All Activity

Id have thought the only 2 options being considered would be full replay or part replay.

Madness - House Of Fun

From the Dingles Website,it made me smile....

Nope, but in declaring a partially played game to be a result and changing the number of points awarded for that result, the league would set two incredibly dangerous precedents. Ordering the rest of the game to be played would, I believe, be adhering to as many of their own regulations as possible... Apart from replaying the game entirely, which I've already stated I think will happen. Just of all the the possible outcomes, your suggestion is the most unlikely of all those that I've read.

51 pages has to be the record for a match thread.

Can you point to an example this is based on, are there any ? It's black and white to them so everyone needs to stop kidding themselves. Result or replay and a show of hands.

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