wilsdenrover

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.

Is an appeal really going to be an option or is Nicko just after more clicks??

Once the decision has been made I bet Ipswich communicate it before Rovers do.

Travel time surely can’t be a consideration, the decision should be the same whether the away team has a 10 or 250 mile journey. Ipswich can always decide the chance to gain a point or 3 isn’t worth the bother…

But we were.

He’s pretty much tried to suggest events of the second half were due to conditions. A not very subtle attempt to push the full replay narrative?: https://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/25482903.ipswich-town-kieran-mckenna-abandoned-game-blackburn-rovers/

Everything can’t be the same so nothing should be doesn’t seem like the strongest argument to me.

Give it time…

It’s amazing the rabbit holes we manage to send ourselves down on here. 😁😁

We have no legal obligation to any other club re our drainage facilities so it certainly wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) be us.

I agree (maybe keep the Norwich one…) but I bet that would get the lawyers interested. The regulation says the Board decides and the Board has an exact definition set out for it.

Re the bit I’ve emboldened - I’d look at the balance of probabilities. I have no issue with the absolute discretion of the regulation as it is written. My issue is with the EFLs apparent reluctance to ever use this discretion. Which is pretty much what you’ve just said 😁

When I see some of the names on the EFL board I have no faith in them either: https://www.efl.com/about-the-efl/efl-board/

Yea it’s £100 per person travel for maximum 24 people. There’s then the same amount (and person limit) for hotels. The hotel one has conditions to do with travel time linked to it but I’m pretty certain Ipswich could claim this one too.

Just to be clear I made that up 😁 I was just trying to show how easy it would be to get around the concern you raised. All you need is an Authority who wants its rules to be fit for purpose…