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

[Elrovers]

16 minutes ago, DE. said:

Having listened to Ismael's interview, he's being very cute with his words. Saying that he didn't explicitly agree to the abandonment because he wasn't asked, but not saying he disagreed with it either. His issue seemed to be more with the EFL statement than whether the pitch was unplayable or whether the match could continue. 

Tbf the pitch ain’t his problem. He just needs to make sure the players perform week in and week out and give us the results. 

[47er]

20 minutes ago, DE. said:

Having listened to Ismael's interview, he's being very cute with his words. Saying that he didn't explicitly agree to the abandonment because he wasn't asked, but not saying he disagreed with it either. His issue seemed to be more with the EFL statement than whether the pitch was unplayable or whether the match could continue. 

The pitch was unplayable though. It came late in the game but if the ball doesn't roll and it doesn't bounce---then its unplayable.

Doesn't matter what the time was, ref had no choice.

Ismael has his role to perform I suppose.

[Tom]

Yep Ismael clearly hasn’t said he disagrees with the decision to call it off just that he wasn’t part of that decision.

Seems to me like we are bracing for bad news and getting the statement out ahead of it there 

[roversfan99]

Yeah its just a tactic to presumably try and strengthen our case.

But whether he or indeed McKenna agreed is irrelevant to whether it should have been called off, both parties are obviously going to want what is best for their team. But the pitch was clearly not fit to continue so the only decision was to abandon the game. Ismael hasnt said he thought otherwise, just that he didnt agree to it.

Its now all about them both trying to get not what is fair, as no solution is totally fair. But what suits each individual party. 

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Great to see Ismael coming out and saying that he never agreed with the referee decision and that point of his report is wrong. So why did the ref say he did? Why has lied in his report? 

It was all McKenna and Ipswich were wanting the game calling out for these reasons, they were losing, down to 10 men and Rovers were controlling that game. Nothing in his team favour. 

McKenna obviously wanted what is best for Ipswich, ive no issues with that and we would want the same, equally Ismael will have wanted whats best for Rovers.

The ref was impartial and made the correct call to stop a game on a pitch not fit to continue a football match on.

[Upside Down]

The game should be replayed in full but every player should be blindfolded throughout so as to not prejudice the result.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, DE. said:

Having listened to Ismael's interview, he's being very cute with his words. Saying that he didn't explicitly agree to the abandonment because he wasn't asked, but not saying he disagreed with it either. His issue seemed to be more with the EFL statement than whether the pitch was unplayable or whether the match could continue. 

Interesting that he said in France they just play the remainder of the game asap.

On the face of it that seems the fairest solution and we could do with a new type of precedent being set to start the ball rolling along those lines here.

[wilsdenrover]

Who thinks the EFL made their decision in five minutes but are delaying releasing it to make it seem like they’ve been considering alternatives?

[oldjamfan1]

33 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Who thinks the EFL made their decision in five minutes but are delaying releasing it to make it seem like they’ve been considering alternatives?

Yes. Either that or the Norwich rep wants to award the three points to Rovers and has challenged Risible Risdale to a game of rock, paper, scissors to decide things. 

[Tomphil2]

Probably just waiting for their lawyer reports to see what Rovers could do if the game is ordered a full replay and what the other lot might do if the result is called.

It'll all come down to covering themselves and opening the smallest worm can.

There should be a hard and fast rule already in place for these situations.

[MarkBRFC]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Who thinks the EFL made their decision in five minutes but are delaying releasing it to make it seem like they’ve been considering alternatives?

Said a few times in this very thread.

Decision was made Saturday night IMO, and everything else is just going through the motions to look like they have taken everything into account.

[RevidgeBlue]

19 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

There should be a hard and fast rule already in place for these situations.

A hard and fast rule is way too inflexible and doesn't differentiate between situations where a team is one up or five up or allow for things like fault or conduct to be considered.

[Mercer]

I would be staggeringly surprised if the EFL made any other decision other than a full replay.

The facts are Rovers were just 1 goal in front with 10 minutes of normal time plus added on time to go (say a minimum of 5 extra minutes) meaning there were at least 15 minutes of the game left.

Against Brum, we were 1 up and Brum equalised in the last minute of normal time and then went on to win in added time.  There is the Ipswich case - the game was far from dead and buried.

We don't deserve any favours.  Our pitch has been an issue for years and we have done virtually feck all to remedy the situation.  Even though the ground is next to a river, as are many other sporting stadia, modern technology and solutions provide numerous options to overcome the issue.  Sadly, IMO, crass management has shot us in the foot again.

Time for both Rovers and some fans to stop bellyaching.  McKenna was acting in the best interests of Ipswich as I am sure Ismael would have done if the positions had been reversed. 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

Said a few times in this very thread.

Decision was made Saturday night IMO, and everything else is just going through the motions to look like they have taken everything into account.

Would'nt be at all surprised if that's the case but piss poor if it is. As Wilesden said the other day, what's the point in allowing yourself complete discretion within the regulations if you're just going to make the same decision (i.e. a full replay) every time without taking into account the individual circumstances of every case?