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

[Hasta]

Highlights. The difference between the pitch at the beginning and at the end is chalk and cheese. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Hasta

[Roverthechimp]

8 minutes ago, DE. said:

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

I know - would require a special kind of idiocy (or biased) to advocate that the pitch was playable. Was just a laugh but i noted that the choice of wording by Rovers is "consulted" - sounds much better (to our fans) than "agreed"

[ben_the_beast]

6 minutes ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

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

Seems like a common sense approach to me. I don't think the EFL will do common sense though. They will hide behind their (inadequate) rule book.

[DE.]

1 minute ago, Roverthechimp said:

I know - would require a special kind of idiocy (or biased) to advocate that the pitch was playable. Was just a laugh but i noted that the choice of wording by Rovers is "consulted" - sounds much better (to our fans) than "agreed"

Fair enough, hard to tell these days with some people seeming to believe the EFL is intent on destroying us! 

Edited 6 hours ago by DE.

[wilsdenrover]

3 hours ago, bluebruce said:

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.

Here’s the rule:

[Cherry Blue]

The reaction of the Ipswich players coming on before any announcement was a disgrace to the game. If they'd have come on after the announcement i.e. to thank their fans for support I can understand that. But to come on before indicated "we were 1 0 down with ten men but we've managed to void the game". Unprofessional, unsporting and a disgrace to football.

Edited 6 hours ago by Cherry Blue

[arbitro]

3 minutes ago, DE. said:

Fair enough, hard to tell these days with some people seeming to believe the EFL is intent on destroying us! 

There does seem to be a growing 'victim culture' in football with fans of many clubs believing the authorities are against them.

After conceding a blatant penalty last week Burnley fans were chanting 'Premier League, corrupt as f***)', a chant which I have heard many times when decisions go against teams.

[Herbie6590]

20 minutes ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

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

It would sent a very interesting precedent for any team needing a point for promotion/avoiding relegation in their final game…👀

[arbitro]

2 minutes ago, Cherry Blue said:

The reaction of the Ipswich players coming on before any announcement was a disgrace to the game. If they'd have come on after the announcement i.e. to thank their fans for support I can understand that. But to come on before indicated "we were 1 0 down with ten men but we've managed to void the game". Unprofessional, unsporting and a disgrace to football.

I felt that Rovers were poor in their communication yesterday. We only heard the PA twice. One to say the game was suspended and another to say it's been abandoned. The Rovers safety officer should have been in constant communication with the match officials and this relayed over the PA system.

[rigger]

50 minutes ago, ... said:

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

If what I suggested was carried out it wouldn't matter if the outlet was underwater, in fact it would be more effective if it was underwater.

[Tom]

11 minutes ago, Cherry Blue said:

The reaction of the Ipswich players coming on before any announcement was a disgrace to the game. If they'd have come on after the announcement i.e. to thank their fans for support I can understand that. But to come on before indicated "we were 1 0 down with ten men but we've managed to void the game". Unprofessional, unsporting and a disgrace to football.

At that point they’d obviously been told it was off the issue was our side didn’t announce it to the fans 

I’m of the opinion now that we’ll just got and win the rematch, life gives you lemons let’s make lemonade 

[RevidgeBlue]

8 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Here’s the rule:

So theoretically - other than the fact it hasnt been done before - there'd be nothing preventing the EFL saying that the last 10 mins plus ET should be played 11 v 10.

It won't happen but it does specifically provide for it in the rules "may be ordered to be replayed in full or in part".

Wonder if faced with the prospect of having to pay for Ipswich to come up and maybe stay somewhere overnight Pasha would rather concede the 3 points?

[Ghost7]

18 minutes ago, ben_the_beast said:

Seems like a common sense approach to me. I don't think the EFL will do common sense though. They will hide behind their (inadequate) rule book.

Ipswich wouldn't accept it. In a game they were going to get zero points in, they know they've a high chance of 3 in the replay. No way they'd agree to 1 point. They will be desperate for a replay because they were going to lose that game and now 3 points is on offer with a replay. It's part of the reason they pushed for it to be abandoned, the 3 points had got away from them. They know what they're doing and will get their way but the ref had no choice.

[M_B]

6 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So theoretically - other than the fact it hasnt been done before - there'd be nothing preventing the EFL saying that the last 10 mins plus ET should be played 11 v 10.

It won't happen but it does specifically provide for it in the rules "may be ordered to be replayed in full or in part".

Wonder if faced with the prospect of having to pay for Ipswich to come up and maybe stay somewhere overnight Pasha would rather concede the 3 points?

Why would Rovers be paying for Ipswich ? 

[GHD]

7 minutes ago, M_B said:

Why would Rovers be paying for Ipswich ? 

Because that’s in the regulations for replays. The travel expenses come out of match receipts, plus if appropriate hotel accommodation for up to 24 people

[NeilInBristol]

47 minutes ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

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

Haha I love your creativity 

could you imagine at the end of the season how this would work out though 

it’s either 0 points 1 point or 3 points unfortunately 

[wilsdenrover]

25 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So theoretically - other than the fact it hasnt been done before - there'd be nothing preventing the EFL saying that the last 10 mins plus ET should be played 11 v 10.

It won't happen but it does specifically provide for it in the rules "may be ordered to be replayed in full or in part".

Wonder if faced with the prospect of having to pay for Ipswich to come up and maybe stay somewhere overnight Pasha would rather concede the 3 points?

Maximum claim allowed by Ipswich would be £4,800.

Is Pasha that tight… 

[M_B]

9 minutes ago, GHD said:

Because that’s in the regulations for replays. The travel expenses come out of match receipts, plus if appropriate hotel accommodation for up to 24 people

Aah, fair enough.

Who decides where they stay? 😁

[Bbrovers2288]

6 minutes ago, NeilInBristol said:

Haha I love your creativity 

could you imagine at the end of the season how this would work out though 

it’s either 0 points 1 point or 3 points unfortunately 

I dunno, I think it kind of seems like a fair resolution, it gives them what they were realistically playing for in the point yet rewards us for our advantage yet still penalises us for having a shit pitch that should be immediately rectified. Efl and both managers to agree that it’s for on the teams and the rest of the league 

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, M_B said:

Aah, fair enough.

Who decides where they stay? 😁

Max hotel claim is £100 per person (max 24 people)

Same for travel. 

Edited 5 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Gamst]

I’d be surprised if they listen but if Nicko is to be believed we are trying to fight our corner and I think that’s a good sign. It’s also good that the EFL are listening to the clubs and allowing them to suggest alternatives. They could have just said straight away that it’s a full replay. 

[RevidgeBlue]

28 minutes ago, M_B said:

Why would Rovers be paying for Ipswich ? 

Well if nothing else it was our fault......

[RevidgeBlue]

8 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Maximum claim allowed by Ipswich would be £4,800.

Is Pasha that tight… 

No Sky in Blues Bar........

[...]

38 minutes ago, rigger said:

If what I suggested was carried out it wouldn't matter if the outlet was underwater, in fact it would be more effective if it was underwater.

Locking off the main outlet would only leave the pitch water to be pumped. Just because the water would be flowing doesn't mean it wouldn't flood back up the inlet. Lock off the outlet and pump the sealed in water

[arbitro]

6 minutes ago, Gamst said:

I’d be surprised if they listen but if Nicko is to be believed we are trying to fight our corner and I think that’s a good sign. It’s also good that the EFL are listening to the clubs and allowing them to suggest alternatives. They could have just said straight away that it’s a full replay. 

I said yesterday that Rovers have to put forward a case to put pressure on the EFL Board but it has to be reasoned and structured.

Right now I don't think there is anybody capable of doing this down there so I personally would be speaking to our shirt sponsor to put together a letter that would put pressure on the people making the decision.