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

[wilsdenrover]

Pasha will now be checking whether an appeal involves an admin fee. 

[alex l]

If we're losing with ten mins left, get the sprinklers on and waterlog the pitch. 

[arbitro]

The mention of an appeal from Rovers tells me this isn't over yet.

[wilsdenrover]

[arbitro]

Sky are reporting that the three Championship club representatives on the EFL board abstained from voting which was absolutely the right thing do.

Parry and Birch will more than likely led on this one.

[wilsdenrover]

Majority not unanimous decision.

 

[Tom]

It was always the default decision and anything else was a very unlikely outcome 

[wilsdenrover]

The decision may have done many things but it certainly hasn’t upheld the integrity of the competition.

 By agreeing to develop new guidance they’ve as good as a admitted the current position is unacceptable.

 

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, Tom said:

It was always the default decision and anything else was a very unlikely outcome 

There is, or certainly shouldn’t be, a default decision.

The regulation isn’t x happens unless y it’s any of xyz are possible.

As I said earlier, why have flexibility in the rules if you’re always going to make the same choice.

 

 

[StHelensRover]

I'm guessing that the absentions were Rovers, Ipswich and then possibly Norwich? 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, StHelensRover said:

I'm guessing that the absentions were Rovers, Ipswich and then possibly Norwich? 

Nope, the three Championship club representatives are from PNE, Norwich, and Middlesbrough.

Edited 2 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[StHelensRover]

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

Nope, the three Championship club representatives are from PNE, Norwich, and Middlesbrough.

Ah right, I'm with you now, it was put to a panel rather than all members of the division, that makes sense. Also makes sense that they would all agree to abstain I suppose.

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, StHelensRover said:

Ah right, I'm with you now, it was put to a panel rather than all members of the division, that makes sense. Also makes sense that they would all agree to abstain I suppose.

The EFL board decided:

https://www.efl.com/about-the-efl/efl-board/

[Valconite]

We will beat them in the replay.

Worst case scenario turn the sprinklers on mid game / turn off the lights and  get it abandoned again for a replay.

[wilsdenrover]

12 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Sky are reporting that the three Championship club representatives on the EFL board abstained from voting which was absolutely the right thing do.

Parry and Birch will more than likely led on this one.

I’d be interested in how the L1 and L2 representatives voted.

[davulsukur]

So, a full replay, as we knew it would be.

And Rovers will lose it, as we all know they will.

[Leonard Venkhater]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

I imagine he’s made it up.

 

Pompous prick is wrong!

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, davulsukur said:

So, a full replay, as we knew it would be.

And Rovers will lose it, as we all know they will.

With those 3 points turning out to be significant. 

[CaptainBeanfart]

On what grounds are we planning to appeal? The precedent for action in these cases is clear. Reminds me of when we embrassed ourselves appealing the O'Brien and McGuire transfers. 

 

It sounds like they'll change the rules now at least, which is long overdue because they're garbage. But that's too late for us. 

[DE.]

The problems at Ewood are well known in regards to drainage. It's happened before so the EFL can't claim ignorance. If they opt to continue ignoring this problem then they are as complicit as the club is in hurting the integrity of the league by having a pitch that can't handle heavy rain and has significant risks of postponements and game abandonments in future. 

The club will only act if the EFL begin to apply financial pressure. Otherwise it certainly appears they couldn't care less about our fans, other fans, managers, players or the integrity of the league. 

Edited 2 hours ago by DE.

[MarkBRFC]

25 minutes ago, arbitro said:

The mention of an appeal from Rovers tells me this isn't over yet.

It's over, whether Rovers like it or not.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, CaptainBeanfart said:

On what grounds are we planning to appeal? The precedent for action in these cases is clear. Reminds me of when we embrassed ourselves appealing the O'Brien and McGuire transfers. 

 

It sounds like they'll change the rules now at least, which is long overdue because they're garbage. But that's too late for us. 

As others have pointed out there’s been no previous occurrence of a game being abandoned so late with one team both leading and a man up.

I guess that’s the angle they’d be pushing given what else the club put in their statement.

Won’t get them anywhere mind.

The EFL hasn’t said they’ll change the rules, just that they’ll consult and issue guidance for any future occurrences.

Cant see the point in that as surely the guidance won’t overrule precedence…

 

[wilsdenrover]

13 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Pompous prick is wrong!

I thought you meant me for a minute but then I remembered I’m never wrong.  😁

[Mercer]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

As others have pointed out there’s been no previous occurrence of a game being abandoned so late with one team both leading and a man up.

I guess that’s the angle they’d be pushing given what else the club put in their statement.

Won’t get them anywhere mind.

The EFL hasn’t said they’ll change the rules, just that they’ll consult and issue guidance for any future occurrences.

Cant see the point in that as surely the guidance won’t overrule precedence…

 

Let's get this straight - there were at least 15 to 20 minutes to go ie 10 minutes normal time plus 5 to 10 minutes added time.  That in my eyes is not an 'abandonment so late'.

Football is a funny old game.  How many times have we seen teams come back (even with 10 men) to either draw a game or win a game in the closing stages after being largely dominated for huge parts of the game.  Ipswich were just 1 goal down - they were not dead and buried.

However unpalatable to Rovers and fans, IMO, the correct and the only logical decision has been made.

An appeal is 99% certain to fail and I think Rovers would better spend their time exploring options for the playing surface and its drains to ensure this never happens again.

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

It's over, whether Rovers like it or not.

I dont want to come over as the guy who's a bad loser but those who predicted we'd get shafted by the EFL were correct.

How can you have a panel where 30% of them can't/won't vote? It was supposedly by majority which means that the voting must have been 6-1, 5-2 or 4-3 and which also means that unless the voting was 6-1 the 3 abstentions were crucial!

If I were Rovers I'd be appealing as a ppint of principle and demanding the vote is reconvened in front of 10 members who are actually willing to cast a vote!