v Ipswich Town (h) - 20/9/25

[TimmyJimmy]

No problem with abandoning the game. Discussion on that front seems pointless.

This said we move on to the consequences.

The EFL in all conscience must give us the game anything else is manifestly unfair.

1) The game was done and dusted with only minutes left

2) They were down to 10 men

3) A replay means one extra game in an already overloaded season

4) The potential for injuries to key personal is increased with every extra game played

5) It's an unfair advantage to Ipswich in the table rankings by chalking off a nil points result

6) It's unfair on supporters to fund another game even if entrance is free the travelling and time opportunity cost isn't 

If the EFL call a replay then it stinks but then again we know they hate us so guess the outcome.

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, Gamst said:

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

We wouldnt have a leg to stand on I dont think for the reasons I outlined above.

[arbitro]

8 minutes ago, Devon Rover said:

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 referenced to danger.

I would be mindful of the ball holding up in the water when players are fully committed to a tackle. Alebiosu went into a sliding challenge yesterday and couldn't stop. Had he caught the Ipswich player it could have resulted in an injury.

And the farcical aspect too. The straw that broke the camel's back was when the referee called a halt. An intended pass just stuck in the water.

[DE.]

5 minutes ago, Devon Rover said:

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. 

One imagines it comes down to insurance, liability, etc due to the amount of money involved. If the pitch isn't fit for the purpose of playing then it follows that it would be unreasonable to allow players to try and play on it. Should an injury occur it opens various parties up to serious legal actions. @arbitro gave a good example of this from his personal experience, and you can imagine it'd be significantly magnified at Championship level. 

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, TimmyJimmy said:

No problem with abandoning the game. Discussion on that front seems pointless.

This said we move on to the consequences.

The EFL in all conscience must give us the game anything else is manifestly unfair.

1) The game was done and dusted with only minutes left

2) They were down to 10 men

3) A replay means one extra game in an already overloaded season

4) The potential for injuries to key personal is increased with every extra game played

5) It's an unfair advantage to Ipswich in the table rankings by chalking off a nil points result

6) It's unfair on supporters to fund another game even if entrance is free the travelling and time opportunity cost isn't 

If the EFL call a replay then it stinks but then again we know they hate us so guess the outcome.

If the game is replayed then it is because that is outlined as the process as per the rules and also that has been the precedent in the past.

This idea that the EFL "hate" us is ridiculous and doesnt help.

And the game was not done and dusted. A 1 goal lead with 10 minutes plus stoppages is not done.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, TimmyJimmy said:

No problem with abandoning the game. Discussion on that front seems pointless.

This said we move on to the consequences.

The EFL in all conscience must give us the game anything else is manifestly unfair.

1) The game was done and dusted with only minutes left

2) They were down to 10 men

3) A replay means one extra game in an already overloaded season

4) The potential for injuries to key personal is increased with every extra game played

5) It's an unfair advantage to Ipswich in the table rankings by chalking off a nil points result

6) It's unfair on supporters to fund another game even if entrance is free the travelling and time opportunity cost isn't 

If the EFL call a replay then it stinks but then again we know they hate us so guess the outcome.

Completely disagree. The game was nowhere near "done and dusted" at 1-0 with potentially up to 15 mins to go.

If it had been 5-0 with a minute or two to go I'd agree

It was very unlucky on the team, but at the end of the day it's the Club's fault for not being willing to spend money on resolving the longstanding drainage problems which we've known about for some time.

[bluebruce]

6 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

It is permitted but I doubt that will be their ruling. 

Cheers, I'd only seen things saying they could replay it or let it stand, none saying we could potentially just do the right thing and finish the match. When do the authorities do the right thing though.

[rigger]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Completely disagree. The game was nowhere near "done and dusted" at 1-0 with potentially up to 15 mins to go.

If it had been 5-0 with a minute or two to go I'd agree

It was very unlucky on the team, but at the end of the day it's the Club's fault for not being willing to spend money on resolving the longstanding drainage problems which we've known about for some time.

You only have to look back to the Brum game.

[RevidgeBlue]

12 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

If the game is replayed then it is because that is outlined as the process as per the rules and also that has been the precedent in the past.

This idea that the EFL "hate" us is ridiculous and doesnt help.

And the game was not done and dusted. A 1 goal lead with 10 minutes plus stoppages is not done.

Come on, you know the EFL hate us, all referees are biased against us, and there's a conspiracy against us in general.

(Despite the fact the ref awarded us a penalty and reduced our opponents to 10 yesterday)

In this instance it would actually help if the EFL threatened to suspend our membership of the League unless  we take immediate steps to put temporary measures in place to alleviate the problem pending a permanent solution being carried out in due course.

Sadly I dont suppose anything will be done at either end and it will happen again and again.

Edited Sunday at 12:23 by RevidgeBlue

[GHD]

3 hours ago, JCRovers said:

For anyone being mad at the referee calling off the game due to an unplayable pitch, why don't you redirect that anger towards the owners instead? The drainage problem has known for years and we are pretty much the only team in the first four tiers of English football getting at least one game called off due to a waterlogged pitch every season. Bolton, B*rnley and Man Utd all played their matches in full yesterday. It's embarrassing for a club in second tier being forced to abandon a game because they can't handle a bit of rain. The maintenance and supporting infrastructure of the pitch is more on the level with non-league AFC Fylde at the moment who got their game abandoned yesterday for same reason. 

The owners are literally costing us points every season due to lack of investment. 

Top post

[...]

45 minutes ago, Tom said:

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. 

This forum really has turned into an ear bashing at times. What happened to the discussions without sniping 😒

[TimmyJimmy]

15 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

If the game is replayed then it is because that is outlined as the process as per the rules and also that has been the precedent in the past.

This idea that the EFL "hate" us is ridiculous and doesnt help.

And the game was not done and dusted. A 1 goal lead with 10 minutes plus stoppages is not done.

So 6 points made with only one objected to. Still sounds like 5 good reasons the EFL should do the right thing.

[RevidgeBlue]

18 minutes ago, TimmyJimmy said:

If the EFL call a replay then it stinks but then again we know they hate us so guess the outcome.

Why do we know they "hate us"?

Can you cite any examples?

[Tom]

2 minutes ago, ... said:

This forum really has turned into an ear bashing at times. What happened to the discussions without sniping 😒

Apologies - only wading in there because it’s painful for everyone to have an ongoing discussion where one party doesn’t take into account anything put forward from the other side. 

[...]

4 minutes ago, Tom said:

Apologies - only wading in there because it’s painful for everyone to have an ongoing discussion where one party doesn’t take into account anything put forward from the other side. 

No no I get the angle and it wasn't aimed at you bud. Just meant over that last few months noticing more hostility towards other posters. I'm sure there's loads on here that just read in the background and not comment on topics through fear of being shot down by a regular poster. Not everyone has the answers but discussion without being dumped on would be nice once in a while

Edited Sunday at 12:32 by ...

[only2garners]

1 hour ago, DutchRover said:

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?

What if Tronstad or anyone else had picked up that injury in the last 10 minutes of yesterday's game, which would have been a significant possibility.

[GHD]

2 hours ago, lraC said:

It doesn’t mean it was right though. How would you feel if one of the players got seriously injured, due to the conditions? It’s more important to ensure that everyone remains safe, than competing a match in a pitch, that had become dangerous. 

You’re wasting your time. I asked him exactly the same question on page 26 and he sidetracks and refuses to answer

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, TimmyJimmy said:

So 6 points made with only one objected to. Still sounds like 5 good reasons the EFL should do the right thing.

6 points made but none of them valid.

I can just imagine the reaction on here if we had a game called off at 1-0 down with 10 mins to go at our opponenent's place because their pitch was unfit and the EFL awarded them the points.

Is if fair to Ipswich to deprive them of the chance to equalise with 10 -15 mins to go?

Is a game still "done and dusted" at 1-0 with 20 mins of normal time to go? That's just as arbitrary.

If we get a game called off at half time due to our knackered drainage later in the season and we're 2-0 up - do we get the points then as well?

If you have to play another game so be it. Players could get injured at any time, not just in that particular game.

[only2garners]

59 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

Simon - I didn't think I was defending anybody, just pointing out the challenge that Ewood Park's location brings. Of course an owner willing to pay for a proper solution would be great but they would still have practical issues in doing anything quickly.

you're right that the pitch has not had a full renovation for 30 years. As others have said there was a compromise and a stitched pitch was laid instead. But the drainage system we have now is essentially no different to what it was then and the critical point is that it's all predicated on draining into the river. Whilst there may well be ways of mitigating the severity I can't see any real solution being possible without building some sort of holding system which will require major engineering and will need EA approval.

[waynerovers]

So now that I've slept on it these are my feelings.

I'm certain we would have won the match had it not ended at 79 minutes.

However, its the clubs fault that the match had to be abandoned, proven by the fact we were the only club who had to abandon a match in the football league. Lancashire is a very wet area of the country, you have to have a proper drainage system for football grounds, otherwise this will continue to happen.

As its out fault, as much as it sucks, the game should be replayed, we failed to properly host a football game, so the result cant be decided at 80 minutes.

[RevidgeBlue]

12 minutes ago, only2garners said:

Simon - I didn't think I was defending anybody, just pointing out the challenge that Ewood Park's location brings. Of course an owner willing to pay for a proper solution would be great but they would still have practical issues in doing anything quickly.

you're right that the pitch has not had a full renovation for 30 years. As others have said there was a compromise and a stitched pitch was laid instead. But the drainage system we have now is essentially no different to what it was then and the critical point is that it's all predicated on draining into the river. Whilst there may well be ways of mitigating the severity I can't see any real solution being possible without building some sort of holding system which will require major engineering and will need EA approval.

I'm not an engineer so can't comment on your opinion at the end.

Why though do you think Waggott thought it was possible? (According to Mike Graham)

Edit: Regardless of cost and time a permanent long term solution needs to be undertaken with mitigating measures such as pitch covers and squeegee (sp) machines utilised in the interim until the problem is fixed.

You can just brush it off and shrug your shoulders on the basis of cost or that  it's not completely straightforward.

Edited Sunday at 12:56 by RevidgeBlue

[TimmyJimmy]

16 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Why do we know they "hate us"?

Can you cite any examples?

It's the footballing authorities in general, there was no challenge to the Venky's ownership and agents and rogue managers etc despite loads of evidence they were up to no good. Admittedly this was the PL in the first instance but the EFL have done diddly squat since so that makes them culpable in my eyes.

They specifically rejected our appeals on some technicality concerning player signings.

They will reject this appeal I have no doubt though it hasn't happened yet.

If any of these things were under discussion with or had happened to a Man U, a City, an Arsenal in the PL or say a WBA or Leeds in the EFL would outcomes be different? Course they would. Ever since we 'bought' the title the collective 'they' in authority haven't been our friends.

Besides which my wife says they hate us and she's never wrong she tells me so take it up with her.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, TimmyJimmy said:

Besides which my wife says they hate us and she's never wrong she tells me so take it up with her.

I daren't!

Sorry dont agree on your other points either. We're far from the only ones to have owners who subsequently turned out to be disastrous initially approved and if we send in transfer registrations late or with clerical errors that's our fault.

( I suspect the latter were deliberate anyway)

[GHD]

1 hour ago, DE. said:

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. 

That might help Chaddy change his mind

[rigger]

36 minutes ago, only2garners said:

Simon - I didn't think I was defending anybody, just pointing out the challenge that Ewood Park's location brings. Of course an owner willing to pay for a proper solution would be great but they would still have practical issues in doing anything quickly.

you're right that the pitch has not had a full renovation for 30 years. As others have said there was a compromise and a stitched pitch was laid instead. But the drainage system we have now is essentially no different to what it was then and the critical point is that it's all predicated on draining into the river. Whilst there may well be ways of mitigating the severity I can't see any real solution being possible without building some sort of holding system which will require major engineering and will need EA approval.

If the drain outlet was angled downstream, rather than at 90 degrees to the river, and a non return valve fitted, the river flow itself would draw out the ground water (venturi effect ).