Wanderers waiting to see if Santos will be available for Wigan

Ian Evatt has confirmed that Wanderers have appealed Ricardo Santos’ red card against Blackpool at the weekend.

The Bolton skipper was sent off during the second half at Bloomfield Road after he was judged to have fouled Kyle Joseph in the box by referee Josh Smith.

The Whites went on to lose 4-1 against the Seasiders but remain level on points with second-place Derby, who were beaten by Barnsley.

Evatt is hopeful that the decision will be overturned and the towering defender will be available to face Wigan at the DW Stadium on Tuesday night.

“We have obviously appealed it, I think that goes without saying,” said the manager. “We will wait to hear, I think we will know more later on this afternoon but we are pretty confident.

“This isn’t even a subjective thing, this is a law so we are pretty confident that it will be overturned. But you never really know until it happens, do you?”

The defeat at Blackpool was Santos’ first appearance since the end of January, having missed a handful of games due to a calf problem.

Wanderers also appealed George Thomason’s red card at Northampton earlier this month but were unsuccessful on that occasion.

The midfielder served a three-match ban before returning to the starting line-up at Blackpool, scoring an early opener past Dan Grimshaw.

Bolton drew 1-1 on their last trip to Wigan in April 2022, with Jon Dadi Bodvarsson cancelling out James McClean’s opener.

The Latics currently sit 13th in the League One table following their 1-1 draw against Cheltenham at the weekend.

Source

Great news!

Shout out to Barry who informed us before the official confirmation, so he clearly is ITK on these sort of things.

Some good news at last.

Sluffy wrote:Shout out to Barry who informed us before the official confirmation, so he clearly is ITK on these sort of things.

Or a stab in the dark with an 50% chance of getting it right

BoltonTillIDie wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Shout out to Barry who informed us before the official confirmation, so he clearly is ITK on these sort of things.

Or a stab in the dark with an 50% chance of getting it right

You are right not to believe anything said on social media unless you check it out first yourself.

After Barry posted I looked up the FA rules (it took me awhile to actually find the relevant bit) and only then did I learn fully the rule on different tariffs and double jeopardy.

So no, Barry wasn't guessing, he either knew the law, or looked it up, or was referred to it - and stated what the outcome HAD to be...

karlypants wrote:

Ian Evatt has confirmed that Wanderers have appealed Ricardo Santos’ red card against Blackpool at the weekend.

“This isn’t even a subjective thing, this is a law so we are pretty confident that it will be overturned. But you never really know until it happens, do you?”

So clearly he WAS ITK - he had knowledge and understanding of what the outcome SHOULD be - stated so with reasons, in advance of anyone else.

Fair play to him.

Pretty petty of you to act the way you have then, isn't it?

And to be fair to W63 he called it correctly too.

I didn't understand why he believed it to be so though, hence why I asked him?

Maybe he knew the law on this too?

I think most people interpreted as it shouldn’t have been a red card. Some also disagreed. Even Marc Isles posted the link to the rule minutes after the sending off.
Ultimately it was up to the EFLs/FAs interpretation.
The FA didn’t release the outcome until today.

So it wasn’t an in the know as you state it was literally a prediction.
Which turned out correct.
Anyway…not a dig or being petty just stating facts.

BoltonTillIDie wrote:I think most people interpreted as it shouldn’t have been a red card. Some also disagreed.  Even Marc Isles posted the link to the rule minutes after the sending off.
Ultimately it was up to the EFLs/FAs interpretation.
The FA didn’t release the outcome until today.

So it wasn’t an in the know as you state it was literally a prediction.  
Which turned out correct.  
Anyway…not a dig or being petty just stating facts.

Thank you.

It would seem most people on the match thread on here (including myself) and ww and from the comments I've seen on social media called it as a sending off.

I didn't see Iles post.

Maybe W63 and Barry did - if so they were 'In The Know' about the law - or do you disagree?

I don't think anybody would argue that Santos didn't made a genuine attempt to get the ball - even the referee - so it was clearly the refs mistake in sending Santos off.

As I've said above Barry - even perhaps W63 and no doubt many others too were therefore 'in the knowledge' of the law.

It therefore was NOT a prediction, nor a 'stab in the dark' or anything other than a miscarriage of the law that was bound to be overruled on appeal - which it was.


When I told people that Anderson had not raped the club, or that PPE contracts were legally awarded and not made by MP's to their mates, or even that Wanderlust had told lies, I stated these things on the knowledge that I had - I either knew the law relating to them or seen and recorded admissions of contrary action from the person themself - I was 'In The Know' - although I WASN'T in some sort of inner circle and 'told' these things personally.

I suggest you've limited your understanding of the phrase to narrowly, as the definition is...

be in the know
phrase

Be aware of something known only to a few people.

...and Company Law is certainly not commonly known by many, neither apparently is regularity procedures in the public sector, and also as in this instance, the FA change of rule (brought in for this season) for a certain type of foul tackle in an opponents penalty area and the avoidance of double jeopardy.

You therefore were not being completely factual in the terms of omission of acquired 'in the know' knowledge by means derived from a separate route, and fwiw I still do think you were being very petty in your comment above.

AND for all we know Barry might actually be ITK within your understanding of the phrase, being that by the time he posted the appeal had already been heard and determined and Barry may have been informed first hand about this...

You certainly don't know if he is or he isn't do you - so how can you be certain it was just a guess ("stab in the dark"), as you claimed?