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

[wilsdenrover]

9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I would love them to give us the 3 points but theres no way that you can do that in terms of fairness.

The most obvious compromise of playing the remainder of the game also has all sorts of issues. Obviously, to get them up to play 11 minutes plus injury time is very unlikely. But also, the fixture loses integrity because it obviously splits into 2. You are then left with a second mini game weeks/months after the first 80 minutes, with different players, in different conditions, with both sides able to approach such a small period as if its a new game, basing tactics on trying to defend or peg back a lead.

Therefore, I can only see in line with precedent that they replay the full game. It’s really shit and it’s hard luck but it’s very difficult to go ahead with any other option. If it does happen, its not some hatred of us from the EFL, its just sadly following precedent and its the only real option which maintains any real integrity and normality in the fixture.

Apart from the duration, how is any of that different than a full replay?

Even the fixture being split is still effectively true, 80 minutes which won’t count and 90 which will. 

I also fail to see how a full replay has any form of sporting integrity linked to it.

It might be the easiest option for the EFL to take but let’s not pretend it’s the fairest one. 

 

 

[wilsdenrover]

8 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Ultimately, the main reason leading to a replay is precedent.

Its not the logistics that are a big factor though. The options are either to have a result based on 80 minutes, a game based on 2 seperate part matches in totally different circumstances, or just to replay the game in full.

I would love to be wrong but I cant see anything but a full replay and if that is the case I will be annoyed but I wont see it as a miscarriage of justice or an agenda against us.

Why have three options available to them but only ever use one of them.

Ludicrous (them not you).

[wilsdenrover]

Whilst I’m at it 😁

In my opinion the EFL shouldn’t have engaged in getting the opinions of the two clubs.

They were probably hoping both would suggest the same thing but it’s beyond obvious they’d each favour the option which favoured them most.

You’re the body in charge, just make your sodding decision. 

 

[roverblue]

I find it hard to fathom how anyone (let alone rovers fans) can deem a full replay with 11 vs 11 and at 0-0 a fair outcome to the situation.

Its the most likely purely because its the easy option for the EFL and we aren't a Leeds/Boro/Sheff Utd who wouldn't stand for it and gain a lot more media/legal attention.

[Tomphil2]

10 hours ago, Eddie said:

Ordered? By our owners? 

By the financial director placed on the board by the owners.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Apart from the duration, how is any of that different than a full replay?

Even the fixture being split is still effectively true, 80 minutes which won’t count and 90 which will. 

I also fail to see how a full replay has any form of sporting integrity linked to it.

It might be the easiest option for the EFL to take but let’s not pretend it’s the fairest one. 

 

 

I think the problem is that none of them are fair.

I think the best opportunity for a compromise (and this wouldnt always work eg if we had midweek fixtures) has gone. That would have been to keep the Ipswich squad in Lancashire, noting the forecast that the rain was to stop just after midnight. And finish the game on the Sunday with the same teams continuing, including number of subs available etc.

[GHD]

58 minutes ago, roverblue said:

I find it hard to fathom how anyone (let alone rovers fans) can deem a full replay with 11 vs 11 and at 0-0 a fair outcome to the situation.

Its the most likely purely because its the easy option for the EFL and we aren't a Leeds/Boro/Sheff Utd who wouldn't stand for it and gain a lot more media/legal attention.

 ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️