bluebruce

Some other team can benefit from the suspension though, whilst we repeat the whole charade and get zero reward for our endeavours, so that's lovely right?

Not even the rules, just an irrational set of precedents. The rules allowed them to replay part of the game, something they're apparently not willing to do at all.

He should at the least be banned specifically from our game. But that's not how it will work.

Hell will freeze and pigs will fly over the molten glacier first.

I see the league statement says they will now consult clubs to look into new guidance for these scenarios. I had a feeling this would happen, we will get the processes changed for everyone else but we won't benefit. Typical.

If you think that's the only logical decision, I'm sorry but your logic is fucking horrendous.

Agreed. But it's still fairer then replaying the whole thing. But yes by far and away the fair option is to finish the game. Personally I'm astonished there is any other option in any game where the scores and number of players are not even. Even if a game were 1 nil and abandoned after 20 minutes I'd still favour finishing the game from that point. Giving the losing side a get out of jail free card is ludicrous IMO.

To get them up to play 11 minutes plus injury time is very unlikely? That sounds entirely like their problem if they don't come up to play it. If that were the case it would only prove they know they were very unlikely to get anything from it. If they want a stab at the points they can come and have a go, if not they can forfeit them. Simple. (Assuming the league actually made this decision, which they definitely won't) Everything you said about the second mini game not being able to replicate the conditions of the original is equally true for a full replay. I don't see why anything you presented as a problem there matters. It's unorthodox (mostly because the league have ridiculously never entertained it before), but it being strange is no reason to say it's not as fair as can be done in the circumstances.

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.

And do something far more ridiculous and illogical than just finishing the game? I don't know why you're persisting with this one beyond sheer bloody mindedness or trolling. I don't wish to be rude but it has been thoroughly deconstructed as a very bad suggestion. I've no issue with you as a poster but hardly anything you've said on this matter makes sense.

I was only treating it like you were someone attempting to make a coherent argument, which I assume most of us do when we post.

What does what Ipswich want have to do with it? I'm talking about the fairest outcome, not what either side wants. Ipswich aren't morally entitled to some reversal of their failures simply because bad weather interrupted the match. How do you arrange it? The same way you arrange 90 minutes, except it's easier as they'll be back on the coach quicker. It's a complete non-point. They'd say they were being punished, well they aren't in any meaningful way, certainly far less than we would be if a full replay happened. Your last remarks here completely undermines your previous points about what Ipswich want. I'm certain they'd rather have a crack at getting a point back than be guaranteed nothing. If that's not the case they should just give up on their season right now.

Agreed, but it probably remains so that if a game is 3-0 with 2 minutes of injury time left to play they can just call it. I suspect they'll only use it when it's beyond obvious what the outcome will be. The partial replay I doubt they'll ever use so it may as well go.

The fairest middle ground has already been repeatedly suggested. Finish the match.

Although funny enough, the only precedent in English football I could find of doing anything other than a replay (if promotion or relegation was still on the cards) was from non-league. The professional leagues always seem to go for the replay. You were totally right in your other post where you said the rules don't suggest you have to do a replay at all. In fact I'd argue they imply (tacitly) that after 75 mins you should either call the match as is, or play the remaining minutes at a later date. But despite that, precedent has shown the EFL always order a full replay so it would be a massive shock if they did anything else. Might even open a legal can of worms over previous judgements from other clubs.

And yet that's the craziest one I've seen.

Problem is you couldn't expect as high as portion of Ipswich fans to travel relative to the usual following, as Rovers fans, for 15 minutes of football. Free ticket or not. I think you'd have to make it behind closed doors (something else Ipswich couldn't complain about, if anything that gives them an edge vs the real game) and perhaps stream it for free somewhere (not sure if the rights allow for that, but just let Sky show it if they want).

In fact the ref could have opened himself up to other legalities (or perhaps the league would have been deemed responsible) if a player had suffered a career ending injury because their leg got caught in the ground at the wrong moment.

Not more of an advantage than being 1 nil up against 10 men though. But yes, it would probably be better for them than if the rain had relented enough to get the game finished on the day. They'd also get time to plan exactly how to deal with having 10 men against us. But again, it isn't happening any more than Venkys giving us a 50 million quid warchest in January.

It's a statement of fact concerning precedent, fairly recent ones at that. Nothing is sufficiently different about this case. There is no reason they will overturn precedent for us. I'd be happy to wager significant money on it. If anything we usually get fucked over by the authorities, we're not a West Ham who can get decisions like that in our favour. It's not a fact that it will happen, but it's as near as dammit. What I'm telling you is you're wasting your time checking for updates, it's as near to a foregone conclusion as you're likely to see. You might as well be checking whether Trump will say something moronic this week.

I can't imagine the bureaucrats were in work over the weekend. It will only have appeared in their emails today, then they'll set a day and time to discuss it etc etc. Could hear about it any time between tomorrow and a fortnight knowing how things get dragged out.

Given that in professional English football as far as anyone can seem to find, at least in recent years, the precedent has been to always replay it unless there is nothing at stake, even in games more foregone than ours, you will be very very safe in assuming we are going to have to replay the whole match.

Indeed. And replaying the whole thing doesn't replicate any of the conditions. The same players can't be guaranteed for that either. The logic is incredibly weak.

The 'you can't guarantee the same players could walk out on the replay' argument...firstly I don't really care if some changes are made. Perhaps with remaining subs or whatever if there were any, if not then meh. But moreover, there really should be a long term protocol for this. Whether they wait up to 3 hours for conditions to improve, or reconvene the next day to see if the pitch is playable. There is no perfect solution, but the least perfect of all solutions is to replay the entire fucking thing.

Literally said in my first post about it that AI can be incorrect.