wilsdenrover

If Pasha is thinking that way the list of why he should fuck off has just got even longer.

I’m also unsure why the obsession with having or creating a precedent is. As long as the EFL set out clearly what they took in account they’ll be able to justify different decisions in the future.

Thanks. It’s almost as if ‘journalists’ are picking and choosing which bits of info to share with us…

Why would playing a partial game cost more than playing a full game??

Called off for very different reasons and only stopped when home fans (with a very good intention) came onto and refused to leave the pitch.

Anyone else bored of waiting? Just make a decision and communicate it to us. I appear to have used up all of my patience on the Indian court system. 😁😁

Who thinks the EFL made their decision in five minutes but are delaying releasing it to make it seem like they’ve been considering alternatives?

Their U21s are playing in Chorley tonight (vs PNE).

I guess the issue with having an arbitrary x minute = rule is it would increase the pressure on the referee. As the said minute approached the losing manager would be imploring the ref to call the match off whilst the winning one would be insisting it continued. Of course once that minute went by both managers would immediately pivot to the other opinion without a hint of irony… We could have saved all this bother by just sorting the bloody drainage out.

The EFLs interpretation of their rules to allow Guiu to be eligible for Chelsea in the Carabao cup shows they can be flexible when they want to be. I doubt there’s a chance we’re one of the clubs they’d want to favour though…

Yep, then just wait ‘til we lose said replay…

If they’re not willing to look at each case individually they should remove the flexibility to do so from the rules.

I think Ipswich will moan at anything other than a full replay. As I said earlier, I don’t think either side can be justifiably unhappy with carrying on from where the match was halted.

The only times I’ve seen these quoted is from an FA document which is aimed at lower level (ie amateur) football.

One thing I’ve learnt from this is how many different (and incorrect) interpretations of a regulation journalists and pundits can make. The number of them saying ‘the rules point towards…’ when they do anything but is quite frankly staggering.

Rovers getting a single point for a win doesn’t mean Ipswich wouldn’t have lost the chance to get 3 points from a partial/full replay.

Why the ‘have to’ when the league has endless other options available to them?

But only if she says you can.

I’d say they’d definitely lose… We’d have been declared the winner and therefore Ipswich would’ve been given a point for losing.

Looks like we might be aiming for ninth in the future… https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13436643/efl-board-discussing-championship-play-offs-expansion-to-give-seventh-and-eighth-placed-finishers-chance-of-promotion

What would Ipswich have to be (genuinely) unhappy about a partial replay? They’ve already indicated a willingness to travel again so saying they can do that for 90 minutes but not 15 would seem just a tad disingenuous. Equally, I don’t see how we could argue playing out the remaining minutes wasn’t fair either.

In my opinion: The EFL should tell Ipswich and Rovers their decision (eg continuing from where the match was stopped). The EFL give the clubs the chance to agree on logistics (date, tickets etc etc) If the clubs cannot agree these things the EFL then decides for them.

Well made points but nothing that doesn’t seem insurmountable - just needs willing from all parties…

Surely there’s minimal difference (if any) between this and a full replay?

The EFL should take no account of clubs digging their heels in and should just make a decision. That being said, it’s almost certain Nicko is talking bollocks.