Bury OFF

[wivelgull]

portugull and tomogull are STARS!!

[nickfrench82]

Nick, I very rarely tell people they're talking bollocks, but anyone reading your posts on this thread would understand why. The first line of your post in question, 'My point is that if the pitch was unplayable at 9am, and the forecast was for torrential rain, then what sensible human being, let alone a football league referee, thought the pitch would be ready for a game 3 hours later?', makes it clear that you're talking about the timescale between 9am and midday.

If it is clear I am talking about the timescale between 9am and midday, why did you assume I was talking about kick off time?

There were a further 3 hours between 12pm and 3pm(that's right, there were THREE hours), therefore by the referee's own reckoning, there was plenty of time to see if another 3 hours would dry the pitch out and the game go ahead.

The sensible decision would've been to have called it off at 9am. That is now proven by the fact the pitch was unplayable at both 9am and 12pm.

[hector]

If it is clear I am talking about the timescale between 9am and midday, why did you assume I was talking about kick off time?

There were a further 3 hours between 12pm and 3pm(that's right, there were THREE hours), therefore by the referee's own reckoning, there was plenty of time to see if another 3 hours would dry the pitch out and the game go ahead.

The sensible decision would've been to have called it off at 9am. That is now proven by the fact the pitch was unplayable at both 9am and 12pm.

Of course another 3 hours, eg kick off, would have given even more time but there has to come a point where you draw the line. If the club start opening up the turnstiles at say 1:30pm, then the game really has to go ahead, so the has to be a cut-off point where the decision is made so that it is not complicated even further by having supporters inside the ground when the pitch is being assessed.

It is indeed interesting how long this thread is, filled by people arguing about how soon/late the match should have been called off. It's inclement weather, it happens.

Also, simply because we were the only league 2 game postponed, although technically we weren't as newport's was as well, there were 4 games postponed in league 1, in areas that didn't suffer the rainfall that we did.

[yeovilgull]

How you can tell me I'm talking bollocks is a little strange. I watched 4 different forecasts, all with the same weather warnings, read through the Met Office forecasting, plus I have a friend who works on weather data analysis at the Met Office in Exeter, who said that South Devon would be extremely lucky to avoid the 'torrential downpours' heading this was. The forecast was wrong,
but that is what it was.

Also, tell me the difference between 9 and 12... As 12pm is when the referee deemed the game to be off, and as such he made his decision based on THREE hours difference.

The paying public also need to be taken into account when making these decisions. It was unfair on the admittedly small number of Bury fans, to have been given hope the game would go ahead, and as it turns out, there was never any chance of it going ahead.

Try wording your responses a little differently. Maybe 'I disagree' would make you sound like less of a tosser than 'you're talking bollocks'

Gullscorer. To be fair to Nick, I think the forecast in the link that you posted yesterday morning at 3.49 had worsened by the time some of us surfaced yesterday morning and the forecast that you posted was different when others viewed it. Although not mentioning torrential rain, when I looked at it at about 8am it was referring to heavy showers and periods of prolonged heavy rain and this could be where he was getting the torrential rain impression from.

None of us really know the reasons why the game wasn't called off at 9am and what the thinking behind having a further inspection was. Anyway lets all keep our fingers crossed we can get a game on for Tuesday night and at the weather isn't as bad Tuesday as its being forecast at the moment.

[Gullscorer]

If it is clear I am talking about the timescale between 9am and midday, why did you assume I was talking about kick off time?
There were a further 3 hours between 12pm and 3pm(that's right, there were THREE hours), therefore by the referee's own reckoning, there was plenty of time to see if another 3 hours would dry the pitch out and the game go ahead.
The sensible decision would've been to have called it off at 9am. That is now proven by the fact the pitch was unplayable at both 9am and 12pm.

Oh dear, one more time: I assumed no such thing. It's clear you were talking about the three hours between the pitch inspection at 9am and the inspection at midday, and so obviously was I. Is the English language so difficult for you to grasp? The referee has to decide if the pitch will be playable at 3pm, and must give every chance for that to happen, hence the second inspection at midday. His decision at midday that the pitch would not be playable at 3pm was perfectly valid and should be respected.

[brucie]

You don't appear to be listening. The referee made his mind up at 9am that the game was off. Quite why he left the decision to midday I don't know. It wasn't to give the game "every chance" because he was adamant at the first pitch inspection that the game wasn't going ahead.
The fault on this occasion was with the referee - he should have called it off at 9am because it was NEVER going ahead after that time.

[Gullscorer]

Again, bollocks.. How could the referee decide at 9am that the game was off if he delayed his decision until midday..??

[Fonda]

Why are we always so convinced there is a massive conspiracy against us? If the ref was convinced the game would be unplayable when he made that 9am inspection, he would have called it then. Do you suppose he gave us until 12 just for a laugh - to maximise the inconvenience for everyone? The fact there was a further inspection at 12 indicates there was a chance the conditions were 'in the balance', and therefore was doing what he's employed to do by giving the game every chance of going ahead. I really think some of our support are unhealthily cynical. What do you suppose was the reason for this rogue, pointless delay...?

[gullintwoplaces]

Why are we always so convinced there is a massive conspiracy against us? If the ref was convinced the game would be unplayable when he made that 9am inspection, he would have called it then. Do you suppose he gave us until 12 just for a laugh - to maximise the inconvenience for everyone? The fact there was a further inspection at 12 indicates there was a chance the conditions were 'in the balance', and therefore was doing what he's employed to do by giving the game every chance of going ahead. I really think some of our support are unhealthily cynical. What do you suppose was the reason for this rogue, pointless delay...?

I completely agree. Some of the drivel in this thread is laughable. Brucie claims to "know" exactly what the ref was thinking, clearly he is gifted with mighty powers. Would we rather have played a game like Northampton's, where the match was a farce due to high winds?

[brucie]

I don't claim to know what the ref was thinking. The information I posted came from someone who was present at the pitch inspection and made this information available. Either he is a liar (which I have no reason to believe) or what he said was correct.
So if you think thats drivel believe what you want.
The information given out was that the referee was adamant that the game would not go ahead when he made the pitch inspection at 9am. Quite why he delayed the decision to call it off until midday I don't know.
The same person was saying that had the groundstaff been given more time (ie one and a half hours) to work on the pitch it would have been playable at kick off time, but as I understand it the ref was adamant that the match was not going ahead and had made up his mind at 9am.
This information was posted by the groundsman/member of the groundstaff on a social media site in answer to questions about the postponement.

[brucie]

Furthermore the statement from the club after the first pitch inspection didn't really give any hope that the match was likely to go ahead perhaps tending to support that the referees mind had already been made up.

[nickfrench82]

You don't appear to be listening. The referee made his mind up at 9am that the game was off. Quite why he left the decision to midday I don't know. It wasn't to give the game "every chance" because he was adamant at the first pitch inspection that the game wasn't going ahead.
The fault on this occasion was with the referee - he should have called it off at 9am because it was NEVER going ahead after that time.

Brucie is actually correct on this one to a certain extent.

I was told today, by someone who was at the ground all morning and observed the inspection, that the referee decided at 9am, the pitch was unplayable. He was advised that there was a remote chance, that given perfect drying conditions, that it 'may' improve by 12, and gave it until 12 with the agreement of the manager and officials from both sides.

Turns out, with almost perfect drying conditions, and a few 2 minute showers, that this wasn't the case.

On to Tuesday, a whole new call-off to argue about.

[gullintwoplaces]

Furthermore the statement from the club after the first pitch inspection didn't really give any hope that the match was likely to go ahead perhaps tending to support that the referees mind had already been made up.

That is a fair point, and it is clear that both clubs and the ref agreed to take the decision to the wire to try to get the game played. I really don't have a problem with this, as it was in the interests of both clubs to play the game if at all possible. This didn't work out and that was clearly for the best. I went to the rugby at Exeter, which was not a great spectacle because it was so cold, wet and windy (although the best team won). The ball at Exeter was blowing all over the place at times, and I am glad that the critical Bury game was not played under similar conditions.

I understand the frustrations of fans. I have in the past travelled to games that were postponed close to kick off, once to a game at Mansfield that was postponed when some Torquay fans had already paid to get in. It is part of the trials of being a football fan. And yes, of course the club should do better next year, probably with better drainage and a decent pitch cover, but the amount of rain in Devon over the past two months has been off the scale, which could not be foreseen.

[PlainmoorRoar]

As someone mentioned time for pitch covers and anyone know if thenTUST is still going?

[Fonda]

If the referee was 100% convinced the pitch was unplayable at 9am he would have called it off then. No amount of pleading from the club(s) otherwise would have changed that decision. The fact he gave it until 12, indicates he conceded there was still a chance it would be playable. He might have expressed his opinion it was very unlikely, but clearly he wasn't completely certain at 9am. Had he been , it's his job to call it off as soon as possible and he would likely be considered negligent for doing otherwise. Why would he risk that accusation? It's nonsense.