All Activity

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).

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...