than yesterdays apparent debacle.
as always the losers are the punters, no one compensates them.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By stone ragma11/2 03:30Sun Feb 11 03:30:50 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 665

Does seem as though games are called off more readily these days and that a few yrs back a lot of games postponed today would have been played

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By VS Town (VS Boro)10/2 20:03Sat Feb 10 20:03:11 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 753

call off too early - give time for weather to improve (Telford & Stockport)
call off too late - should have been called off earlier to save travelling (Harrogate).

Despite both clubs wanting to play and Stockport insisting the pitch was playable

THIS however is the key - IMO. If both clubs wanted to play, then signing a form as such would remove any possible liability from the referee. Once the game started, then (if asked) the managers should be given the opportunity to change mind.

PS - Glad I cried off earlier in the week to to uncertain commitments today. Went to Derby vs Norwich and to be honest, I was less than impressed with the VFM I got for my £30;

Edited by VS Boro at 20:06:36 on 10th February 2018

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By stone ragma10/2 20:48Sat Feb 10 20:48:19 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 718

Think you may have those wrong way round :)

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By VS Town (VS Boro)10/2 21:23Sat Feb 10 21:23:15 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 700

No - what the complaint is when called off early/late.
No wI n

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue10/2 21:36Sat Feb 10 21:36:42 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 691

There is a win.
Simply put the club officials from both clubs should support, publicly, the match officials.
Maybe when that happens players may do that too.
I know it is not going to happen, but it is a win option.


Also, I think in all three cases this season the complaint has been with the decision, more than the timing.

V Harrogate DM said he thought pitch would have been playable by 3, and then it was, according to DM.

V Telford and Stockport both pairs of managers argued the pitch was fit to play on.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By ,shifter (Shifter)10/2 21:54Sat Feb 10 21:54:28 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 679

To be honest ,in a situation like today I would trust the instinct of Stockport manager and BORO manager ,two very experienced managers .
The ref perhaps never played the game .

No manager worth their corn would insist playing on an unplayable pitch that might cause injury to their players.
If the pitch was waterlogged before KO,you can put money on it it was waterlogged well before the match ref got there.

Once again no thought given to traveling fans.
The question I would ask , was a local ref bought in for pitch inspection ?,

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue10/2 21:58Sat Feb 10 21:58:21 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 674

The answer to yourvqueation is Yes, a local ref was called in and said it was fine. At 10am.

The ref may not have played a match, but They would have refereed lots. They have a duty of care towards players and while it is easy for the managers to say something, it is not thier responsibility.

The ref did a bounce test on the pitch and in some areas it failed.

I wouldn't want to watch a match where there are patches of the pitch where the ball doesn't bounce. I have done that before and it is a farce.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off - important clarification

By Hullablue14/2 00:08Wed Feb 14 00:08:12 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 213

I had read (on social media so my fault for taking it at face value) that there had been an early pitch inspection.
I am now being told there was not.
If there was not an inspection (and it seems there was not) then it is even more Stockport County's fault than I had already said it was.
To not have a pitch inspection is really crap.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off - important clarification

By ,shifter (Shifter)14/2 08:23Wed Feb 14 08:23:33 2018In response to Re: Stockport off - important clarificationTop of thread

Views: 165

Hardly your fault that a pitch inspection hadn't taken place,think most on here thought there had been.
Fault entirely with Stockport ,they throughout the morning had given assurances the game was on.

Poor management by SC IMO,they created a problem all of their own making,biggest sufferers ......BORO fans and the team.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off - important clarification

By CockandBear14/2 08:18Wed Feb 14 08:18:41 2018In response to Re: Stockport off - important clarificationTop of thread

Views: 150

No excuse. Irresponsible in the extreme.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By ,shifter (Shifter)10/2 22:06Sat Feb 10 22:06:28 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 671

Refs might have a duty of care to players ,likewise clubs have a duty of care to their players who are employed by them,both managers say the pitch was playable ,that's good enough for me.
Time someone gave duty of care to fans who have seen a wasted day ,and wasted hard earned money.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Stockport off

By Dougie811/2 11:57Sun Feb 11 11:57:41 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 566

Well said Mr Shifter. The fans are the last people clubs and referees bother about.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue11/2 12:51Sun Feb 11 12:51:59 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 537

The players should be the only people the referees care about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By ,shifter (Shifter)11/2 17:40Sun Feb 11 17:40:13 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 484

No one has said the ref should care about players only.
IMO ,the match ref should have got to the ground same time as local ref ,she could have made the decision instead of the local guy.
There must have been doubt or why else was a local ref called in ?

The whole episode nothing but a fucking farce.
Remember the BORO at the Vetch ?the pitch was floating ,the ref didn't need to bounce the ball in dead areas water polo would have been more apt.
2000 plus BORO fans out numbering Swansea fans,they wanted the game played the match ref bowing to pressure no doubt .

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue11/2 17:57Sun Feb 11 17:57:38 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 542

"No one has said the ref should care about players only."

I did.

And you know what?
That is what refs do when deciding if a pitch is playable.
They think about the players and the players only.
Both the fans, not the managers, not the directors, owners or TV cameras.
The players.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By ,shifter (Shifter)12/2 07:30Mon Feb 12 07:30:59 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 475

Again you are missing the point.
This is not about duty of care to players,this is about a clash of expertise between two referees ,one saying the pitch was playable ,one saying it wasn't.

Shrewblue posted that Stockport were relaying messages all morning the game was on,BORO fans continuing their journey thinking the game was on.
Come on Hulla if you think this is about duty of care to players think again,this is about the decisions made between two refs ,the match ref has the last word ,fair enough.the match ref should have been the one two make the decision early doors.not for the club and the local ref who have been undermined .
There is goals in their hills,not if you are a BORO fan.......only fools gold.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue12/2 09:10Mon Feb 12 09:10:16 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 433

I am not missing the point.
If anyone is missing the point, it is you.
The local ref can say a pitch is not playable, but they cannot say it is.
That is down to the match ref, who will inspect the pitch as soon as they arrive.
It is unreasonable to ask the match ref to arrive at the ground 6 hours early.
And please do not forget that SC also said there had been a change in the weather between inspections.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By ,shifter (Shifter)12/2 09:21Mon Feb 12 09:21:17 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 435

I don't agree.
The match officials get paid,I couldn't careless if the match ref traveled the night before the game.
I have already said the match ref has the last word,that doesn't say it was correct.
No point in a early pitch inspection by a local ref is there ?
No matter how you dress it up ,there should have been something in place to prevent BORO fans wasting time and money travelling to a nonevent ,whilst being reassured all along the game is on.

Say again a fucking farce ,SC and BORO will recover their loss,will BORO fans ? Will they fuck.

reply to this article | return to the front page

3 people like this 3 people

Re: Stockport off

By Dougie812/2 11:15Mon Feb 12 11:15:21 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 405

Thank you Mr Shifter. Nice to know someone is on the side of the travelling supporters (I was one) who have had 2 expensive wasted
Saturdays in the last 4 weeks. Hope this Saturday is not another.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue12/2 11:24Mon Feb 12 11:24:17 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 403

What do you want the ref to do? Give it more time? What if pitch not fit at 2.55?
I have travelled many times to called off games, even games that have started and been abandoned.
It happens and if anyone is to blame it is host club, not the ref.
But the refs aree getting the blame for doing thier job.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By stone ragma12/2 12:10Mon Feb 12 12:10:42 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 400

Maybe use a bit of common sense if both Managers are happy to play, is a little bit of surface water really dangerous for players!!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue12/2 12:34Mon Feb 12 12:34:28 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 390

If the ball doesn't bounce or roll, no point starting a football match.
That is common sense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By stone ragma12/2 12:38Mon Feb 12 12:38:40 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 385

The Managers obviously thought it was ok

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue12/2 12:46Mon Feb 12 12:46:46 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 381

The managers did not have to make this decision.
Easy to talk when the decision is not yours.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By stone ragma12/2 12:56Mon Feb 12 12:56:34 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 390

Maybe they should be part of the decision process

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue12/2 13:31Mon Feb 12 13:31:12 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 381

Why? Do you want them to be consulted over other refereeing decisions too?
Referees are appointed to take decisions impartially. Managers are not impartial.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By stone ragma12/2 16:46Mon Feb 12 16:46:17 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 364

Doesn’t mean Managers can’t be consulted on this issue

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue12/2 16:54Mon Feb 12 16:54:31 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 386

Consulted yes, their word goes, no.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By almost average 212/2 18:25Mon Feb 12 18:25:48 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 407

I'm sure someone from the clubs manager / secretary lets the ref know their opinion .

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Dino View

By VS Town (VS Boro)12/2 21:52Mon Feb 12 21:52:35 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 362

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/stockport-county-call-angers-boro-14277347.amp?__twitter_impression=true

“We are a professional football team that seems to be operating in a part-time league here"
You learn something new every day :)

On Spennymoor game
They have had problems with their pitch a lot this year. We are heading up on the Friday night – I wonder what time we will find out that one is not on.”
So, does he want the game called off on Friday afternoon to avoid the travel and not knowing what the next 24 hours will bring.

Edited by VS Boro at 21:53:03 on 12th February 2018

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue12/2 22:15Mon Feb 12 22:15:53 2018In response to Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 352

“It was the same in both games. There were areas of the pitch that was bad in both instances, but in both instances that could have been addressed in the time before kick-off.

“The Stockport game could have been played. Both managers wanted to play it, there was time to sort what needed sorting. Why was the game not allowed to be given a chance?

“Both sets of players were there, the fans were there, everything was ready. What did we gain by calling it off like that?"

So in short, if it could have been sorted out, why wasn't it, and how long did he want to give the host club to sort it out? What would he have said if the ref had said "Sure, get it sorted before 2.55pm" and then when the teams came out, it was still not playable?
That would have been even worse!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By VS Town (VS Boro)12/2 22:21Mon Feb 12 22:21:52 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 360

It was his view it could be sorted out.

Reminds me of the Worcester game that never was.
I am of the belief that ghe referee was assured the lights would be sorted. By the time it could not be the referee had no choice. I am sure the referee could have played on with less lights, but waited and then too dark.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By bert's dad13/2 07:43Tue Feb 13 07:43:34 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 331

The other alternative would have been start the game and see how things progressed because there is always the option to abandon the game - something that rarely happens these days

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Greg (NBFC)13/2 08:30Tue Feb 13 08:30:59 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 324

That risks even worse potential reaction. In addition to the points about still having wasted travel and - if abandoned after half time - the waste of entrance fee (no refund after half time), just look at how much controversy this postponement has caused. Now imagine that we had started the game and were winning 4-0 after half an hour (unlikely, I admit, but we did that against Tamworth) THEN the ref called the game off. Can you even start to imagine the vitriol that would be let loose on here?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By ,shifter (Shifter)13/2 09:07Tue Feb 13 09:07:45 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 320

This is my view.
The match ref should have been notified early doors the match in the view of both managers and local ref the pitch was playable ,the match ref IMO should have been on her way to make the final decision ,in plenty of time for team and fans to travel or not travel

There must have been some doubt Friday night ,enough time for the match ref to get there early doors and make a decision.
Controversial I know ,after all match officials get expenses.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Dino View

By mark-nbfc13/2 10:06Tue Feb 13 10:06:24 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 288

'There must have been some doubt Friday night ,enough time for the match ref to get there early doors and make a decision.'

Thats a great idea to stop anyone wanting to become a ref, especially at this level.

---
"Have to say I don't have the enthusiasm now".

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By ,shifter (Shifter)13/2 10:23Tue Feb 13 10:23:20 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 286

What a shame refs at this level have to come out of their well paid comfort zone and do a bit more than nintey minutes.

Fans Sat set of earlier no doubt than the match ref,difference is,BORO fans didn't get paid ,the ref no doubt got at least expenses.
Vanarama refs get I believe a very decent whack,the only whack BORO fans got was in the pocket.

Sat was a farce .

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Dino View

By VS Town (VS Boro)13/2 18:51Tue Feb 13 18:51:15 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 238

How much do referees earn at this level so they can be abused and criticised by all?

Full-time Premier League officials can earn up to £70,000 a year, while all other league referees are paid around £300 to £500 a match.

Edited by VS Boro at 18:55:56 on 13th February 2018
Edited by VS Boro at 18:56:30 on 13th February 2018

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Dino View

By Moley8513/2 10:33Tue Feb 13 10:33:23 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 288

I genuinely don't see the huge issue.

I feel really sorry for the fans who travelled, totally understand their frustration at wasting money. I've been well en route to the likes of Merthyr before and it been called off, it happens.

As football fans, in winter, you always run the risk. I'll go Spenny on Saturday knowing I could face that situation.

The ref doesn't see it as playable. He is the one who would be in trouble if a serious injury was caused due to the pitch, not Dino or their manager.

I like Dino, but just get on with it. The professional club in a part time league comment was laughable. Postponements at late notice have happened as high up as the championship this season. For a 'full time club'' playing on a Tuesday night may benefit us anyway.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By stone ragma13/2 11:06Tue Feb 13 11:06:31 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 266

Not sure it would benefit us, it just won’t inconvenience us as much as a part time team

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Moley8513/2 11:09Tue Feb 13 11:09:53 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 262

I always think midweek games should be advantageous to us, and the other full time teams.

Exercising after a 'rest' day is easier than exercising after doing a hard days work.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By stone ragma13/2 11:14Tue Feb 13 11:14:22 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 268

See your point now 👍

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Dino View

By ,shifter (Shifter)13/2 10:57Tue Feb 13 10:57:26 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 289

I see one major issue.
One ref says yes ,one ref says no.
BORO fans travelled thinking the game was on,that is the real issue.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Dino View

By VS Town (VS Boro)13/2 18:52Tue Feb 13 18:52:26 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 246

Shock horror - two people have different views on the same topic*


* ignoring fact it was at different times

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By ,shifter (Shifter)13/2 18:57Tue Feb 13 18:57:04 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 263

Might have been different times.
If fans are to be believed ,there wasn't that much rain between inspections

Nah,one didn't want to get her hair wet.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 19:13Tue Feb 13 19:13:05 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 251

I wondered how long it would be before you trotted down that path!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By boropod (BoroughPod)13/2 20:30Tue Feb 13 20:30:29 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 238

He wasn't the only one.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 20:33Tue Feb 13 20:33:44 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 289

On here?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By boropod (BoroughPod)13/2 21:33Tue Feb 13 21:33:03 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 235

if you are referring to comments on here about refs sex then yes

'Clearly she has no understanding of wider implications - well she would not wish to slip over on her a***'

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 21:39Tue Feb 13 21:39:00 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 264

I did not see that as specific to her gender, but I can see why others could.
Still, in this day and age comments about her worrying about getting her hair wet are not needed imo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 11:21Tue Feb 13 11:21:26 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 271

Is there any person out there at all that thinks that because a local ref says a match is not off after an early morning inspection that the game is 100% on?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By ,shifter (Shifter)13/2 11:24Tue Feb 13 11:24:44 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 273

I dunno.
Will phone round and let you know.
:-)

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 11:54Tue Feb 13 11:54:45 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 274

Do you think that a passed pitch inspection at 11am means the match is 100% going to go ahead at 3pm?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By stone ragma13/2 13:50Tue Feb 13 13:50:22 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 242

It’s a depends

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 13:55Tue Feb 13 13:55:06 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 247

The bit where I ask if if would be 100% on removes any "depends"
It is a yes on no question.

There are many reasons a game could be postponed, even after an early pitch inspection, not all weather related.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By stone ragma13/2 14:00Tue Feb 13 14:00:44 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 246

If the weather stays fine it’s 100pc on, that’s why it’s a depends

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By VS Town (VS Boro)13/2 18:59Tue Feb 13 18:59:16 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 258

a match referee can postpone a game for any reason.
Incorrect marking, goals too small/large.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 19:18Tue Feb 13 19:18:15 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 259

[autotwat]time of the month [/autotwat]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Greg (NBFC)13/2 14:07Tue Feb 13 14:07:32 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 242

Oh dear, you are walking right into this aren't you?

Yesterday, a bomb was discovered close to London City Airport, causing a closedown and all flights cancelled. By your judgement, if that happened close to the ground you would still play the game - otherwise you would be talking less than 100% to cover that type of situation.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By stone ragma13/2 14:11Tue Feb 13 14:11:07 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 229

No I’m not because Hulla’s original question referred to a pitch inspection, any other incident like the one you mentioned would not be governed by a pitch inspection

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 14:12Tue Feb 13 14:12:46 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 233

I did not in any way shape or form mention any postponement being the result of a pitch inspection.
As said previously, you failed to understand the question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By stone ragma13/2 14:16Tue Feb 13 14:16:01 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 236

“Do you think that a passed pitch inspection at 11am means the match is 100pc on ?“ !!!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 14:19Tue Feb 13 14:19:04 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 242

Yup, no mention at all as to what could cause a postponement after an early pitch inspection.
You didn't read and understand the question. That is clear.
Thanks anyway.

And if you are going to use quote marks, use proper quotes ... "Do you think that a passed pitch inspection at 11am means the match is 100% going to go ahead at 3pm?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

Edited by Hullablue at 14:20:43 on 13th February 2018

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 14:06Tue Feb 13 14:06:43 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 242

But whst if the team coach is in a crash? Or there is a bomb scare near the ground, or a major police incident?

There is a reason I chose the words I did for my question.
I am sorry you didn't understand the question before choosing to answer it.


I will try again. It is a closed question, meaning the only possible answers are yes and no.

Do you think an early pitch inspection not resulting in a postponement means that match will be 100% on?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By stone ragma13/2 14:09Tue Feb 13 14:09:04 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 226

I did understand completely and my point is it’s not that clear cut, as for the other incidents you just mentioned they would not be governed by a pitch inspection

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 14:10Tue Feb 13 14:10:57 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 231

You obviously do not understand the question.
I can explain the concept of 100% certainty to you but I cannot help if you fail to grasp that.
I know the other things are not governed by a pitch inspection. Did anyone say otherwise?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By stone ragma13/2 14:13Tue Feb 13 14:13:53 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 223

I do, and my answer remains it depends , that is not the answer you want but it is a realistic view

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 14:15Tue Feb 13 14:15:49 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 221

If "it depends then the answer is no.
You do not think the match will 100% be on.
It really is quite simple.
I am sorry you have repeatedly failed to understand the question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By stone ragma13/2 13:15Tue Feb 13 13:15:23 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 264

If the weather stays fine Yes

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 13:43Tue Feb 13 13:43:55 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 251

So that's a no then?



https://twitter.com/Official_NTFC/status/962321088675045376

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

Edited by Hullablue at 13:45:55 on 13th February 2018

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Moley8513/2 11:09Tue Feb 13 11:09:01 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 268

Fans regularly travel to games for them to be called off though mate. Not saying it's shit, but it does happen.

Close to me, BPA and Halifax have both called games off at 14:15 in recent weeks.

It happens. Fans know the risks. And that's not being disrespectful to those who travelled. I wouldn't do that having been in the position before, and likely to be again soon.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By ,shifter (Shifter)13/2 11:18Tue Feb 13 11:18:16 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 269

I have been to games off last minute,Worcester being the last one frozen pitch,been freezing all morning,that game should have been called off earlier
Something needs putting in place ,conditions ,local weather forcast ect.
What was in place Sat two opinions ,not that much rain up there in the morning.

Spennymore Sat ,what a pisser if that called off last minute.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Dino View

By Moley8513/2 11:54Tue Feb 13 11:54:49 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 256

No question it will be shit if we have another last minute call off, but that's just part and parcel of it, IMO. All see things differently.

Rain can be so torrential between 1pm and 3pm to call a postponement, if that's the case Saturday, who is really to blame if we travel and it's off? No-one.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Hullablue13/2 11:57Tue Feb 13 11:57:12 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 258

At least we can be sure that Dino will never moan that a game shouldn't have been played if we lose on a boggy pitch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By Moley8513/2 12:01Tue Feb 13 12:01:17 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 257

or if a game gets called off 20 mins in after being given a chance...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By boropod (BoroughPod)13/2 08:53Tue Feb 13 08:53:27 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 309

Remember Scarborough away in the trophy in the 70's, the staff were throwing kit onto the pitch at half time to soak up the water, we were losing 2-0 I think.
It was abandoned anyway at half time much to our relief, we drew the re-arranaged game then lost the reply bah!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By VS Town (VS Boro)13/2 08:17Tue Feb 13 08:17:27 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 307

abandonment should never be considered an option (other than for unforeseen circumstances).

People have to pay to get into games, and if abandoned before half time its how to refund. If after half time you get nothing.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Dino View

By catch2213/2 11:16Tue Feb 13 11:16:11 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 273

Wasn't the game mysteriously called off last week ? according to the fixture list . If I've read correctly Dino thought there were areas of the pitch that could have been addressed that weren't. Someone somewhere didn't want the game to happen.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Dino View

By VS Town (VS Boro)13/2 18:53Tue Feb 13 18:53:47 2018In response to Re: Dino ViewTop of thread

Views: 226

or didn't have the resources to address the areas.

I really see no evidence that Stockport would have any reason not to want the game on.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By ,shifter (Shifter)12/2 12:10Mon Feb 12 12:10:19 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 403

Ffs.
There were two refs involved ,which ref got it right ?you will say the match ref ,I will say the local ref.that is exactly why the team and fans travelled.
Your whole argument is hypothetical .the match was on by one ref ,called off by another.
Next time they should toss a coin first thing in the morning of the match ,and stick with the decision.

Don't care much for opinions on the matter ,the only thing it was a costly day for BORO fans......farce.

reply to this article | return to the front page

3 people like this 3 people

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue12/2 12:33Mon Feb 12 12:33:07 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 388

It rained in between the two inspections.
You may have missed that vital bit of info.
The concept of situations changing between two decisions seems to escape you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By stone ragma12/2 12:18Mon Feb 12 12:18:10 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 388

Do agree with Hulla that conditions can deteriorate between two inspections, question in this case is did they deteriorate that much, the fact that both Managers were happy to play possibly suggests they didn’t deteriorate so much

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Dougie812/2 15:38Mon Feb 12 15:38:13 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 394

It had not rained for an hour before game was called off. We got to Gatley for lunch a 12.00 it was not raining. It was not raining at 3.00 when we left. Sun broke through on way back, but past Stoke it was really heavy again.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue12/2 12:36Mon Feb 12 12:36:23 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 383

Or that managers can say what they want without the responsibility the referee had.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue12/2 09:43Mon Feb 12 09:43:06 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 404

You don't agree that weather changes?
There is plenty of point in an early inspection, as long as people take it as advisory and nothing changes.
The match official could have checked the pitch a 9am and passed it fit, but come 1.30pm it may not be fit any more.
I doubt Stockport will get all the money they lost, cancelling matches at short notice is expensive.

A few months ago I booked travel and accommodation in a European city to see a gig in March.
Last week the gig was cancelled.
The flights are non-refundable as is the hotel room.
The tickets have been refunded, but not the booking fee.
I have lost a bit of money and will now make the trip without he main point of the trip being in.
I have not called it a fucking farce, I just accept that is how life is.
Sometimes things run exactly to plan, sometimes they do not.
That's life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By almost average 211/2 12:50Sun Feb 11 12:50:26 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 558

Despite what many believe no ref ever wants to call a game off . What's the point of becoming a ref if you don't want to ref games , unfortunatly pitches are sometimes not fit or unsafe and that's the way it is .

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Stockport off

By VS Town (VS Boro)11/2 14:43Sun Feb 11 14:43:41 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 532

I think referees air on the side of caution; similar to the reason I was given to why players have to leave the field after injury (although recent change brings that slightly into question).

It’s even worse when games have to be abandoned when there was a doubt to whether they should have started.

I also smile when people claim football clubs should/should not have called games off - whilst I am sure clubs can put pressure on, and ref worth his/her salt would make their own minds up. Having said that, if both teams want to play that should be taken into account

(Tangent) I would be amazed if the stoke cup game would have gone ahead if cameras were not there - changed a bit now, but I am sure that was a factor.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue11/2 15:14Sun Feb 11 15:14:26 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 503

What reason were you given?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By VS Town (VS Boro)11/2 15:58Sun Feb 11 15:58:35 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 502

litigation.

I was told (second hand) from someone who was told by a top flight official.

Basically, if a player is injured and carried on playing and made the injury worse there was fear that the referee could be held responsible. I think there was an incident in USA (but litigation can be a career over there).

By forcing the player to leave the field and requesting to come back on then it was clearly the players/medical staff decision totally clearing the referee.

If you think about it, it does/did explain the ruling as it could hardly be said to speed the game up.

The rule is now that a fouled player does not have to leave the field. It was strange at the game I attended yesterday was to see a long hold up for two players, then when recovered one was booked and only he left the field.

^^^ Many at boro do not know that change...... not that is surprising ^^^^

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue11/2 16:38Sun Feb 11 16:38:05 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 502

The player only ever had to leave the field if he had been treated by a physio.
The physio would have cleared him to carry on even if he stayed on the pitch.
I had heard that theory before but it just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.


Edit to add: the rule was changed last season to say if a player is fouled resulting in a red or yellow card for fouler, he doesn't have to leave the pitch if he needs treatment.
The original ruling was that players are not to be treated on the pitch, but we all know that has been ignored since it was brought in.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

Edited by Hullablue at 16:53:44 on 11th February 2018

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By bert's dad11/2 15:02Sun Feb 11 15:02:38 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 506

The only other alternative would be to go and watch another match nearby

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue11/2 12:52Sun Feb 11 12:52:57 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 548

This ^^^^^

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By VS Town (VS Boro)11/2 12:27Sun Feb 11 12:27:58 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 537

But when town called in a pitch inspection early for the Harrogate game many complained it was too early.

Perhaps it was (I believe it was) but I can imagine the outcry if it was called off at 2pm.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By joetowny (Joe)11/2 15:05Sun Feb 11 15:05:32 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 496

that was my point above
hindsight is wonderful

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Stockport off

By VS Town (VS Boro)11/2 16:02Sun Feb 11 16:02:16 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 493

Just gets me that (apart from clearly unplayable conditions) the referee is always wrong if called off early/late.

What people also have to remember is its not the clubs decision, but the referee's so statements from clubs like "the game is 100% on" (not that Town would ever say that) is foolish in the extreme (I think Stockport said the game was going ahead). The referee could cancel the game for any reason what-so-ever.


PS
Seems that Stockport invited a Burnley team to play at the ground during the week. Considering they played 120mins on it on Tuesday that decision is being seriously questioned (hindsight again)

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By HattersMatters13/2 12:37Tue Feb 13 12:37:00 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 267


PS
Seems that Stockport invited a Burnley team to play at the ground during the week. Considering they played 120mins on it on Tuesday that decision is being seriously questioned (hindsight again)


Actually the Burnley vs. Newcastle game (under 23's) took place on 18th January - allowing this game to take place less than 48 hours after we'd played at home in the FA Trophy has contributed towards the issues with the pitch though.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By almost average 211/2 16:12Sun Feb 11 16:12:36 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 493

Clubs get an official in to do an early morning inspection . This official is almost always a ' club friendly ' local official who is likely to go with the clubs wishes . The club then declare the game as definitely on as they don't want the fans making alternative arrangements . Then along comes the match ref with no other agender than is the pitch playable & safe , and guess who gets the blame when the game is off .

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Hullablue10/2 22:20Sat Feb 10 22:20:34 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 677

We have no way of knowing at all if the managers would have given the go ahead if the decision was theirs and the responsibility was theirs.
The decision is not theirs, so it is easy for them to say.
It may be good enough for you, but the decision and responsibility is not yours.
Referees have to consider so much more.
Matches get called off. It is part and parcel of going to matches.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not interested in your opinion" Tommy Wright, after 6-3 defeat at Blyth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By boropod (BoroughPod)10/2 19:02Sat Feb 10 19:02:32 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 790

calling games off is a female thing then!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By Eileen Dover10/2 22:03Sat Feb 10 22:03:39 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 673

Rachel Welch?
Wasn't she in Fantastic Voyage and One Million Years BC?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Stockport off

By ,shifter (Shifter)10/2 22:18Sat Feb 10 22:18:17 2018In response to Re: Stockport offTop of thread

Views: 661

Hulla recons Rachel Welch attempted to bounce a ball that wouldn't bounce.....recon her " balls " bounced on this occasion , and dropped a " right " bollock.

Edited by Shifter at 22:19:22 on 10th February 2018

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people

Previous thread: Confidence from ex London's Burning star by Moley8513/2 10:47Tue Feb 13 10:47:30 2018view thread


The forum or any messages are not and should not be interpreted as an official announcement from Nuneaton Town AFC or anyone associated with Nuneaton Town AFC. Nuneaton Town AFC will not accept responsibility for any messages posted in the forum. Please refrain from bad language.