All Activity

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

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).

Apart from the duration, how is any of that different than a full replay? Even the fixture being split is still effectively true, 80 minutes which won’t count and 90 which will. I also fail to see how a full replay has any form of sporting integrity linked to it. It might be the easiest option for the EFL to take but let’s not pretend it’s the fairest one.

You’d think ChatGPT would get the spelling right at least…

If we lose this, it would need Southampton and Derby to pick up unlikely looking points with Oxford and Watford having winnable home games and we would be in the bottom 3 on Saturday evening... I can remember a dire 3-0 defeat at the Valley when Rovers produced one of the worst performances I have ever seen when a win would have kept us in with a sniff of promotion some 40 years ago. In a cheery mood this morning!

You've made two great posts above. Absolutely spot on. Precedents are designed to establish general principles but it's very rare any two sets of circumstances are exactly the same, therefore most situations are clearly distinguishable on the facts. You shouldn't need to have to make exactly the same decision time after time simply on the basis "That's what we've always done in the past". You can make a more nuanced decision tailored to the individual circumstances. Presumably that's precisely why the current regulations were drafted in the open ended way they were rather than sticking to a hard and fast rule as previously was the case which would operate grossly unfairly much of the time. (If the Rovers legal team are reading this, mine and Bruce's invoices are in the post)

To get them up to play 11 minutes plus injury time is very unlikely? That sounds entirely like their problem if they don't come up to play it. If that were the case it would only prove they know they were very unlikely to get anything from it. If they want a stab at the points they can come and have a go, if not they can forfeit them. Simple. (Assuming the league actually made this decision, which they definitely won't) Everything you said about the second mini game not being able to replicate the conditions of the original is equally true for a full replay. I don't see why anything you presented as a problem there matters. It's unorthodox (mostly because the league have ridiculously never entertained it before), but it being strange is no reason to say it's not as fair as can be done in the circumstances.

I know it's the least fair option of all actually. It makes fuck all sense, for reasons that have been covered extensively in this thread. This isn't Rovers bias, at least not in my case, it's just basic logic and fairness. I'll be saying the same things if it happens to us against Charlton with the roles reversed. Fairest option - finish the game. Second fairest option - give Rovers the points. Least fair option - replay a whole 90 minutes for the sake of 10 plus injury time, massively favouring a side who had almost certainly thrown the game away and punishing one who had worked themselves into a strong position, also tiring both squads out further.

Both clubs have until 4p.m (5 days after the event) to provide reasonings, we'll make a decision at the end of the week. Or is this more stalling tactics because they have no protocol, and no idea what they're doing. The final decision will be the least impact it will have on the EFL, I.e LAWSUITS...

Why couldn't they have waited an hour or so before calling the game completely off?

The look on his face was priceless!

It makes the most since for the FA to take each case differently. Simply saying if you played x number of minutes the the match stands is too simple. What if we’re down a goal but playing 11 vs 9? What if it’s 0-0 and there was 20 min of injury time at the start of the half? What if the abandonment is supporter related, cut the flood lights, or breaking a water pipe? The FA have already shown if the match doesn’t matter then no need to replay, and other times had a full replay. Surely each situation should be reviewed and independently decides of an outcome.

Better make sure we hit send instead of save

Ultimately, the main reason leading to a replay is precedent. Its not the logistics that are a big factor though. The options are either to have a result based on 80 minutes, a game based on 2 seperate part matches in totally different circumstances, or just to replay the game in full. I would love to be wrong but I cant see anything but a full replay and if that is the case I will be annoyed but I wont see it as a miscarriage of justice or an agenda against us.

I agree with some others, the decision is made this shenanigans is to give the impression they are listening to the combatants points. Probably don't even read them. How sweet are the FA on Ipswich cos we know how it might be if it was one of the media darlings.

You know better, that is not the way we do things, we are nailed on to lose the game and possibly have one of our own sent off

Ordered? By our owners?

That isn’t a bad suggestion- perhaps from the time we actually scored though (which could mean it’s actually another score at that point)

I believe if they weren’t prepared to set a precedent and listen to submissions, they would have made the decision by now.

It's not 1-0 with 16 mins to go though. It's 1-0 11 v 10 with 16 mins to go. The EFL SHOULD utilise the absolute discretion at their disposal and order the remainder of the game to be played under those conditions. It's not absolutely perfect but it's the fairest possible solution. They probably won't though. I expect they'll completely bottle it, mumble something about "precedent" and order a full replay 11 v 11.

I don’t see this argument at all. Why ignore what you call ‘the most obvious compromise’. I’d call it the fairest thing to do. Of course it won’t be the same in terms of players and tactics but neither would a full replay. Why is it unreasonable to expect Ipswich to play out the remainder of the game even if inconvenient for them when that is the solution with obvious natural justice? Going forward it is a simple fair policy the EFL could adopt (as other countries already do). Replay the remaining time.End of.