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

[bluebruce]

4 hours 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

Literally said in my first post about it that AI can be incorrect.

[wilsdenrover]

40 minutes ago, arbitro said:

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.

 

As you said it won’t happen but I’d say the following part of the relevant regulation could cover him not being allowed to play:

‘…on any terms and conditions the Board shall in their absolute discretion determine…’

 

[RutlandRover]

1 hour ago, booth said:

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.

As in life though, just because someone doesn't deserve something, doesn't mean they won't get it.

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, RutlandRover said:

As in life though, just because someone doesn't deserve something, doesn't mean they won't get it.

Proof being we don’t deserve the Venkys. 

Edited 7 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Torgeir]

3 hours 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.

You know things are bad when the owners are blamed for bad weather 😂

[arbitro]

8 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

As you said it won’t happen but I’d say the following part of the relevant regulation could cover him not being allowed to play:

‘…on any terms and conditions the Board shall in their absolute discretion determine…’

 

But taking it one step further should Greaves start and then go off at the time he was sent off?

There are so many worms in this particular can that arguments could ensue for some time yet.

[KentExile]

19 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

As you said it won’t happen but I’d say the following part of the relevant regulation could cover him not being allowed to play:

‘…on any terms and conditions the Board shall in their absolute discretion determine…’

 

 

8 minutes ago, arbitro said:

But taking it one step further should Greaves start and then go off at the time he was sent off?

There are so many worms in this particular can that arguments could ensue for some time yet.

The ridiculous part is that there is a choice given in the rules, either the result stands, or the game is is replayed in full

Why isnt is just one or the other? or if they did want to have some nuance based on how far gone the game is, option one if the game is less than X minutes old, and option 2 if the game is more than X minutes old?

Edited 7 hours ago by KentExile

[wilsdenrover]

20 minutes ago, arbitro said:

But taking it one step further should Greaves start and then go off at the time he was sent off?

There are so many worms in this particular can that arguments could ensue for some time yet.

Common sense dictates continuing the match from the position at which it was stopped.

That part of the regulation I quoted is a classic ‘catch all’ phrase which allows the EFL to pretty much do as they please.

Despite the flexibility they’ve built into the rules, they will of course almost certainly go for the easy option of having the match replayed in full.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, KentExile said:

 

The ridiculous part is that there is a choice given in the rules, either the result stands, or the game is is replayed in full

Why isnt is just one or the other? or if they did want to have some nuance based on how far gone the game is, option one if the game is less than X minutes old, and option 2 if the game is more than X minutes old?

There appears to be complete flexibility in the rules to make any decision they see fit - allow the result to stand/ replay the game in full or in part/ under whatever conditions they see fit.

Unfortunately (from our point of view in this case) in practice that absolute discretion rarely seems to be used and the tendency seems to be to award a full replay.

There is a danger in making a hard and fast rule that a result stands after a certain time that in extreme circumstances fans could attempt to force a stoppage or teams could attempt to deliberately pick up cards to get a match abandoned.

Although that said when I first started watching the game fifty odd years go I was under the definite impression that a result stood if a certain proportion of the match had been completed. The figure that sticks in my mind is two thirds. Could anyone of a similar vintage confirm whether or not this was ever the case or if I am imagining it?

[Tom]

Presuming it will be replayed the club will be in a tough spot with regards to tickets, I can’t see them making it free for fans that had tickets as it would end up costing us but then the game was null and void.

Wonder if there’s insurance that covers the club for the losses if they make it free?

Presume Ipswich will make transport free 

[Roverthechimp]

1 minute ago, Tom said:

Presuming it will be replayed the club will be in a tough spot with regards to tickets, I can’t see them making it free for fans that had tickets as it would end up costing us but then the game was null and void.

Wonder if there’s insurance that covers the club for the losses if they make it free?

Presume Ipswich will make transport free 

Someone quoted the customer charter earlier in the thread - half price i think was the stipulated condition if a game was abandoned (not postponed)

[wilsdenrover]

17 minutes ago, KentExile said:

 

The ridiculous part is that there is a choice given in the rules, either the result stands, or the game is is replayed in full

Why isnt is just one or the other? or if they did want to have some nuance based on how far gone the game is, option one if the game is less than X minutes old, and option 2 if the game is more than X minutes old?

The regulation actually allows them to pretty one choose any conditions they wish.

Full replay/part replay 11 vs 10/part replay 11 vs 11/result stands and so on and so on.

As you say, if they aren’t going to make use of this, why not just have options based purely on absolute fact (minutes gone as you suggested, or combination of minutes gone and extent of any lead either team has established).

 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Tom said:

Presume Ipswich will make transport free 

If I was Ipswich I'd be demanding we covered all  expenses for them and their fans for the replay.

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

There appears to be complete flexibility in the rules to make any decision they see fit - allow the result to stand/ replay the game in full or in part/ under whatever conditions they see fit.

Unfortunately (from our point of view in this case) in practice that absolute discretion rarely seems to be used and the tendency seems to be to award a full replay.

There is a danger in making a hard and fast rule that a result stands after a certain time that in extreme circumstances fans could attempt to force a stoppage or teams could attempt to deliberately pick up cards to get a match abandoned.

Although that said when I first started watching the game fifty odd years go I was under the definite impression that a result stood if a certain proportion of the match had been completed. The figure that sticks in my mind is two thirds. Could anyone of a similar vintage confirm whether or not this was ever the case or if I am imagining it?

‘Where the abandonment is caused by the behaviour of fans the Board will convene to determine whether the match will be deemed to be complete or is to be replayed in part or full…’

 

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

If I was Ipswich I'd be demanding we covered all  expenses for them and their fans for the replay.

If I was a Rovers I’d direct Ipswich to the EFL regulations re expenses.

[arbitro]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Common sense dictates continuing the match from the position at which it was stopped.

That part of the regulation I quoted is a classic ‘catch all’ phrase which allows the EFL to pretty much do as they please.

Despite the flexibility they’ve built into the rules, they will of course almost certainly go for the easy option of having the match replayed in full.

 

One thing the EFL most definitely will want to avoid is lawyers becoming involved and their ruling (whatever it is) being challenged in some kind of court. Both clubs will present their case but this has the potential to run and run it the need arises given how open ended their regulations seem to be.

I said in Saturday I have no faith in any current Rovers staff to present our case in a fit and proper manner.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

‘Where the abandonment is caused by the behaviour of fans the Board will convene to determine whether the match will be deemed to be complete or is to be replayed in part or full…’

 

Ah - cheers!

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, arbitro said:

One thing the EFL most definitely will want to avoid is lawyers becoming involved and their ruling (whatever it is) being challenged in some kind of court. Both clubs will present their case but this has the potential to run and run it the need arises given how open ended their regulations seem to be.

I said in Saturday I have no faith in any current Rovers staff to present our case in a fit and proper manner.

I fully expect the match to be replayed in full.

I’d be very interested in a lawyer’s argument (and I’m sure they’d find one for the appropriate hourly fee…) as to how continuing from where the match was stopped would be unfair.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

If I was a Rovers I’d direct Ipswich to the EFL regulations re expenses.

Which are that Ipswich can claim a maximum of about £4.8k did you say?

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Ah - cheers!

Just to be clear I made that up 😁

I was just trying to show how easy it would be to get around the concern you raised.

All you need is an Authority who wants its rules to be fit for purpose…

[arbitro]

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

I fully expect the match to be replayed in full.

I’d be very interested in a lawyer’s argument (and I’m sure they’d find one for the appropriate hourly fee…) as to how continuing from where the match was stopped would be unfair.

That is my expectation too.

 

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Which are that Ipswich can claim a maximum of about £4.8k did you say?

Yea it’s £100 per person travel for maximum 24 people.

There’s then the same amount (and person limit) for hotels.

The hotel one has conditions to do with travel time linked to it but I’m pretty certain Ipswich could claim this one too. 

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, arbitro said:

One thing the EFL most definitely will want to avoid is lawyers becoming involved and their ruling (whatever it is) being challenged in some kind of court. Both clubs will present their case but this has the potential to run and run it the need arises given how open ended their regulations seem to be.

I said in Saturday I have no faith in any current Rovers staff to present our case in a fit and proper manner.

When I see some of the names on the EFL board I have no faith in them either:

https://www.efl.com/about-the-efl/efl-board/

 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

I fully expect the match to be replayed in full.

I’d be very interested in a lawyer’s argument (and I’m sure they’d find one for the appropriate hourly fee…) as to how continuing from where the match was stopped would be unfair.

I think the rules as currently drafted with absolute discretion are the best way to go.

Who's to say whether a team could or couldnt retrieve a two goal deficit with ten mins to go or a three goal deficit with twenty etc.

What's required is a good old helping of common sense and the courage to set an initial precedent which uses that discretion fully.

In this case replay the final 10 mins plus ET 11 v 10 with as many of the same players as are available and minus the guy who was sent off.

 

[wilsdenrover]

10 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I think the rules as currently drafted with absolute discretion are the best way to go.

Who's to say whether a team could or couldnt retrieve a two goal deficit with ten mins to go or a three goal deficit with twenty etc.

What's required is a good old helping of common sense and the courage to set an initial precedent which uses that discretion fully.

In this case replay the final 10 mins plus ET 11 v 10 with as many of the same players as are available and minus the guy who was sent off.

 

Re the bit I’ve emboldened - I’d look at the balance of probabilities.

I have no issue with the absolute discretion of the regulation as it is written.

My issue is with the EFLs apparent reluctance to ever use this discretion.

Which is pretty much what you’ve just said 😁

 

Edited 6 hours ago by wilsdenrover