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

[MarkBRFC]

7 minutes ago, KentExile said:

 

Fair comment Mark, AI is a long way from infallible, to say the least.

Which is why it is important that  when we do "ask AI", we state that is what we have done, which is in fairness to Bruce, what he did also.

I have no issue with statements like that which are prefixed with "I asked AI" or similar, as they can (and should be) be fact checked when needed

Yep that's more than fair.

[Ossydave]

27 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Comparing Ewood to other clubs is a bit wide of the mark as i can't think of another right next to a river and draining into it.

And as much as they sit and do nothing waiting for the council it is a club issue and up to them to sort or this will keep happening. They'll end up calling games off 'just in case' .

As for the what happens now the only sensible thing is the game and result stands but when has football operated sensibly unless it's giving a big 6 club something ?

There's numerous clubs right next to rivers? Rotherham, Forest, Fulham to name a few.  Or did you mean specifically the drainage part as I have no idea with regards to drainage at other clubs?

[benhben]

Any indications when they will make a decision about a replay? Replaying full 11 v 11 from minute zero would be an absolute travesty. Id imagine there will be a lot of behind the scene arguing. 

 

 

[MarkBRFC]

2 minutes ago, benhben said:

Any indications when they will make a decision about a replay? Replaying full 11 v 11 from minute zero would be an absolute travesty. Id imagine there will be a lot of behind the scene arguing. 

 

 

If it's happened before, like back in 2017 when Coventry were beating Rotherham 1-0 in the 85th minute for it to be abandoned due to a waterlogged pitch, then it will be happen here.

Any talk of giving us the win or playing 10 minutes 11 v 10 is just fantasy land talk.

[frosty]

1 hour ago, MarkBRFC said:

Untrue, and is a danger of taking AI as gospel as it's not always correct.

Here is one example - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/dec/13/newsstory.sport4

This was also only last year - https://apnews.com/article/udinese-roma-score-serie-a-d7879e334f2a638a76692af0d8f32fb0.

The remaining 18 minutes played 11 days later.

You're right though, no chance of anything like that happening unfortunately, even though nobody could really argue with it.

Edited 7 hours ago by frosty

[davulsukur]

16 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

If it's happened before, like back in 2017 when Coventry were beating Rotherham 1-0 in the 85th minute for it to be abandoned due to a waterlogged pitch, then it will be happen here.

Any talk of giving us the win or playing 10 minutes 11 v 10 is just fantasy land talk.

Yep, it will be replayed in full, no other outcome will even be considered i don't think.

It's frustrating but any anger, as always, should be directed at the Snr management/Owners. This has been a long standing issue that they have repeatedly failed to rectify.

We just have to accept a replay and get on with it.

[TheRevAshton]

So annoying. The lads put in a great shift in horrific conditions, and were so close to the finish line... all for nothing! It's all the fault of our board and negligent owners - nothing else. Absolutely tinpot.

It's gonna hurt like hell when we get battered in the replay.

[EgyptianPete]

18 minutes ago, TheRevAshton said:

So annoying. The lads put in a great shift in horrific conditions, and were so close to the finish line... all for nothing! It's all the fault of our board and negligent owners - nothing else. Absolutely tinpot.

It's gonna hurt like hell when we get battered in the replay.

Mmm I really don't think we will be BATTERED in the replay, the game may be months off from now, by that time our new team will have gelled even more and looking at Saturday's performance we played very well and matched them all over the pitch, so no I have no fear for the replay should it happen.

[davulsukur]

Just now, EgyptianPete said:

Mmm I really don't think we will be BATTERED in the replay, the game may be months off from now, by that time our new team will have gelled even more and looking at Saturday's performance we played very well and matched them all over the pitch, so no I have no fear for the replay should it happen.

Ipswich could very well be the same though. Their team might have gelled or even, if Mckenna doesn't get it sorted, under a new manager.

[K-Hod]

You can bet your life on them winning that replay and the lad sent off scoring the winner though- it's the Rovers way.

[BankEnd Rover]

20 minutes ago, EgyptianPete said:

Mmm I really don't think we will be BATTERED in the replay, the game may be months off from now, by that time our new team will have gelled even more and looking at Saturday's performance we played very well and matched them all over the pitch, so no I have no fear for the replay should it happen.

By that time we'll of picked up 2/3 injuries and have a CM pairing of Foreshaw and Montgomery.

 

[Glosrover]

15 hours ago, M_B said:

The problem seems to be getting the water into the river when the river level is too high.

It would seem obvious to  install a sump with a pump(s) close to the river and pump it over the top when needed. 

I’ve developed a mental image of Forshaw in leg irons fixed to a capstan that turns an archimedes screw, he’s chasing a 2 yr contract extension dangling just out of his reach.  Pitch pumped dry in no time….

[Tomphil2]

2 hours ago, Ossydave said:

There's numerous clubs right next to rivers? Rotherham, Forest, Fulham to name a few.  Or did you mean specifically the drainage part as I have no idea with regards to drainage at other clubs?

When people are saying stuff like Burnley were fine, Man U were fine.

Even so if you want to mention the other clubs there's a big difference in where they are situated and the size of the rivers next to them.

The way the level rises so rapid in the darwen near Ewood being at the foot of a valley is nothing like those other grounds.

Bloomfield Road doesn't flood when the tides in either.

[Tomphil2]

2 hours ago, benhben said:

Any indications when they will make a decision about a replay? Replaying full 11 v 11 from minute zero would be an absolute travesty. Id imagine there will be a lot of behind the scene arguing. 

 

 

How much arguing will our lot be doing though ?

We've no CEO just a jumped up former player and a bloke who'll probably think he can get away will drawing money off another game and crowd.

Edited 5 hours ago by Tomphil2

[DackDackGoose]

Be interesting to see if their red and 4 yellows are wiped. 

[arbitro]

Logistically it doesn't help when it's raining so heavily that we are essentially in a valley. The rain coming down from the Bolton Road and Highercroft sides will just add to the swell of the River Darwen.

[arbitro]

Just now, DackDackGoose said:

Be interesting to see if their red and 4 yellows are wiped. 

Disciplinary sanctions remain.

[MarkBRFC]

2 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Disciplinary sanctions remain.

What is the logic in that out of interest?

Everything else is like the game never happened, yet all cards remain.

It's beyond stupid, in my opinion.

[DE.]

Just now, MarkBRFC said:

What is the logic in that out of interest?

Everything else is like the game never happened, yet all cards remain.

It's beyond stupid, in my opinion.

It is pretty weird to have disciplinary action carried over from a game which technically is abandoned. 

With that said, if a player has been sent off for some kind of violent foul or assault it wouldn't be reasonable to forget that just because the game was abandoned. I assume that's where the logic stems from, although it is without any nuance or flexibility. 

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, MarkBRFC said:

What is the logic in that out of interest?

Everything else is like the game never happened, yet all cards remain.

It's beyond stupid, in my opinion.

I think the logic is that, for example a player puts in a horrific challenge and hurts an opponent then he should be still punished. That is clearly an extreme example but for less serious offences they are seen as law transgressions and the deterrent of a yellow/red card will be enforced.

In my view Greaves should be punished for his red card in Saturday but to be consistent that has to apply to all sanctions.

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I think the logic is that, for example a player puts in a horrific challenge and hurts an opponent then he should be still punished. That is clearly an extreme example but for less serious offences they are seen as law transgressions and the deterrent of a yellow/red card will be enforced.

In my view Greaves should be punished for his red card in Saturday but to be consistent that has to apply to all sanctions.

The illogical part is the club transgressed against doesn’t get the chance to benefit from their opponents being down to 10 (if the match is replayed in full 11 vs 11) but another club still gets the benefit of that player being suspended.

If the authorities think punishments should remain then, in my opinion, so should everything else (score, time remaining etc etc).

It really shouldn’t be a pick and choose situation.

 

[booth]

If Ipswich win the replay and those 3 points help them to automatic promotion, play offs or play off promotion. The clubs in third or seventh place are going to be massively pissed off. Come the end of the season this decision could impact so many other clubs. Imagine if those 3 points kept them up and the huge amount of money lost from the team or teams beneath them (potentially us).

If the EFL watch the game they'll see that Ipswich were never going to win that game. They were poor and got worse as the match went on. Both teams had the same conditions to play in and they had a man less. And there was only one team trying to injure the other.

[rigger]

58 minutes ago, DackDackGoose said:

Be interesting to see if their red and 4 yellows are wiped. 

What will happen about the yellows could be interesting, if the same player gets booked in the replay. They will have played one more game than anyone else with regards to the amnesty date

[DE.]

All clubs in the league sign up to the rules and laws as stated, so whilst they may be pissed off I don't see what grounds any of them would have to launch any kind of appeal. The precedent has been historically set quite clearly (and this is exactly why from the league's pov there should be a consistent approach). 

If clubs were against the rule as a whole there have been many years to protest against it. As far as I'm aware nobody has, although I'd be interested to see if there was a concerted effort from a group of clubs to change it. 

[arbitro]

43 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The illogical part is the club transgressed against doesn’t get the chance to benefit from their opponents being down to 10 (if the match is replayed in full 11 vs 11) but another club still gets the benefit of that player being suspended.

If the authorities think punishments should remain then, in my opinion, so should everything else (score, time remaining etc etc).

It really shouldn’t be a pick and choose situation.

 

I think it works both ways but you bring up a valid point. Watford were without arguably their best player against us recently after he was sent off late on in a match against QPR. It could be argued that QPR didn't really gain but Watfords next three opponents did.

Natural justice would mean that Greaves shouldn't play against us when the game is replayed but I can't see that happening as I don't think there is anything in the FA's regulations that cover this (to be fair the circumstances are extremely rare). He will miss the next Ipswich match against Portsmouth on Saturday and his punishment deemed to have been served.