All Activity

There's no way they can award us 3 points when it's our fault our pitch isn't fit for purpose and the game was only at 1-0 with 10 mins plus injury time to go. If we were 1-0 up at their gaff and the same thing happened, or it was here and we were 5-0 up with a minute to go there would at least be an argument to be had I'd imagine.

I’m suggesting we appeal and seek legal advice rather than forfeit….although I think I’d prefer a forfeit to losing a replay!

I should add: I don't think the decision to stop the game was wrong and it isn't the main issue in the grand scheme of things. Im just not sure a justification for it based on danger is necessarily helpful or appropriate. But I've asked the question because I may be misunderstanding.

So when can we expect a response and result from the EFL how long do these things take? Surely can't take too long to give us 3 points 😄

Have to agree. The clear obvious stall of the ball was enough further ref

It should, but it won't.

If we dont then Ipswich will just be awarded the 3 points. What good does that do us or Ipswich's promotion rivals?

This might have been covered already but, genuine question, what is the "danger" to players in playing out the last 10 minutes of a match 16,000 people have paid to attend, on a pitch where the ball won't bounce or roll? My 16-year-old plays football matches each Sunday on pitches that undulate and contain random holes. Occasionally the pitch, which has no designed drainage, becomes waterlogged during a game. Is that any more or less dangerous? Because they play to the end unless there is lightning. I'm a bit confused by the references to danger.

Yes it was a few years ago. They turned down the funding and it included the pipes underneath. Nothing about the club is a "priority" to these owners. The usual evasion of a direct answer but I am taking that as yes. You think a pitch where the ball was stopping repeatedly in the water, couldnt bounce and had loads of puddles on top of it was fit to play on. If thats your answer then you clearly are incapable of allowing your bias to be put aside when trying to judge things properly. Even Ismael seemingly agreed to the abandonmenment. Ive seen people amidst the frustration suggest unfair solutions or unfair directioning of blame but you seem the only one who actually thought the pitch was ok to play on.

Completely agree. Other teams with promotion hopes will not be happy as a full replay would give Ipswich a massive advantage (as if having their parachute payments isn’t enough of an advantage already…). We should not accept a full replay basically if that’s what the EFL decide.

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.