RevidgeBlue

No, obviously any team is always going to lobby for whichever outcome suits them best. You can't blame Ipswich for that. However you'd hope the EFL blessed by absolute discretion within their guidelines would take on board the representations from each Club, but ultimately arrive at the fairest overall solution in any given case. Which obviously hasn't happened here. I bet if you sent a survey out to the 72 Championship Clubs asking a neutral question about what should happen in a hypothetical situation similar to Saturday's, not one would say there should be a full replay under completely different conditions to the remainder of the original game.

Exactly so. Despite the inherent unfairness of the ruling I was expecting it - what I wasn't expecting was for that unfairness to be compounded by the possibility the vote only went against us due to several panel members abstaining! Ludicrous! Given the owners seem to love a good Court case and their previous predilection for throwing away obscene amounts of money in legal fees on seemingly lost causes, now we have an arguable case I hope they go full frontal and appeal and as you say preface it with the threat of legal action as above. The EFL deserve for us to lose the replay and go down by less than three points and for Ipswich to be promoted by less than three points and for them to have the arse sued off them by both us and any other aggrieved Club.

I saw Herbie's reply before and was going to post exactly the same thing but you've beaten me to it! 🙂

Spot on.

Should there then not then be a rule that you can't be on the panel if the outcome affects a Club in your Division due to potential conflict of interest? You can't agree to go on a panel to decide something and then refuse to vote. Well, you can, but it shouldn't be allowed.

Plus the hearing itself was an obvious stitch up. Three out of the ten declined to vote.

I dont want to come over as the guy who's a bad loser but those who predicted we'd get shafted by the EFL were correct. How can you have a panel where 30% of them can't/won't vote? It was supposedly by majority which means that the voting must have been 6-1, 5-2 or 4-3 and which also means that unless the voting was 6-1 the 3 abstentions were crucial! If I were Rovers I'd be appealing as a ppint of principle and demanding the vote is reconvened in front of 10 members who are actually willing to cast a vote!

One thing is that the pressure has been completely taken off VI and the players this week due to all the talk being about the abandonment. Might help. Who knows?

I usually agree with most of what Simon Jordan says but he's been way off beam recently on Rovers with his views on the 3 stooges being requested to stay away and now this. If he thinks any game that doesn't make it to the final whistle is "not a completed fixture" and should be replayed in full, Im sure he'd be delighted if Palace had a game abandoned when they were 5 up with 10 mins to go and it had to be replayed in full.

Two separate aspects to this. In a sporting context Id like there to be a partial replay because thats the fairest outcome. If we get that, Id then like the EFL to come down hard on the Club in the hope it'll provoke us into doing something about it. As things stand If there are any matchdays with prolonged rain this winter it's going to be complete pot luck whether we can start/get through the game. It's completely unfair to fans of either side who have to travel any distance to be put in that situation. Are we going to have to start postponing games 24/48 hours before to be on the safe side if there's a bad forecast? It's not on. As I mentioned previously to me it's not that far removed from part of the ground being unsafe/unfit for use.

Exactly, Id be all over that if I were a lawyer for another Club which misses out as a result at the end of the season.

I think it shows exactly the opposite - just judge each case on its individual merits and act accordingly. Don't make the same decision in every single case where the punishment doesn't necessarily fit the crime. If you did set up a range of rules, there'd have to be a hell of a lot of them, covering different scorelines at every conceivable point/ numbers of players on each side/reasons for the abandonment etc etc

Being objective, that's not fair on Ipswich as they weren't reduced to 10 from the off originally. If you're going down that route I think you'd have to start 11 v 11 then reduce them to 10 at the same time as in the original game which seems unnecessarily convoluted. Much easier to follow the obvious solution of playing out the remainder of the game under as similar conditions to previously as possible.

Which should be the whole point of the new regulations. A range of different solutions for a range of different situations.

To be fair, it's not yet five days since the original decision. I dont get all this "Im bored with it already" type talk. Id rather wait a month if it meant we got to the fairest outcome. I can't see the problem with asking the respective Clubs for their views either. Does that mean that if they were both in agreement about a certain outcome the EFL should ignore that completely and go off and impose their own different solution?

That bears no resemblance whatsoever to the situation at the time the game was abandoned though. They only had to cope/try and equalise with 10 men for around another 15 minutes max not 90. Why is there any need for 90 mins at all?

You've made two great posts above. Absolutely spot on. Precedents are designed to establish general principles but it's very rare any two sets of circumstances are exactly the same, therefore most situations are clearly distinguishable on the facts. You shouldn't need to have to make exactly the same decision time after time simply on the basis "That's what we've always done in the past". You can make a more nuanced decision tailored to the individual circumstances. Presumably that's precisely why the current regulations were drafted in the open ended way they were rather than sticking to a hard and fast rule as previously was the case which would operate grossly unfairly much of the time. (If the Rovers legal team are reading this, mine and Bruce's invoices are in the post)

It's not 1-0 with 16 mins to go though. It's 1-0 11 v 10 with 16 mins to go. The EFL SHOULD utilise the absolute discretion at their disposal and order the remainder of the game to be played under those conditions. It's not absolutely perfect but it's the fairest possible solution. They probably won't though. I expect they'll completely bottle it, mumble something about "precedent" and order a full replay 11 v 11.

Doesn't cost Ipswich any extra they're still travelling the same distance for 15 mins or 90. Presume we'd be out of pocket on a partial re-run as opposed to the full 90 mins if it were held behind closed doors or people were let in for free. It's easily.doable though. All that is needed is the willingness to do it. For the chance of a more or less guaranteed three points we ought to be champing at the bit if we were to get that chance.

Saw that myself, Nixon was apparentlyclaiming that a game called off in the 82nd minute due to illness in the crowd with the score at 1-0 and which was replayed in full was being considered as a precedent. Not really directly comparable as I assume it was 11 v 11 in that game at the time.

They probably already have - similar to the old joke about someone breaking into the Kremlin and stealing next year's election results.

Surely it's better to take a little bit of time to get to the fair and right result according to the individual circumstances of the case than to be bound by an inflexible rule into imposing an unfair one? It's not your time they're wasting anyway. Im not sure why you're so aerated about it, it's not like you at all. 🙂

That's the only cogent argument for a full replay imo - to punish us (and anyone else in future) for not keeping facilities up to scratch. In a purely sporting context Id like to see a part replay but us fined with the threat of escalating punishments for future instances then we might actually do something to rectify the situation. If you can't get a safety certificate for a stand you can't open it. Why should the pitch be exempt from not having to have adequate drainage facilities etc?

Would'nt be at all surprised if that's the case but piss poor if it is. As Wilesden said the other day, what's the point in allowing yourself complete discretion within the regulations if you're just going to make the same decision (i.e. a full replay) every time without taking into account the individual circumstances of every case?

A hard and fast rule is way too inflexible and doesn't differentiate between situations where a team is one up or five up or allow for things like fault or conduct to be considered.