All Activity

I usually agree with most of what Simon Jordan says but he's been way off beam recently on Rovers with his views on the 3 stooges being requested to stay away and now this. If he thinks any game that doesn't make it to the final whistle is "not a completed fixture" and should be replayed in full, Im sure he'd be delighted if Palace had a game abandoned when they were 5 up with 10 mins to go and it had to be replayed in full.

Two separate aspects to this. In a sporting context Id like there to be a partial replay because thats the fairest outcome. If we get that, Id then like the EFL to come down hard on the Club in the hope it'll provoke us into doing something about it. As things stand If there are any matchdays with prolonged rain this winter it's going to be complete pot luck whether we can start/get through the game. It's completely unfair to fans of either side who have to travel any distance to be put in that situation. Are we going to have to start postponing games 24/48 hours before to be on the safe side if there's a bad forecast? It's not on. As I mentioned previously to me it's not that far removed from part of the ground being unsafe/unfit for use.

What's that Rovers vs Wimbledon game he's on about that was abandoned in 1997 with us 2-0 up? I don't believe that ever happened?

Give us three points for the win, then dock us three points for not rectifying a previously known problem.

Exactly, Id be all over that if I were a lawyer for another Club which misses out as a result at the end of the season.

Simon Jordan is a bellend S

According to Wikipedia (I know!) It was against Saturday's opponents in Feb 1947:

If there's a full replay (which I'm expecting), Ipswich win (again fully expecting knowing our luck) and they land in the Play offs or automatic promotion in May by 3 points or less then it won't just be Rovers that would be feeling hard done by. I imagine that would be part of the thinking process at the EFL. And hopefully forms part of the submission put forward by Rovers.

I think it shows exactly the opposite - just judge each case on its individual merits and act accordingly. Don't make the same decision in every single case where the punishment doesn't necessarily fit the crime. If you did set up a range of rules, there'd have to be a hell of a lot of them, covering different scorelines at every conceivable point/ numbers of players on each side/reasons for the abandonment etc etc

Being objective, that's not fair on Ipswich as they weren't reduced to 10 from the off originally. If you're going down that route I think you'd have to start 11 v 11 then reduce them to 10 at the same time as in the original game which seems unnecessarily convoluted. Much easier to follow the obvious solution of playing out the remainder of the game under as similar conditions to previously as possible.

That takes the disadvantage to Ipswich too far in the other direction. They'd likely lose by 4 or 5 goals through no fault of their own whereas, in a 10+ min finish the game scenario, that would be unlikely (although not impossible!) Fairest solution would be to finish the game starting at the point it was abandoned but can't see that happening. What this whole nonsense shows is that the EFL needs to come up with firm rules for all foreseeable abandonment scenarios. Clubs to be involved in setting those rules and then all signed up to them.

Tempted to start a thread "I've read the 150 Book and here's where it's wrong..." to allow Harry, Mike & Scott to demonstrate how they could have helped had they been asked...

Which should be the whole point of the new regulations. A range of different solutions for a range of different situations.

To be fair, it's not yet five days since the original decision. I dont get all this "Im bored with it already" type talk. Id rather wait a month if it meant we got to the fairest outcome. I can't see the problem with asking the respective Clubs for their views either. Does that mean that if they were both in agreement about a certain outcome the EFL should ignore that completely and go off and impose their own different solution?

Martin O'Neill nails it here for me.

Energy levels for a 10 minute replay with 10 players won’t affect whole team. IMO it’s easier to score/shore up a side with 10 mins with 10 men than it is to work for 90 minutes at 10 men and pull a goal back. to sustain and pull back from a 1-0 with 10 men over 90 mins is imo more unlikely than during 10 minutes s

Unless, having changed the 75 minute rule, they want to set a new precedent going forward.

That bears no resemblance whatsoever to the situation at the time the game was abandoned though. They only had to cope/try and equalise with 10 men for around another 15 minutes max not 90. Why is there any need for 90 mins at all?

the best compromise I can see is a full replay but with Ipswich 1-0 down and down to 10 men from the start of the replay.

Not fair on Ipswich: giving us the pts Not fair on Rovers: full replay Middle ground: play the remainder in same circumstances (score and cards) Seems like the only logical solution to me!

There is only one 'fair' option which is to finish the game with the same set of players on the pitch for both sides. 11 v 10. But that won't happen. Giving one side the points without finishing the game can never be described as fair - it denies the other side the opportunity to gain points through no fault of their own - despite the odds being heavily against them - anything can happen in sport. Remember Devon Loch

I am with you on this one hundred percent.

What McKenna and Ismael want is irrelevant because neither is interested in anything other than a solution that best suits their club. I dont really get either why they have both been allowed to put their case forward. No decision will be fair. The pitch was unplayable so the game couldnt carry on. No subsequent solution would match the balance of playing a full game at the first time of asking. Hence why they will likely just insist on a full replay unfortunately, following precedent cases.

Incredibly disappointing to hear that the book is badly done but at the same time, I'm not sure I'm that surprised tbh. Hopefully it gets sorted out but I'm not hopeful.

No way is a full replay of the game fair on us. Given that's Ismael didnt agree and McKenna didnt. He tried to get the game calling out. How's is that a fair play and for sporting integrity that people mentions. The EFL cant make a decision and the fact they allowing each club to put their points in means that all 3 decisions are possible. 8 people on the panel