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.

 ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[Tom]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

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.

Absolutely - and of the remaining options the full replay is the only one that is true to usual football standards and whilst we would be aggrieved we would still have the chance to go and get 3 points

[M_B]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You've made two great posts above. Absolutely spot on.

Precedents are designed to establish general principles but it's very rare any two sets of circumstances are exactly the same, therefore most situations are clearly distinguishable on the facts. You shouldn't need to have to make exactly the same decision time after time simply on the basis "That's what we've always done in the past".

You can make a more nuanced decision tailored to the individual circumstances. Presumably that's precisely why the current regulations were drafted in the open ended way they were rather than sticking to a hard and fast rule as previously was the case  which would operate grossly unfairly much of the time.

(If the Rovers legal team are reading this, mine and Bruce's invoices are in the post)

Have they not already set a precedent by allowing both sides to put their case forward ?

It's obvious what both sides will want, but the facts haven't changed since Saturday. The decision should be made without any club intervention. 

[chaddyrovers]

No way is a full replay of the game fair on us. Given that's Ismael didnt agree and McKenna didnt. He tried to get the game calling out. How's is that a fair play and for sporting integrity that people mentions. 

The EFL cant make a decision and the fact they allowing each club to put their points in means that all 3 decisions are possible. 

8 people on the panel

[roversfan99]

What McKenna and Ismael want is irrelevant because neither is interested in anything other than a solution that best suits their club.

I dont really get either why they have both been allowed to put their case forward.

No decision will be fair. The pitch was unplayable so the game couldnt carry on. No subsequent solution would match the balance of playing a full game at the first time of asking.

Hence why they will likely just insist on a full replay unfortunately, following precedent cases.

[Crimpshrine]

8 hours ago, bluebruce said:

I know it's the least fair option of all actually. It makes fuck all sense, for reasons that have been covered extensively in this thread. This isn't Rovers bias, at least not in my case, it's just basic logic and fairness. I'll be saying the same things if it happens to us against Charlton with the roles reversed.

Fairest option - finish the game. Second fairest option - give Rovers the points. Least fair option - replay a whole 90 minutes for the sake of 10 plus injury time, massively favouring a side who had almost certainly thrown the game away and punishing one who had worked themselves into a strong position, also tiring both squads out further.

There is only one 'fair' option which is to finish the game with the same set of players on the pitch for both sides. 11 v 10. But that won't happen.

Giving one side the points without finishing the game can never be described as fair - it denies the other side the opportunity to gain points through no fault of their own - despite the odds being heavily against them - anything can happen in sport. 

Remember Devon Loch

[norwichblue]

25 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

No decision will be fair.

Not fair on Ipswich: giving us the pts

Not fair on Rovers: full replay

Middle ground: play the remainder in same circumstances (score and cards)

Seems like the only logical solution to me!