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

[RoyWegerlesLeftToe]

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

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. 

It's in between a river and a hill (who's run off goes in to the same river at the same point as the ground) which is the geographical challenge with the drainage in this situation. 

I appreciate the "we should have invested to fix the problem", but it isn't a simple fix due to geography. 

[MarkBRFC]

If the council had just rerouted the river like Suhail asked we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Eddie]

I think the only realistic and 'fair' outcome is a full replay, but that Ipswich allow us to score immediately. If we can't win from 1-0 up with 90 minutes to go, then it's at least a somewhat balanced outcome.

That would also allow Cantwell (assuming that he is available) to get a goal that may be significant for him in terms of bonuses and incentives. 

[TheKitGuy]

55 minutes ago, Tom said:

Probably wouldn’t help our cause that there was probably heading for 10 minutes of stoppage time (given the refs technical issues) and in the 5 games previously we’ve conceded 3 in injury time.

Even with a man extra I don’t think many of us would have been thinking it was home and ‘dry’ at the time.

There’s just no way we can be awarded the points sadly as far as I can see, whilst a replay seems unjust from our eyes at least we’d still have control of the outcome whereas just writing it off as a Rovers win can’t be fair to Ipswich.

That said the obvious and most reasonable solution is the option to play the rest of the game but it feels like that won’t be in consideration 

 

Was never going to be dry, that's why it was called off!

[wilsdenrover]

Anyone else bored of waiting?

Just make a decision and communicate it to us.

I appear to have used up all of my patience on the Indian court system. 😁😁

[Neal]

I was pissed off none of the ground staff were trying to run the water off the pitch but I'm told the groundsmen are a bit grumpy and protective over the work they've done. Apparently the ref ordered them out to sort it out so they did the bare minimum as they argued with him that it was his choice to play the game despite the weather warning. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Neal

[Tom]

Just now, Neal said:

I was pissed off none of the ground staff were trying to run the water off the pitch but I'm told the groundsmen are a bit grumpy and protective over the work they've done. Apparently they ref ordered them out to sort it out so they did the bare minimum as they argued with him that it was his choice to play the game despite the weather warning. 

From what I saw it looked like they poked it a bit but at other grounds I’ve seen people literally running round almost sweeping the water off 

[arbitro]

32 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

If the council had just rerouted the river like Suhail asked we wouldn't be in this mess.

I suggest rerouting Suhail and leaving the River alone.

[arbitro]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

Probably wouldn’t help our cause that there was probably heading for 10 minutes of stoppage time (given the refs technical issues) and in the 5 games previously we’ve conceded 3 in injury time.

Even with a man extra I don’t think many of us would have been thinking it was home and ‘dry’ at the time.

There’s just no way we can be awarded the points sadly as far as I can see, whilst a replay seems unjust from our eyes at least we’d still have control of the outcome whereas just writing it off as a Rovers win can’t be fair to Ipswich.

That said the obvious and most reasonable solution is the option to play the rest of the game but it feels like that won’t be in consideration 

 

It doesn't count for anything but I was so relaxed about them not scoring. In fact just before the pause I said I fancied us to score again.

[Neal]

1 minute ago, Tom said:

From what I saw it looked like they poked it a bit but at other grounds I’ve seen people literally running round almost sweeping the water off 

Yeah that's what annoyed me but speaking to someone who knows the ground staff, they did it on purpose because they were pissed off at the ref for playing the game in the first place and they knew nothing could really be done. I personally think 15 mins of hard graft running the water off the pitch would have gotten us to full time. The ground staff obviously aren't that way out. 

[norwichblue]

3 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I suggest rerouting Suhail and leaving the River alone.

I suggest rerouting Suhail into the river.

[Gamst]

It’s taking them a very long time if their decision is a full replay 11v11. The delay would suggest they are at least considering the options. I said just after the game was abandoned that the sending off and the penalty would make their decision difficult especially considering the precedent where the suspension stands. That’s 2 rule infractions that can’t just be ignored and if you keep the suspension why not keep the penalty and the multiple bookings. 

[...]

31 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I think the only realistic and 'fair' outcome is a full replay, but that Ipswich allow us to score immediately. If we can't win from 1-0 up with 90 minutes to go, then it's at least a somewhat balanced outcome.

That would also allow Cantwell (assuming that he is available) to get a goal that may be significant for him in terms of bonuses and incentives. 

If we start at 1-0 then it evens the fairness in respect to giving us a head start and they get 90 minutes to play. 

[Torgeir]

19 minutes ago, Neal said:

Yeah that's what annoyed me but speaking to someone who knows the ground staff, they did it on purpose because they were pissed off at the ref for playing the game in the first place and they knew nothing could really be done. I personally think 15 mins of hard graft running the water off the pitch would have gotten us to full time. The ground staff obviously aren't that way out. 

Did they let the referee know their stance before the game? It would strengthen our case in my view.

[rob_of_the_rovers]

Let's do a 90 minute match but if they win it's classified as a draw and both teams get 1 point 

Edited 1 hour ago by rob_of_the_rovers

[47er]

When do we expect a decision?

[DackDackGoose]

I'm seeing news that they're using a Leyton orient game last year as the precedent (called off past 80th minute). Very different with red and yellow cards involved. May be speculation though.

Any proof that we have drainage issues though it's a no brainer. No proof then maybe they are considering something progressive 

[Penwortham Blue]

Anyone listened to the latest Arte et Labore pod, couple of Jokers ! Both agree only fair outcome is restart from 80 minutes but because of logistics / finance decided that won’t happen and so only fair solution is a replay. What the hell has logistics and cost got to do with a fair and equitable solution !

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, DackDackGoose said:

I'm seeing news that they're using a Leyton orient game last year as the precedent (called off past 80th minute). Very different with red and yellow cards involved. May be speculation though.

Any proof that we have drainage issues though it's a no brainer. No proof then maybe they are considering something progressive 

Called off for very different reasons and only stopped when home fans (with a very good intention) came onto and refused to leave the pitch.

 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, Penwortham Blue said:

Anyone listened to the latest Arte et Labore pod, couple of Jokers ! Both agree only fair outcome is restart from 80 minutes but because of logistics / finance decided that won’t happen and so only fair solution is a replay. What the hell has logistics and cost got to do with a fair and equitable solution !

Why would playing a partial game cost more than playing a full game??

[oldjamfan1]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Called off for very different reasons and only stopped when home fans (with a very good intention) came onto and refused to leave the pitch.

 

And also I think both teams actually agreed to replay the game in full.

[Hasta]

I have to admit I thought this would be a straight forward "replayed" announcement on Monday and am surprised we haven't heard anything back yet. 

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, DackDackGoose said:

I'm seeing news that they're using a Leyton orient game last year as the precedent (called off past 80th minute). Very different with red and yellow cards involved. May be speculation though.

Saw that myself, Nixon was apparentlyclaiming that a game called off in the 82nd minute due to illness in the crowd with the score at 1-0 and which was replayed in full was being considered as a precedent.

Not really directly comparable as I assume it was 11 v 11 in that game at the time.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, oldjamfan1 said:

And also I think both teams actually agreed to replay the game in full.

Thanks.

It’s almost as if ‘journalists’ are picking and choosing which bits of info to share with us…

[MarkBRFC]

Probably need another day or two to convince us that they looked at every other option before deciding to replay it.