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

[oneandycrawford]

1 hour ago, Ossydave said:

Well its pretty concerning that it's only September and we've already fallen victim to the rain.

Granted it pissed down a LOT that afternoon but there's bound to be nervousness now every time it rains when we're at home. Away fans will look on anxiously before travelling depending on the forecast. It shouldn't really be like this, but it is, and there's no solution in sight.

Derby must be breathing a sigh of relief though as large elements of our fans are now directing hatred towards Ipswich instead....you'd think they'd left a tap on somewhere.

Well there's bound to be someone at Derby who still has some keys to Ewood!

[wilsdenrover]

7 hours ago, 47er said:

Pretty obvious watching the EFL highlights the there was widespread rain that day but other clubs played on without difficulty.

 

Quite clear that Ewood has a particular problem which the club has ignored and just hoped for the  best.

That could cost us 3 valuable points this season and who knows how important that could be?

Rovers should be announcing that its calling in experts to engineer a lasting solution to a long-standing problem but the club is silent on this matter thus far.

Going to continue flying by the seat of your pants are we?

One thing is for sure, we won't get away with it next time we are the only club who can't complete a fixture.

Fix now or get big fines?

They won’t want to say that now in case it prejudices any appeal.

They won’t want to say it later as it will mean spending money.

Edited 2 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

5 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

No, obviously any team is always going to lobby for whichever outcome suits them best. You can't blame Ipswich for that.

However you'd hope the EFL blessed by absolute discretion within their guidelines would take on board the representations from each Club, but ultimately arrive at the fairest overall solution in any given case.

Which obviously hasn't happened here.

I bet if you sent a survey out to the 72 Championship Clubs asking a neutral question about what should happen in a hypothetical situation similar to Saturday's, not one would say there should be a full replay under completely different conditions to the remainder of the original game.

If they were honest, they’d answer ‘it depends which of the teams we were’ (as suggested in your opening sentence).

Edited 2 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

8 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

My point is that they havent made the decision to spite our club or to favour Ipswich. Or to appease McKenna.

Historical cases have in the main had the same outcome. You could argue that the precedent is flawed because each case was different in terms of the timing of the abandonment and the state of the game, and its the easy option. But I dont think this idea that they hate us or that it would have been different if the score was the other way round is anything other than unfounded bitterness and frustration manifesting into unreasonable conclusions.

I’d say the only caveat to that is Ipswich could have added to their submission the fact the drainage issue is a known one which we’ve done nothing to resolve.

Whether that would have changed the outcome, who knows, but it would certainly have added weight to their argument. 

[RoversTilliDie]

I will not be going to the replayed game, in protest of the decision. 

[Penwortham Blue]

8 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

My point is that they havent made the decision to spite our club or to favour Ipswich. Or to appease McKenna.

Historical cases have in the main had the same outcome. You could argue that the precedent is flawed because each case was different in terms of the timing of the abandonment and the state of the game, and its the easy option. But I dont think this idea that they hate us or that it would have been different if the score was the other way round is anything other than unfounded bitterness and frustration manifesting into unreasonable conclusions.

I’m not suggesting that they have maliciously favoured one club or made a decision to appease a certain manager. They have simply made a decision that is clearly wrong to all that would support the only outcome that would be fair to both teams, and all teams competing in the EFL Championship this season.

[Tomphil2]

44 minutes ago, RoversTilliDie said:

I will not be going to the replayed game, in protest of the decision. 

Who does that impact or help ?

Certainly not the EFL and an empty ground only helps Ipswich.

[GHD]

8 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Exactly my point from day 1. 

What other historical cases are like ours? 1 nil up and vs 10 men plus 10 minutes left

That was not your point from day 1. Your point from day 1 was that the pitch was playable and the match should have been finished

[GHD]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

They won’t want to say that now in case it prejudices any appeal.

They won’t want to say it later as it will mean spending money.

Agree! Instead ( even though it is the drainage) they should push the fact that the railway which passes Ewood was also closed due to flooding for a few hours on Saturday.

[roversfan99]

And that it was "only a bit of rain FFS."

[oldjamfan1]

10 hours ago, Uddersfelt Blue said:

Would have been interesting had Ipswich been 1-0 up and us down to 10 men.

Would they have been so keen to come off the pitch and support the referee’s and subsequent EFL’s decision? 

They certainly wouldn’t have been playing silly sideways passes on the edge of their box on a sodden pitch (which in my view was a deliberate ploy to get the game off).

[oldjamfan1]

1 hour ago, Tomphil2 said:

Who does that impact or help ?

Certainly not the EFL and an empty ground only helps Ipswich.

Exactly! If anything could provoke a full Ewood, this should. A bit of creative thinking and we could actually turn this into a massive positive, a galvanising moment. 

[chaddyrovers]

56 minutes ago, GHD said:

That was not your point from day 1. Your point from day 1 was that the pitch was playable and the match should have been finished

I also said McKenna and Ipswich got what they wanted. Match called off and full match replay. They got what they wanted whilst we get sod all 

48 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

And that it was "only a bit of rain FFS."

It was only a bit of rain. ffs. Maybe if Ipswich stop trying to side wides and gone more direct. But its OK, you just side with EFL and wrong decision. Pointless having an EFL Board when 3 of them dont vote

[chaddyrovers]

 

 

[...]

Why did the ref start the game then knowing our grounds history of being water logged shouldn't of even let it go to 80th with any foresight that it could of potentially being called off. He let the game run and we should of just ended it. Both teams were playing on the same pitch at the end of the day. Both ran through puddles both sliding etc.

[chaddyrovers]

 

 

 

[K-Hod]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I also said McKenna and Ipswich got what they wanted. Match called off and full match replay. They got what they wanted whilst we get sod all 

It was only a bit of rain. ffs. Maybe if Ipswich stop trying to side wides and gone more direct. But its OK, you just side with EFL and wrong decision. Pointless having an EFL Board when 3 of them dont vote

You're trying to re-write history to make yourself look better here, as others have observed, that isn't what you initially said at the time.

It's okay to admit you changed your mind. 

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, K-Hod said:

You're trying to re-write history to make yourself look better here, as others have observed, that isn't what you initially said at the time.

It's okay to admit you changed your mind. 

Wrong again Kenny 

The ref should have played on and been much stronger then allowing McKenna and Ipswich to influence his decision. McKenna got what he want out of this appalling decision. 

The game shouldn't be fully replayed but the remaining time, Rovers 1 nil, 11 vs 10, same teams as 80 mins