All Activity

Twice now.

I would argue that it's multiple orders of magnitude more likely that the EFL order the rest of the match be played than declare Rovers to be the winners but only award one point.

Oh but it is because just like my 'crazy' scenario it isn't going to happen, ever.

The only people that have done anything wrong in this situation, are the Rovers management, who have done nothing about a known problem, hoping that it would never arise, well it has.

It's the best way to .maintain the integrity of the Competition. If Ipswich understandably decide its not worth the risk travelling 500 miles to play 15 mins from a goal down with 10 men then thats fair enough but it should be their choice. It should be at our expense though as it's not their fault the game was called off.

Sure, but that was my point. The two possible outcomes as I see it are full replay or partial replay, with the former being far, far more likely. Anything else would likely fall outside of regulations.

It's really not.

I think the game will be fully replayed. However I don't get that argument. They'll be doing a 500 mile round trip for 90 minutes too. They have to do that trip again either way. Only way to avoid it is give us the 3 points.

In devil's advocate mode, potentially they're opening themselves up for a lot more litigation from other teams by ordering a full replay and giving Ipswich a decent chance of winning 3 points than by replaying part of the game which probably wouldn't result in them getting any more than a point at best or ordering the result stands.

I never mentioned points awarded

No more laughable than the pure fantasy on here that the EFL would somehow consider ordering Ipswich on a 500 mile round trek to Blackburn to play 10-15 mins of 10v11.

Changes to points awarded for a result would fall outside of that, surely. Sheffield United and Nottingham Forest are two that I can think of that have recently either threatened or started legal proceedings against leagues that will likely believe they were acting within their regulations.

I was only treating it like you were someone attempting to make a coherent argument, which I assume most of us do when we post.

Most of the suggestions are hypothetical as is mine and the last bit is reality. Don't treat everything on here like we are in a court of law. Which by the way is probably how the EFL will treat it.... result or replay, there'll be two choices only.

If the panel decision comes within the regulations I wouldn’t think there were grounds for litigation. Taking part in the competition means clubs accept the rules

Would a rule that (unless both parties agree otherwise) "in the event of an abandonment the remaining part of the game shall be replayed under conditions as similar as possible to when the game was originally called off" work? Or would it raise more problems than it would solve?

What does what Ipswich want have to do with it? I'm talking about the fairest outcome, not what either side wants. Ipswich aren't morally entitled to some reversal of their failures simply because bad weather interrupted the match. How do you arrange it? The same way you arrange 90 minutes, except it's easier as they'll be back on the coach quicker. It's a complete non-point. They'd say they were being punished, well they aren't in any meaningful way, certainly far less than we would be if a full replay happened. Your last remarks here completely undermines your previous points about what Ipswich want. I'm certain they'd rather have a crack at getting a point back than be guaranteed nothing. If that's not the case they should just give up on their season right now.

The issue is that there is absolutely no precedent for it, and nothing that separates this game from others that have had full replays ordered.

My daughter went for the 17:04 from Bolton which was terminated there

It'll be a full replay, it's abundantly clear that the EFL will want to protect themselves from backlash and/or litigation and declaring the 80 mins played null is the best way to do that. I think playing the rest of the match is the most fair thing to do. I also think declaring a win for Rovers but awarding only one point is just laughable.

No - because currently the rule isn't that there should automatically be a full replay. Nor that a result should stand after x mins. As Ive already said several times in this thread I think its correct the EFL have absolute discretion and technically any solution is available. I dont think we or anyone else should be awarded the points in the circumstances that occurred on Saturday - it suits us now but I wouldn't like us to be on the wrong end of that in future. Obviously if we had been three up with a minute to go the situation would be entirely different which again is why absolute discretion is useful. On the other hand I dont favour a full replay - as Ive said several times the fairest solution would be a part replay 11 v 10 if only the EFL have the stones to depart from the norm. Where have I stated that none of it ever should be up for debate or that it should always be a full replay? That's basically the opposite of what I've been saying.

the flooding occured at 17.56... if we'd played there we could've finished the game 😉

This can could well be kicked down the road for months in the hope that by the last few weeks of the season neither club is involved in either the promotion or relegation stakes before they get off the fence to make a decision

You book a Waggott bus

The EFL.