All Activity

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

Have they not already set a precedent by allowing both sides to put their case forward ? It's obvious what both sides will want, but the facts haven't changed since Saturday. The decision should be made without any club intervention.

Absolutely - and of the remaining options the full replay is the only one that is true to usual football standards and whilst we would be aggrieved we would still have the chance to go and get 3 points

The irony of course, being that it's Pep and his Man City team, along with Arsenal under Arteta, that are bringing the long ball back into the game. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvg00wx7j42o

Too many minutes UD Iron Butterfly - Easy Rider(Let The Wind Pay The Way)

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

I think the problem is that none of them are fair. I think the best opportunity for a compromise (and this wouldnt always work eg if we had midweek fixtures) has gone. That would have been to keep the Ipswich squad in Lancashire, noting the forecast that the rain was to stop just after midnight. And finish the game on the Sunday with the same teams continuing, including number of subs available etc.

By the financial director placed on the board by the owners.

I find it hard to fathom how anyone (let alone rovers fans) can deem a full replay with 11 vs 11 and at 0-0 a fair outcome to the situation. Its the most likely purely because its the easy option for the EFL and we aren't a Leeds/Boro/Sheff Utd who wouldn't stand for it and gain a lot more media/legal attention.

Whilst I’m at it 😁 In my opinion the EFL shouldn’t have engaged in getting the opinions of the two clubs. They were probably hoping both would suggest the same thing but it’s beyond obvious they’d each favour the option which favoured them most. You’re the body in charge, just make your sodding decision.

Why have three options available to them but only ever use one of them. Ludicrous (them not you).