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

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, Tomphil2 said:

Not really it's a fair compromise i'd say.

No hassle or expense of a replay for either club, Rovers get the win but Ipswich can't squeal about losing 3 points to a panel judgement.

Some of the suggestions on here are crazy to be honest.

And yet that's the craziest one I've seen.

[bluebruce]

28 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The only times I’ve seen these quoted is from an FA document which is aimed at lower level (ie amateur) football. 

Although funny enough, the only precedent in English football I could find of doing anything other than a replay (if promotion or relegation was still on the cards) was from non-league. The professional leagues always seem to go for the replay.

You were totally right in your other post where you said the rules don't suggest you have to do a replay at all. In fact I'd argue they imply (tacitly) that after 75 mins you should either call the match as is, or play the remaining minutes at a later date. But despite that, precedent has shown the EFL always order a full replay so it would be a massive shock if they did anything else. Might even open a legal can of worms over previous judgements from other clubs.

[Tomphil2]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Rovers getting a single point for a win doesn’t mean Ipswich wouldn’t have lost the chance to get 3 points from a partial/full replay.

 

We aren't in primary school that's rather obvious but surely a middle ground suggestion is feasible because whatever the outcome nobody will be happy unless the result stands.

One point to Rovers limits the gripes a bit at least.

[Tomphil2]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

That's one of the worst tbh you can't be giving an option that isn't otherwise available in normal play.

Award "a win" for Rovers but only one point for Rovers/ none for Ipswich?

Two points for Rovers one for Ipswich - I mean c'mon fellas.

It surely has to be either a full replay or (hopefully) 10  mins  + ET 11 v 10 with points awarded as normal at the end of it.

The longer we drag on with no decision the slightly more hopeful I get about the latter......

Will be a bit of a blow now if it's just the bogstandard replay we were all originally anticipating.

Yet people are suggesting play ten mins v the ten men, replay the full game but we are 'allowed' to score, play the full game but their sent off man leaves the pitch at the same point etc etc.

Come on it sounds like nothing is off the table.

[Tomphil2]

22 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

And yet that's the craziest one I've seen.

Yeah most on here would rather just moan when the game is ordered full replay 11 v 11 because their is no middle ground that rewards us for our efforts but doesn't make it as big an advantage as the full win.

So come on lets ram in another game from 0-0 and take the bigger risk of getting fuck all.

Edited 1 hour ago by Tomphil2

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

We aren't in primary school that's rather obvious but surely a middle ground suggestion is feasible because whatever the outcome nobody will be happy unless the result stands.

One point to Rovers limits the gripes a bit at least.

I think Ipswich will moan at anything other than a full replay.

As I said earlier, I don’t think either side can be justifiably unhappy with carrying on from where the match was halted.

 

[wilsdenrover]

14 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Although funny enough, the only precedent in English football I could find of doing anything other than a replay (if promotion or relegation was still on the cards) was from non-league. The professional leagues always seem to go for the replay.

You were totally right in your other post where you said the rules don't suggest you have to do a replay at all. In fact I'd argue they imply (tacitly) that after 75 mins you should either call the match as is, or play the remaining minutes at a later date. But despite that, precedent has shown the EFL always order a full replay so it would be a massive shock if they did anything else. Might even open a legal can of worms over previous judgements from other clubs.

If they’re not willing to look at each case individually they should remove the flexibility to do so from the rules. 

[Tomphil2]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think Ipswich will moan at anything other than a full replay.

As I said earlier, I don’t think either side can be justifiably unhappy with carrying on from where the match was halted.

 

It's the fairest way on both clubs to just see the 10 mins out but they won't order that so we'll all gnash the teeth when a full replay is ordered.

I'd grab 1 point and not have to replay it right now if it was offered and i'm sure plenty would but it's to simplistic for the officials.

Edited 1 hour ago by Tomphil2

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, Tomphil2 said:

It's the fairest way but they won't order that so we'll all gnash the teeth when a full replay is ordered.

Yep, then just wait ‘til we lose said replay…

[Tom]

5 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Yeah most on here would rather just moan when the game is ordered full replay 11 v 11 because their is no middle ground that rewards us for our efforts but doesn't make it as big an advantage as the full win.

So come on let’s ram in another game from 0-0 and take the bigger risk of getting fuck all.

There’s no chance we’d accept a point you’d just take the risk and go for all 3, Ipswich wouldn’t accept that result either. Never mind it’s changing the entire notion of 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw. 

Everyone is just throwing suggestions out but that is objectively a bad one for all.

Then again I think a full replay and giving us 3 points are also bad decisions so the only real one is play out the last 15 or so 

Edited 1 hour ago by Tom

[XLM]

2 hours ago, Tomphil2 said:

Call the result but give Rovers 1 point instead of 3.

Job done.

Why would anyone want that?

[wilsdenrover]

The EFLs interpretation of their rules to allow Guiu to be eligible for Chelsea in the  Carabao cup shows they can be flexible when they want to be.

I doubt there’s a chance we’re one of the clubs they’d want to favour though…

 

[Tomphil2]

5 minutes ago, XLM said:

Why would anyone want that?

Why would you want to lose a replay or go through another fixture crammed in 95+ mins and get....... 1 point.

They should never have scrapped the result stands after 75 mins rule that was black and white.

The lines are now blurred so it seems any suggestion is viable and if that is the worst i'm Henry the 8th.

Too much fuss and faff with everything these days and how do you sort this and make everyone happy ?

You can't so minimise it on both sides.

Edited 54 minutes ago by Tomphil2

[RevidgeBlue]

13 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Come on it sounds like nothing is off the table.

Agreed - but somewhere within the framework which already exists.

They couldnt order the new game lasts 120 mins for example because games last 90.

Similarly they couldnt realistically say that we get one point and Ipswich none or we get two points and Ipswich one as that's not a combination of points anyone can get as the rules stand.

[barry_]

Replay the game... it's the Blackburn Rovers ownership (or the clowns in charge at Ewood) that has cut essential ground maintenence and is too blame for the rainfall not draining off.

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Why would you want to lose a replay or go through another fixture crammed in 95+ mins and get....... 1 point.

They should never have scrapped the result stands after 75 mins rule that was black and white.

The lines are now blurred so it seems any suggestion is viable and if that is the worst i'm Henry the 8th.

Too much fuss and faff with everything these days and how do you sort this and make everyone happy ?

You can't so minimise it on both sides.

Assuming we're not getting awarded the points, whilst a part replay is obviously the ideal scenario from our point of view a full replay would be second best.

I can't believe any other Rovers fan would not rather  take the "risk" of ending up with nothing balanced against the chance of getting three, as opposed to merely accepting a point.

[Tomphil2]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Assuming we're not getting awarded the points, whilst a part replay is obviously the ideal scenario from our point of view a full replay would be second best.

I can't believe any other Rovers fan would not rather  take the "risk" of ending up with nothing balanced against the chance of getting three, as opposed to merely accepting a point.

Well we'll see if/when we do the Rovers thing and lose the replay.

A point for no game might not sound as daft then.

[wilsdenrover]

11 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Why would you want to lose a replay or go through another fixture crammed in 95+ mins and get....... 1 point.

They should never have scrapped the result stands after 75 mins rule that was black and white.

The lines are now blurred so it seems any suggestion is viable and if that is the worst i'm Henry the 8th.

Too much fuss and faff with everything these days and how do you sort this and make everyone happy ?

You can't so minimise it on both sides.

I guess the issue with having an arbitrary x minute = rule is it would increase the pressure on the referee.

As the said minute approached the losing manager would be imploring the ref to call the match off whilst the winning one would be insisting it continued.

Of course once that minute went by both managers would immediately pivot to the other opinion without a hint of irony…

We could have saved all this bother by just sorting the bloody drainage out.

 

[GHD]

4 minutes ago, barry_ said:

Replay the game... it's the Blackburn Rovers ownership (or the clowns in charge at Ewood) that has cut essential ground maintenence and is too blame for the rainfall not draining off.

I think most of us agree that the wilful neglect of the infrastructure was  likely a major contributory factor on Saturday. To play devils advocate, it is also a fact that the railway line between Blackburn and Bolton was closed around teatime on Saturday, due to flooding

[RevidgeBlue]

12 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

They should never have scrapped the result stands after 75 mins rule that was black and white.

That in itself is also inherently extremely unfair.

Who's to say you can't pull back a 1-0 deficit with 15 mins to go?

What if you needed a point to go up or stay down on the last day of the season and the game was stopped in that position through absolutely no fault of your own?

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Well we'll see if/when we do the Rovers thing and lose the replay.

A point for no game might not sound as daft then.

No point going out to compete in any game if that's the attitude.

Might as well accept thirty points from the next thirty games without going through the hassle of playing them and just play five or six games to determine promotion and relegation.

[Tomphil2]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I guess the issue with having an arbitrary x minute = rule is it would increase the pressure on the referee.

As the said minute approached the losing manager would be imploring the ref to call the match off whilst the winning one would be insisting it continued.

Of course once that minute went by both managers would immediately pivot to the other opinion without a hint of irony…

We could have saved all this bother by just sorting the bloody drainage out.

 

Back to the 'cost v points' issue that just doesn't resonate with this lot, if you can make do with a league 1 budget and get by then that's what you'll get.

Classic case of penny wise pound foolish again investing in constant reseeding and stitch pitches to get a great surface but ignoring the foundations of it that will always dictate what happens on the surface.

Clown show.

[...]

4 hours ago, steelcityblue said:

Really can’t see how either team could complain if ordered to play the remaining time 11v10. It’s clearly the fairest option of those tabled and doesn’t seem to have any reason why it can’t be accomplished. It is in the rules as a specific option so what would be the reason for not doing it? If Ipswich don’t want to travel for it they have the option of forfeiting the game. Let anyone that wants to watch 15mins football in for free and job done. 

Want a job at the EFL?

Very good comment

As said earlier in the thread. The distance between the two sides is irrelevant whether its 5 miles or 500 miles. Those are the two team that should play at Ewood and play the remainder of the game. Get the same referees back its their show too. 

That is fair. 

[Tomphil2]

10 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

That in itself is also inherently extremely unfair.

Who's to say you can't pull back a 1-0 deficit with 15 mins to go?

What if you needed a point to go up or stay down on the last day of the season and the game was stopped in that position through absolutely no fault of your own?

So in a couple of replies you've basically offered up Ipswich's very stern case of defence in regards there must be a replay.

Also stating the case that non of it should ever be up for debate because the rule should always be a replay.

And also 

[...]

I think if anyone is awarded points that shouldn't of got points or weren't in a position to then that's a farce. Giving points for free versus putting a team in  a position to lose the points they already had.