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

[wilsdenrover]

44 minutes ago, ... said:

Jeff and Ally had their say this morning 

 

https://eflanalysis.com/news/ally-mccoist-and-jeff-stelling-say-theres-an-obvious-answer-to-blackburn-rovers-vs-ipswich-town-replay-conundrum/

 

 

 

Everything can’t be the same so nothing should be doesn’t seem like the strongest argument to me. 

[only2garners]

I heard Radio Lancs on Saturday and what I understood was that the two managers had agreed not to comment on the game in case it prejudiced the EFL decision. Whether they had or not and whether it was just comments about the abandonment that they were not going to comment on I don't know. What one of the reporters said was that it was frustrating in that they could not ask VI about the late withdrawal of Tavares, which clearly had nowt to do with the abandonment. What is clear is that VI does not seem to have made any public comment on anything to do with the game. I've no idea what McKenna said.

[Browjd]

McKenna basically said it was unplayable and should have been called off sooner. He also (crucially) said something like it looks like we'll be back up again in the near future. That is a clear breach surely? 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, only2garners said:

I heard Radio Lancs on Saturday and what I understood was that the two managers had agreed not to comment on the game in case it prejudiced the EFL decision. Whether they had or not and whether it was just comments about the abandonment that they were not going to comment on I don't know. What one of the reporters said was that it was frustrating in that they could not ask VI about the late withdrawal of Tavares, which clearly had nowt to do with the abandonment. What is clear is that VI does not seem to have made any public comment on anything to do with the game. I've no idea what McKenna said.

He’s pretty much tried to suggest events of the second half were due to conditions.

A not very subtle attempt to push the full replay narrative?:

https://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/25482903.ipswich-town-kieran-mckenna-abandoned-game-blackburn-rovers/

[...]

2 hours ago, Browjd said:

Really surprised how little media attention this is getting...

https://eflanalysis.com/news/ally-mccoist-and-jeff-stelling-say-theres-an-obvious-answer-to-blackburn-rovers-vs-ipswich-town-replay-conundrum/

 

Getting a fair bit

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Browjd said:

 He also (crucially) said something like it looks like we'll be back up again in the near future. That is a clear breach surely? 

If he said that, that's out of order because he's pre judging the issue and implying a replay in full or part is what should happen.

I normally agree with everything Jeff Stelling says on Talksport but I can't understand why he and Ally think it would be unfair unless there was a full replay. It would be a lot less unfair if the match was reconvened under as near to the same conditions as possible as when the match was abandoned.

The EFL have all the tools at their disposal in the form of the regulations - now they need the cajones to use them.

[booth]

16 minutes ago, Browjd said:

McKenna basically said it was unplayable and should have been called off sooner. He also (crucially) said something like it looks like we'll be back up again in the near future. That is a clear breach surely? 

"It was impossible to finish the game," said McKenna. "From the start of the second half the pitch was getting to the point of unplayable really. "

"It was really slushy before the game started, but the ball rolled okay in the first half to be fair. It was holding up a little bit. But in the second half, the footing was too slippery to be safe, then the ball stops moving. It was an inevitable decision that could maybe have been made earlier. In the end there was no other option."

"We hope to reward them, starting next Saturday (at home to Portsmouth) and in the matches to come. There's every chance that we'll be back up here again. Hopefully we'll reward them because we really, really appreciate their support."

[bluebruce]

33 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Everything can’t be the same so nothing should be doesn’t seem like the strongest argument to me. 

The 'you can't guarantee the same players could walk out on the replay' argument...firstly I don't really care if some changes are made. Perhaps with remaining subs or whatever if there were any, if not then meh.

But moreover, there really should be a long term protocol for this. Whether they wait up to 3 hours for conditions to improve, or reconvene the next day to see if the pitch is playable. There is no perfect solution, but the least perfect of all solutions is to replay the entire fucking thing.

[KentExile]

6 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

But moreover, there really should be a long term protocol for this. Whether they wait up to 3 hours for conditions to improve, or reconvene the next day to see if the pitch is playable. There is no perfect solution, but the least perfect of all solutions is to replay the entire fucking thing.

bingo

[KentExile]

12 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

The 'you can't guarantee the same players could walk out on the replay' argument...firstly I don't really care if some changes are made. Perhaps with remaining subs or whatever if there were any, if not then meh.

But moreover, there really should be a long term protocol for this. Whether they wait up to 3 hours for conditions to improve, or reconvene the next day to see if the pitch is playable. There is no perfect solution, but the least perfect of all solutions is to replay the entire fucking thing.

 

5 minutes ago, KentExile said:

bingo

Or maybe tiddly winks, ludo or scrabble 😉 

But seriously, yes, there should be a protocol set in stone, not "if the game is over 75 mins old then the EFL will randomly decide that "something" will be decided"

I genuinely wouldn't care too much if it was that the team captains have to duke it out using their respective teams on FIFA, as long as that was the rule set in stone from the start

Edited 6 hours ago by KentExile

[DE.]

10 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

The 'you can't guarantee the same players could walk out on the replay' argument...firstly I don't really care if some changes are made. Perhaps with remaining subs or whatever if there were any, if not then meh.

Their argument falls into the trap of absolutes being the only fair option. Unless all variables can be exactly as they were, it's unfair. 

Nothing can make it perfectly fair. There are solutions that are fairer than a full replay. Just because they don't 100% replicate the ending conditions doesn't mean they aren't fair enough in the circumstances. 

[RevidgeBlue]

34 minutes ago, booth said:

"It was impossible to finish the game," said McKenna. "From the start of the second half the pitch was getting to the point of unplayable really. "

"It was really slushy before the game started, but the ball rolled okay in the first half to be fair. It was holding up a little bit. But in the second half, the footing was too slippery to be safe, then the ball stops moving. It was an inevitable decision that could maybe have been made earlier. In the end there was no other option."

"We hope to reward them, starting next Saturday (at home to Portsmouth) and in the matches to come. There's every chance that we'll be back up here again. Hopefully we'll reward them because we really, really appreciate their support."

Clearly trying to create the narrative that the only fair option is a full replay as the pitch was unplayable for most if not all of the second half.

I wasn't at the game so can't comment on that. Is it the prevailing consensus on here the pitch became unplayable from round about the 75th minute?

I hope someone at our end is pushing our Club's interests as hard as Mckenna is pushing his. Why am I not optimistic on that score?

 

[dallydally]

41 minutes ago, booth said:

"It was impossible to finish the game," said McKenna. "From the start of the second half the pitch was getting to the point of unplayable really. "

"It was really slushy before the game started, but the ball rolled okay in the first half to be fair. It was holding up a little bit. But in the second half, the footing was too slippery to be safe, then the ball stops moving. It was an inevitable decision that could maybe have been made earlier. In the end there was no other option."

"We hope to reward them, starting next Saturday (at home to Portsmouth) and in the matches to come. There's every chance that we'll be back up here again. Hopefully we'll reward them because we really, really appreciate their support."

Prat!

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, dallydally said:

Prat!

Only doing his job tbf.

[NeilInBristol]

Any news? When will we hear?

[bluebruce]

25 minutes ago, DE. said:

Their argument falls into the trap of absolutes being the only fair option. Unless all variables can be exactly as they were, it's unfair. 

Nothing can make it perfectly fair. There are solutions that are fairer than a full replay. Just because they don't 100% replicate the ending conditions doesn't mean they aren't fair enough in the circumstances. 

Indeed. And replaying the whole thing doesn't replicate any of the conditions. The same players can't be guaranteed for that either. The logic is incredibly weak.

[bluebruce]

1 minute ago, NeilInBristol said:

Any news? When will we hear?

Given that in professional English football as far as anyone can seem to find, at least in recent years, the precedent has been to always replay it unless there is nothing at stake, even in games more foregone than ours, you will be very very safe in assuming we are going to have to replay the whole match.

[Armchair supporter supremo]

The amount of bs surrounding this is embarrassing! 

Game gets called off.... It gets replayed. The way it's always been... End of story. 

If we weren't a goal up at the time would there be any arguments from rovers if it went to a reply! NO. 

 

Just another petty amateur decision from pasha the chancer and his cronies to try and bend the rules to suit them. 

[neophox]

Why no news? 😔 

[neophox]

With the red card and us leading 1-0!

[Cherry Blue]

Why is it taking so long for them to make a decision?

[wilsdenrover]

24 minutes ago, Armchair supporter supremo said:

The amount of bs surrounding this is embarrassing! 

Game gets called off.... It gets replayed. The way it's always been... End of story. 

If we weren't a goal up at the time would there be any arguments from rovers if it went to a reply! NO. 

 

Just another petty amateur decision from pasha the chancer and his cronies to try and bend the rules to suit them. 

 But we were.

[DE.]

22 minutes ago, Cherry Blue said:

Why is it taking so long for them to make a decision?

Can only assume, as with everything, there's a bureaucratic process to follow before the announcement, even if the end result is already known. 

[GHD]

27 minutes ago, Armchair supporter supremo said:

The amount of bs surrounding this is embarrassing! 

Game gets called off.... It gets replayed. The way it's always been... End of story. 

If we weren't a goal up at the time would there be any arguments from rovers if it went to a reply! NO. 

 

Just another petty amateur decision from pasha the chancer and his cronies to try and bend the rules to suit them. 

A reply from EFI would be handy

[Penwortham Blue]

29 minutes ago, Armchair supporter supremo said:

The amount of bs surrounding this is embarrassing! 

Game gets called off.... It gets replayed. The way it's always been... End of story. 

If we weren't a goal up at the time would there be any arguments from rovers if it went to a reply! NO. 

 

Just another petty amateur decision from pasha the chancer and his cronies to try and bend the rules to suit them. 

Certainly not how it has always been, the 75+ minute and result stands was previously in the rule book. If it was all square and 11 vs 11 of course no one would be against a replay, think your totally missing the point !