DE.

All clubs in the league sign up to the rules and laws as stated, so whilst they may be pissed off I don't see what grounds any of them would have to launch any kind of appeal. The precedent has been historically set quite clearly (and this is exactly why from the league's pov there should be a consistent approach). If clubs were against the rule as a whole there have been many years to protest against it. As far as I'm aware nobody has, although I'd be interested to see if there was a concerted effort from a group of clubs to change it.

It is pretty weird to have disciplinary action carried over from a game which technically is abandoned. With that said, if a player has been sent off for some kind of violent foul or assault it wouldn't be reasonable to forget that just because the game was abandoned. I assume that's where the logic stems from, although it is without any nuance or flexibility.

Oxford handily beating Bristol City 3-1 away yesterday just hammers home the point that you can take no result for granted in this league. Unless you're playing Sheffield United, obviously.

Fair enough, hard to tell these days with some people seeming to believe the EFL is intent on destroying us!

Apparently our case to the EFL is either for us to be awarded the win or play the final 10 minutes only. Makes sense I suppose, there's no reason the club should advocate for a full replay, although it's a bit cheeky to ask to be awarded the win when our pitch was the reason the game got abandoned in the first place. If you don't ask you don't get, though, so they probably figured it was worth a shot.

The EFL statement clearly states both managers agreed. Neither Rovers nor Ismael have contradicted that statement.

I said that you not caring about player welfare was one of two possibilities. The other is that you believe you know better than three professionals, which is questionable and in my personal view ridiculous, but seems to be the view you hold, so okay. You're free to believe that. Don't exclude Ismael from your rant. He agreed to calling the game off as well.

In what way is it a dig? It's just a statement of fact. If you believe the game should have gone on you disagree with the referee and both managers. Ergo you believe you know better than them about whether the players were at risk or not. If you don't disagree with them but still think the game should have continued then you don't care about the player's safety, only about the match result. It's the only conclusion that can be made on the opinion you say you stand by.

Unlikely, but if not then it means he either believes he knows better than both managers and the referee, or just does not care about player welfare at all. Neither is a good look but one is obviously more deplorable than the other.

I'm not too concerned about us going down at the moment, based on what I've seen across the league thus far. I think the only reason we'd be in trouble is if we suffered a number of serious injuries.

One imagines it comes down to insurance, liability, etc due to the amount of money involved. If the pitch isn't fit for the purpose of playing then it follows that it would be unreasonable to allow players to try and play on it. Should an injury occur it opens various parties up to serious legal actions. @arbitro gave a good example of this from his personal experience, and you can imagine it'd be significantly magnified at Championship level.

The EFL statement says both managers agreed the game should be abandoned, so unless Ismael says otherwise he was also presumably concerned about the welfare of the players irrespective of the situation.

Indeed so, but even then it's still only 6 league games, of which we'd have lost half. Not enough for me to conclude we're stronger than last season. I'd personally need more time to make that call.

The first six games suggests an extremely unpredictable league this year. QPR went from losing 7-1 to Coventry to winning three in a row. Sheffield United have collapsed. Sheffield Wednesday have shown you can compete even with negative support from your owner and a bare bones team (although this will likely bite hard for them as the season goes on). Derby would have expected to build on last season but look poor so far. Looking precarious for Oxford, but they've had some good draws lately which show signs of progress. As you say, promoted clubs this year look solid and Brum/Wrexham in particular shouldn't have to worry about going down. Leicester have immense quality but aren't playing particularly well. Same for Ipswich. Southampton less so in terms of quality, but you'd still expect better from them. Total gamble appointing a 32 year old as manager mind. Boro look very impressive under Rob Edwards. Stoke started well under Mark Robins, despite a disappointing result for them yesterday. Two very shrewd appointments by clubs who have underachieved for a number of years. Still early days of course, but from what I've seen so far the league is going to be less predictable than ever this season.

Ultimately we've only played 5 league games and lost 3 of them. Appreciate this thread came off the back of one of those wins, but far too early to say whether we've dodged a bullet or not. I think our first 11 is good enough to keep us up, but it remains to be seen how we cope with injuries and suspensions as time goes on. Either way, it's not acceptable that our goal is now just to survive with cheap gambles. Venky's need to go and give us the chance to have some real ambition again.

A full replay is technically unfair, but I don't see any real justification to award us the win either. There was still plenty of time for Ipswich to equalise, even down to ten men. It's hardly unprecedented for that to happen in the last 15 minutes or so (including potential injury time). Also, the reason the game was abandoned was because our pitch couldn't handle the weather. It was nothing Ipswich did wrong, so why should they be penalised for the game being abandoned? You can argue how the solution should be handled and it's quite reasonable to say a full replay is not fair to us, but it's also quite reasonable to say giving us the win is not fair to Ipswich either, as it denies them the last 10-15 minutes of the game through no fault of their own.

I just can't see it. With the amount of time left and the score being 1-0, there was still a chance of them scraping a draw at least. Unlikely perhaps being down to 10, but nowhere near impossible. The problem is there's no truly fair and logistically reasonable way to proceed. It's going to be unfair to somebody no matter what, so they'll look at historical precedents and what the decision would mean for similar situations in the future. I think they'll mandate a replayed match, unfortunately.

Six defeats in a row for Sheff Utd, losing today at home to Charlton and failing to score. They are in real trouble.

There's no way I can see anything other than a replay. With injury time there still could have been 15 minutes or more left, at a 1-0 scoreline. Can't see how that would qualify to give us the result, unfortunately.

Instead of celebrating they should have been sitting in the dressing room being told they've had a massive let off and need to improve immediately. They've spent more on a single player than our entire squad cost.

Would be nice for the EFL to look at that and say due to their conduct, result stands and no replay. They won't, but still. I wouldn't be thrilled as an Ipswich fan if the team were celebrating a match abandonment. Total loser's mentality.

If there were financial penalties they'd do something about it.

Ipswich getting a real life version of rage quitting an FM match and reloading the game.

As far as I can see you have to go down to Rochdale in the National League to find another game suspended/postponed, so was the weather around Ewood just locally apocalyptic compared to the rest of the country, or is Ewood just so poorly maintained that we're at National League level?

It would be insanely unfair to replay the match when Ipswich have been down to 10 for almost the entire second half.