All Activity

Seems like a common sense approach to me. I don't think the EFL will do common sense though. They will hide behind their (inadequate) rule book.

I know - would require a special kind of idiocy (or biased) to advocate that the pitch was playable. Was just a laugh but i noted that the choice of wording by Rovers is "consulted" - sounds much better (to our fans) than "agreed"

Highlights. The difference between the pitch at the beginning and at the end is chalk and cheese.

As an alternative , how would people feel with 3 points on offer, 2 points for us, 1 for them, everyone kind of wins?

Telling Ipswich that they have lost the game when they were only 1-0 down with possibly 15 mins left to play would be completely out of order. Ipswich had done nothing wrong.

Apparently our case to the EFL is either for us to be awarded the win or play the final 10 minutes only. Makes sense I suppose, there's no reason the club should advocate for a full replay, although it's a bit cheeky to ask to be awarded the win when our pitch was the reason the game got abandoned in the first place. If you don't ask you don't get, though, so they probably figured it was worth a shot.

The EFL statement clearly states both managers agreed. Neither Rovers nor Ismael have contradicted that statement.

Sunderland very impressive today, first time I've seen live. Well organised team. spent well

Not entirely sure that Val would be in agreement with ending the match - that is a very nuanced view of that the referee consulted both managers. Can imagine the conversation was roughly: Ref: Little Mac - what do you think? McKenna - call it off - somebody think of the children players - somebody could lose an eye leg. Plus the ball doesn't roll or bounce and our highly trained professionals only do rolling and bouncing balls. Ref: Big Val - what do you think? Val: play on - no worries. Our players play keepy uppy in training all the time so they can don't need to play it on the ground. McKenna: Ref - remember it is all on you if someone gets injured and our players actually cost more than a Big Makc Ref to everyone else: ok - both managers consulted. I'll just check to see if it has dried up in the last 25 minutes of pissing rain... Ref: Little Mac - Big Val: see you again in a few weeks

Don’t know why Ipswich couldn’t have stayed an extra night and get the final 10 played this morning /afternoon. That to me would be the fairest thing so you get as near to the same conditions as possible. As it is I think we all know it’s going to be a full 90 mins replay and it’s a completely different game

I think its a water level thing though as the outlet is below the water level when heavy down pour occurs the outlet becomes submerged rendering it useless. Another option would be to run pumps prior to the games and throughout or begin them during a heavy down pour game and have the water dumped out further down Alum house brook. The Ewood park outlet is closed to avoid back up. Simple but costly

no one is bitter and twisted again @roversfan99. I and others just disagree with the decision. Also people are unhappy with McKenna's reactions, his post match comments and the way him and his players celebrated after the game was called, you might not seen a problem or any issue with his actions but plenty do.

If I had travelled around 250 miles to watch my team, I would expect them to show some appreciation for that

That's Leonard who went Peterborough, that'll be why you thought that.

Well no, I have just not become so bitter and twisted over an admittedly frustrating situation to the point where my posts (and dishing out of thumbs down emojis) come across as petulant, bitter and twisted beyond sensible reasoning.

McKenna got what he wanted, his posted match interview, patting the ref on his back. Their celebrations at calling the game off were embarrassing yet you are so quick to defend them every time.

The frustrating part is with how the club is ran there are potentially simple solutions to this that have NOT been explored. Would that surprise anyone? The consensus will have been..... "how often does it stop a game going ahead? No." That's the level of excellence now riddled inside Ewood. No pride or passion for the club to be the best it can be. Who would even have the authority to make a call on a ground improvement like that. The imaginary CEO or the intern one? These kind of fixes are significant but not an issue for our owners if they were present.

If Ismael did agree with that decision then I disagree with him

Yes, I am sure that he is laughing his head off that his masterplan of causing the pitch to be totally unplayable due to a waterlogged pitch came to fruition. They came out at the end to clap their fans who had travelled a long way. The pitch was unplayable. End of story.

I didn't think you would. Alebiosu slid into a challenge and couldn't stop and Miller did likewise and in my view should have been cautioned. I'm not saying they were deliberate but more because of the surface. Whether you agree or not it's a fact that the pitch had become dangerous which, according to reports (I personally haven't read them) Ismael accepted on those grounds. The pitch was fine at kick off. The persistent rain and nowhere for it to go caused the problem.

So by the same token Im guessing by extension you now can't stand Ismael any more either as he was in agreement with calling the game off?

I said that you not caring about player welfare was one of two possibilities. The other is that you believe you know better than three professionals, which is questionable and in my personal view ridiculous, but seems to be the view you hold, so okay. You're free to believe that. Don't exclude Ismael from your rant. He agreed to calling the game off as well.

I'm not having the player safety angle - Hirst tried to break Ribeiro's legs in the first half and there was only one team throwing themselves into sliding tackles and it wasn't the Rovers. I'm fine with the game being stopped because of the standing surface water - which again begs the question, why was the game started in the first place?

suggestion I don't care about player welfare which is untrue but you played 80 mins, just finish the game instead of stopping and given McKenna what he wanted. yes I believe the game should have carry on and all it has done is proved that managers like McKenna can keep complaining and get their way. It was totally disgrace the way McKenna and his players celebrated with their fans getting what he wanted post game. I bet McKenna is laughing his head off now how he get that game stopped. Can't stand the guy anymore.

In what way is it a dig? It's just a statement of fact. If you believe the game should have gone on you disagree with the referee and both managers. Ergo you believe you know better than them about whether the players were at risk or not. If you don't disagree with them but still think the game should have continued then you don't care about the player's safety, only about the match result. It's the only conclusion that can be made on the opinion you say you stand by.