All Activity

The EFL statement says both managers agreed the game should be abandoned, so unless Ismael says otherwise he was also presumably concerned about the welfare of the players irrespective of the situation.

From the referees perspective he would have been mindful of the potential of litigation should a player have sustained a serious injury. Many years ago I was contacted by a firm of solicitors concerning a game I had refereed some time before. A player in the match was suing Blackburn Council as he said he had got injured on a pitch that was unfit. As the referee I had passed the pitch fit so I was implicated. They asked me about the player getting injured and going off because of it. I genuinely couldn't recall anything. I never heard any more about it but I reappraised my inspection method and from then always included managers or club representatives by taking them on the pitch and gauging their opinion.

Wasn't the pitch revamp and stitched back in the summer 2021? The drainage problem required a non football situation probably and won't be a priority. Haven't already said several times I stand by my original opinion that I posted yesterday, so your question was already answered

Inability way I'm happy this pitch/drainage debacle occurred again yesterday. It was only a matter of time before this happened. The club (Venkys, Pasha) have known the drainage at Ewood has needed repair work for years, but as per unwilling to foot the bill. The drainage system hasn't been addressed since the Redevelopment over 30 years ago. This will undoubtedly lead to more national criticism in how our club has been mismanaged under their ownership.

That was just certain sections of the pitch as I recall. (Round the penalty spot etc) May be wrong

Nope, signed for them on Thursday, made his debut yesterday

That bit of the pitch where play broke down at the end of play was more or less in front of me and you could see the ball was stopping dead because of the water on the pitch. It had obviously become dangerous.

The proposals I believe were a total overhaul. The woven pitch was a compromise once the owners didnt fund the overhaul which included a full replacement of the drainage system.

Chaddy you don’t do yourself any favours lad. Between this and the politics thread you are just showing you are impossible to have a reasonable discussion with even when evidence shows otherwise you repeat the same lines and refuse to accept what the contrary evidence shows. You’d get more credit if you just conceded a bit sometimes.

The part in bold is just wild speculation on your part. The ref blew his whistle after a 2nd/3rd successive simple pass had totally stopped in the water. That surely suggests that it was a correct response directly to witnessing the fact that the pitch was clearly unplayable in front of his eyes. A couple of minutes before, Clarke had tried to counter attack and as he ran with the ball it totally stopped in the water. Ipswich hadnt "certainly" lost the game yesterday but ultimately its irrelevant as the game clearly could not continue on that pitch. Your injury hypothetical situation would be on a pitch fit to play football. It might be more of a case if the ref had continued yessterday on a pitch not fit to play football on. If anyone got injured in a replay, it would be unfortunate but it would be as per the process followed in the rules should a game be abandonded.

It was lip service for the benefit of the media and people in the ground. I'm pretty certain that the referee would have known when they went off that the game was finished as most of us did. How long was it before the ground staff appeared on the pitch for the forking token gesture? If was almost like Canute trying to hold back the tide.

Don't know if relevant to yesterday but I believe Pasha relented and we did get the woven pitch installed.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible John. So why then, according to Mike Graham, after the previous debacle to this one,did Waggott wish to put in place a solution (that Pasha turned down on the basis of cost) if it was allegedly undoable? You'll correct me if Im wrong on this but as far as I'm aware the major infrastructure of the pitch (drainage etc) hasnt been done since it was built over 30 years ago and a complete pitch replacement hasn't been done in years if at all, with for as long as I can remember the Club choosing to merely undertake the cheaper option of turning over the soil on the top part of the pitch. We never got these problems when the drainage system was new. If it needs upgrading/renovating or the method of drainage has simply been superceded by events, the work needs doing otherwise this will happen again and again. We're (temporarily at least) playing in the second tier of English football, not the Dog and Duck competing in a Sunday Pub League. As it stands the pitch is currently unfit for purpose.

Indeed so, but even then it's still only 6 league games, of which we'd have lost half. Not enough for me to conclude we're stronger than last season. I'd personally need more time to make that call.

I remember the game and the conditions and it was worst than yesterday. I posted the video for others.

Also read what @Mike Graham said about Waggott trying to get approved funding for improved drainage and Suhail saying no. Also a few years ago, as per fans forum minutes, Waggott had mentioned a potential total revamp of the pitch including the drainage but the owners then decided not to fund it. At the time, I believe you defended the decision. But either way. The only question relevant to yesterday is, and forget other games, managers, potential injury and form changes etc. Do you believe the pitch as at 80 minutes was playable? If the answer is yes then I suspect you was in a different stadium.

Re Gally, maybe that’s why they’re doing well ? I thought Vale played in midweek ?

Pitch was unplayable yes, but it was McKenna's complaints that forced the ref to stop the game; he had seemed happy to keep playing, with 10 mins left. Replay could be ruinously unfair, we were 1-0 up against 10 men, verge of 3 points versus a presumable playoff team. Imagine we lose the replay and get relegated by 3 points? Or Ipswich get automatic promotion ahead of another team by 2 points? We're talking millions in revenue either way for either team, and every other team would be just as angry as us in the latter circumstance. What if Tronstad gets an ACL injury in a replay and misses the rest of the season? Can we sue the league in such a circumstance? Its whataboutery but reality is replaying the game is unfair not just to us, but also the rest of the league. Everyone but Ipswich is punished by a replay, they get chance to get 3 points they had certainly lost yesterday. Only person who will be happy is Pasha, that he gets an extra home game of revenue...

Correct, I was looking at the wrong team ! For some reason I’d got it into my head he was playing for Peterboro.

Your own video evidence you posted proves that this is simply not true. But carry on dying on this hill. This is a true paragon of Chaddyism.

Vale came on

🤔

If only the latest "result" had stood, we'd have won 3 of our last 4 games. That's a reasonable run and we'd be looking up. Great shame.

Already answered this bloody question Rev, just get on with the rest of the game and play on. I've got nothing to add to my original opinion which I stand by.

Just incredibly bad luck unfortunately. Time to act like a grown up and accept that it's the correct call and that players safety has to come first, from someone who was on the pitch and not sitting in a covered stand. Even our ex pro ref on here said it was the correct call.