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

[47er]

Anything other than a full replay would be astonishingly radical and would set a new precedent.

I can't see the football authorities being that brave.

A good manager should be able to use this though. We should run out on Saturday with a sense of grievance and tear into the opposition!

Edited 2 hours ago by 47er

[DE.]

Having listened to Ismael's interview, he's being very cute with his words. Saying that he didn't explicitly agree to the abandonment because he wasn't asked, but not saying he disagreed with it either. His issue seemed to be more with the EFL statement than whether the pitch was unplayable or whether the match could continue. 

[Elrovers]

16 minutes ago, DE. said:

Having listened to Ismael's interview, he's being very cute with his words. Saying that he didn't explicitly agree to the abandonment because he wasn't asked, but not saying he disagreed with it either. His issue seemed to be more with the EFL statement than whether the pitch was unplayable or whether the match could continue. 

Tbf the pitch ain’t his problem. He just needs to make sure the players perform week in and week out and give us the results. 

[47er]

20 minutes ago, DE. said:

Having listened to Ismael's interview, he's being very cute with his words. Saying that he didn't explicitly agree to the abandonment because he wasn't asked, but not saying he disagreed with it either. His issue seemed to be more with the EFL statement than whether the pitch was unplayable or whether the match could continue. 

The pitch was unplayable though. It came late in the game but if the ball doesn't roll and it doesn't bounce---then its unplayable.

Doesn't matter what the time was, ref had no choice.

Ismael has his role to perform I suppose.

[Tom]

Yep Ismael clearly hasn’t said he disagrees with the decision to call it off just that he wasn’t part of that decision.

Seems to me like we are bracing for bad news and getting the statement out ahead of it there 

[roversfan99]

Yeah its just a tactic to presumably try and strengthen our case.

But whether he or indeed McKenna agreed is irrelevant to whether it should have been called off, both parties are obviously going to want what is best for their team. But the pitch was clearly not fit to continue so the only decision was to abandon the game. Ismael hasnt said he thought otherwise, just that he didnt agree to it.

Its now all about them both trying to get not what is fair, as no solution is totally fair. But what suits each individual party. 

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Great to see Ismael coming out and saying that he never agreed with the referee decision and that point of his report is wrong. So why did the ref say he did? Why has lied in his report? 

It was all McKenna and Ipswich were wanting the game calling out for these reasons, they were losing, down to 10 men and Rovers were controlling that game. Nothing in his team favour. 

McKenna obviously wanted what is best for Ipswich, ive no issues with that and we would want the same, equally Ismael will have wanted whats best for Rovers.

The ref was impartial and made the correct call to stop a game on a pitch not fit to continue a football match on.

[Upside Down]

The game should be replayed in full but every player should be blindfolded throughout so as to not prejudice the result.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, DE. said:

Having listened to Ismael's interview, he's being very cute with his words. Saying that he didn't explicitly agree to the abandonment because he wasn't asked, but not saying he disagreed with it either. His issue seemed to be more with the EFL statement than whether the pitch was unplayable or whether the match could continue. 

Interesting that he said in France they just play the remainder of the game asap.

On the face of it that seems the fairest solution and we could do with a new type of precedent being set to start the ball rolling along those lines here.