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

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

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.

back in 2021 when Rovers pitch was stitched. As Garner, you would the Environmental Agency to do building work and improve the drainage system in the River Darwen and also factoring in the number of new houses being building in the local area all using that River Darwen. Could Rovers build a storage tank facility on site to store more water and slowing disposal it into the River? I'm not an expert in this field btw 

My answer to your question was very clear and very direct that I stand my opinion

. 

28 minutes ago, GHD said:

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

I gave you the answer which was what happens if we lose 1 or 2 key players between yesterday and the replay game

1 minute ago, GHD said:

That might help Chaddy change his mind

stand by my original opinion

[roversfan99]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

back in 2021 when Rovers pitch was stitched. As Garner, you would the Environmental Agency to do building work and improve the drainage system in the River Darwen and also factoring in the number of new houses being building in the local area all using that River Darwen. Could Rovers build a storage tank facility on site to store more water and slowing disposal it into the River? I'm not an expert in this field btw 

My answer to your question was very clear and very direct that I stand my opinion

. 

I gave you the answer which was what happens if we lose 1 or 2 key players between yesterday and the replay game

stand by my original opinion

This is totally irrelevant in deciding whether the pitch was fit enough to continue the game.

[GHD]

10 minutes ago, rigger said:

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 ).

I seem to recall reading that in addition to your solution, extending the outfall to further downstream could be undertaken, without  Environment Agency involvement, but obviously at a cost to the club

Edited 3 hours ago by GHD

[DE.]

28 minutes ago, GHD said:

That might help Chaddy change his mind

Unlikely, but if not then it means he either believes he knows better than both managers and the referee, or just does not care about player welfare at all. Neither is a good look but one is obviously more deplorable than the other. 

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

This is totally irrelevant in deciding whether the pitch was fit enough to continue the game.

Like I said, I stand by my original opinion on whether the game should have carry on and I do

2 minutes ago, DE. said:

Unlikely, but if not then it means he either believes he knows better than both managers and the referee, or just does not care about player welfare at all. Neither is a good look but one is obviously more deplorable than the other. 

Plenty of digs there from yourself unusual

[DE.]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

 

Plenty of digs there from yourself unusual

In what way is it a dig? It's just a statement of fact. If you believe the game should have gone on you disagree with the referee and both managers. Ergo you believe you know better than them about whether the players were at risk or not. If you don't disagree with them but still think the game should have continued then you don't care about the player's safety, only about the match result. 

It's the only conclusion that can be made on the opinion you say you stand by. 

[chaddyrovers]

9 minutes ago, DE. said:

In what way is it a dig? It's just a statement of fact. If you believe the game should have gone on you disagree with the referee and both managers. Ergo you believe you know better than them about whether the players were at risk or not. If you don't disagree with them but still think the game should have continued then you don't care about the player's safety, only about the match result. 

It's the only conclusion that can be made on the opinion you say you stand by. 

suggestion I don't care about player welfare which is untrue but you played 80 mins, just finish the game instead of stopping and given McKenna what he wanted. 

yes I believe the game should have carry on and all it has done is proved that managers like McKenna can keep complaining and get their way. It was totally disgrace the way McKenna and his players celebrated with their fans getting what he wanted post game. 

I bet McKenna is laughing his head off now how he get that game stopped. Can't stand the guy anymore. 

Edited 2 hours ago by chaddyrovers

[Exiled_Rover]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

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.

I'm not having the player safety angle - Hirst tried to break Ribeiro's legs in the first half and there was only one team throwing themselves into sliding tackles and it wasn't the Rovers.

I'm fine with the game being stopped because of the standing surface water - which again begs the question, why was the game started in the first place?

[DE.]

5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

suggestion I don't care about player welfare which is untrue but you played 80 mins, just finish the game instead of stopping and given McKenna what he wanted. 

yes I believe the game should have carry on and all it has done is proved that managers like McKenna can keep complaining and get their way. It was totally disgrace the way McKenna and his players celebrated with their fans getting what he wanted post game. 

I bet McKenna is laughing his head off now how he get that game stopped. Can't stand the guy anymore. 

I said that you not caring about player welfare was one of two possibilities. The other is that you believe you know better than three professionals, which is questionable and in my personal view ridiculous, but seems to be the view you hold, so okay. You're free to believe that. 

Don't exclude Ismael from your rant. He agreed to calling the game off as well. 

Edited 2 hours ago by DE.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

suggestion I don't care about player welfare which is untrue but you played 80 mins, just finish the game instead of stopping and given McKenna what he wanted. 

I bet McKenna is laughing his head off now how he get that game stopped. Can't stand the guy anymore. 

So by the same token Im guessing by extension you now can't stand Ismael any more either as he was in agreement with calling the game off?

[arbitro]

5 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

I'm not having the player safety angle - Hirst tried to break Ribeiro's legs in the first half and there was only one team throwing themselves into sliding tackles and it wasn't the Rovers.

I'm fine with the game being stopped because of the standing surface water - which again begs the question, why was the game started in the first place?

I didn't think you would. Alebiosu slid into a challenge and couldn't stop and Miller did likewise and in my view should have been cautioned. I'm not saying they were deliberate but more because of the surface.

Whether you agree or not it's a fact that the pitch had become dangerous which, according to reports (I personally haven't read them) Ismael accepted on those grounds.

The pitch was fine at kick off. The persistent rain and nowhere for it to go caused the problem.

[roversfan99]

20 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

suggestion I don't care about player welfare which is untrue but you played 80 mins, just finish the game instead of stopping and given McKenna what he wanted. 

yes I believe the game should have carry on and all it has done is proved that managers like McKenna can keep complaining and get their way. It was totally disgrace the way McKenna and his players celebrated with their fans getting what he wanted post game. 

I bet McKenna is laughing his head off now how he get that game stopped. Can't stand the guy anymore. 

Yes, I am sure that he is laughing his head off that his masterplan of causing the pitch to be totally unplayable due to a waterlogged pitch came to fruition.

They came out at the end to clap their fans who had travelled a long way.

The pitch was unplayable. End of story. 

[chaddyrovers]

19 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So by the same token Im guessing by extension you now can't stand Ismael any more either as he was in agreement with calling the game off?

If Ismael did agree with that decision then I disagree with him

[Ghost7]

52 minutes ago, rigger said:

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 ).

The frustrating part is with how the club is ran there are potentially simple solutions to this that have NOT been explored. 

Would that surprise anyone?

The consensus will have been..... "how often does it stop a game going ahead? No."

That's the level of excellence now riddled inside Ewood. No pride or passion for the club to be the best it can be.

Who would even have the authority to make a call on a ground improvement like that. The imaginary CEO or the intern one? These kind of fixes are significant but not an issue for our owners if they were present.

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Yes, I am sure that he is laughing his head off that his masterplan of causing the pitch to be totally unplayable due to a waterlogged pitch came to fruition.

They came out at the end to clap their fans who had travelled a long way.

The pitch was unplayable. End of story. 

McKenna got what he wanted, his posted match interview, patting the ref on his back. 

Their celebrations at calling the game off were embarrassing yet you are so quick to defend them every time. 

[roversfan99]

Well no, I have just not become so bitter and twisted over an admittedly frustrating situation to the point where my posts (and dishing out of thumbs down emojis) come across as petulant, bitter and twisted beyond sensible reasoning.

[GHD]

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

McKenna got what he wanted, his posted match interview, patting the ref on his back. 

Their celebrations at calling the game off were embarrassing yet you are so quick to defend them every time. 

If I had travelled around 250 miles to watch my team, I would expect them to show some appreciation for that

[chaddyrovers]

no one is bitter and twisted again @roversfan99. I and others just disagree with the decision. 

Also people are unhappy with McKenna's reactions, his post match comments and the way him and his players celebrated after the game was called, you might not seen a problem or any issue with his actions but plenty do. 

[...]

1 hour ago, rigger said:

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 ).

I think its a water level thing though as the outlet is below the water level when heavy down pour occurs the outlet becomes submerged rendering it useless. 

Another option would be to run pumps prior to the games and throughout or begin them during a heavy down pour game and have the water dumped out further down Alum house brook. The Ewood park outlet is closed to avoid back up.

Simple but costly

[Bbrovers2288]

Don’t know why Ipswich couldn’t have stayed an extra night and get the final 10 played this morning /afternoon. That to me would be the fairest thing so you get as near to the same conditions as possible. As it is I think we all know it’s going to be a full 90 mins replay and it’s a completely different game 

[Roverthechimp]

Not entirely sure that Val would be in agreement with ending the match - that is a very nuanced view of that the referee consulted both managers. Can imagine the conversation was roughly:

Ref: Little Mac - what do you think?

McKenna - call it off - somebody think of the children players - somebody could lose an eye leg. Plus the ball doesn't roll or bounce and our highly trained professionals only do rolling and bouncing balls.

Ref: Big Val - what do you think?

Val: play on - no worries. Our players play keepy uppy in training all the time so they can don't need to play it on the ground.

McKenna: Ref - remember it is all on you if someone gets injured and our players actually cost more than a Big Makc

Ref to everyone else: ok - both managers consulted. I'll just check to see if it has dried up in the last 25 minutes of pissing rain... 

Ref: Little Mac - Big Val: see you again in a few weeks

[DE.]

The EFL statement clearly states both managers agreed. Neither Rovers nor Ismael have contradicted that statement. 

[DE.]

Apparently our case to the EFL is either for us to be awarded the win or play the final 10 minutes only. Makes sense I suppose, there's no reason the club should advocate for a full replay, although it's a bit cheeky to ask to be awarded the win when our pitch was the reason the game got abandoned in the first place. If you don't ask you don't get, though, so they probably figured it was worth a shot. 

[den]

3 hours ago, DutchRover said:

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...

Telling Ipswich that they have lost the game when they were only 1-0 down with possibly 15 mins left to play would be completely out of order. Ipswich had done nothing wrong.

 

[Bbrovers2288]

As an alternative , how would people feel with 3 points on offer, 2 points for us, 1 for them, everyone kind of wins?