roversfan99

What a strange team. When you lose an attacking player, it tells you a lot when none of De Neve, Henriksson and Kargbo are deemed as the answer, instead choosing Pickering in a team that makes no sense. 2-0 Charlton but in the absence of any media, Rovers to report a 1 nil win.

Games have been replayed in similar albeit not identical situations. I gave 2 examples earlier and neither led to any games forced to the point of abandonment on purpose.

This club becomes more and more of an absolute disgrace with each passing day.

Yeah its all a conspiracy against us. Everyone hates us.

Its one thing questioning the way the situation has been resolved. I dont buy the ideas of them purposely screwing over Rovers, they have followed loose precedent but I am not convinced its the best solution in this instance. But the fact that you are still sticking to your belief that the game should have continued on a pitch that was clearly waterlogged is absolutely laughable.

And that it was "only a bit of rain FFS."

Obviously none are exactly the same. You wont get 2 identical cases, only similar ones. Rotherham v Cardiff in 2023 and Leyton Orient in 2023 were both 1 nil, one was abandoned before and one after the time elapsed in our game. Without a red card. My point was that you can question the precedent used in terms of direct comparability. But this game being replayed is not down to some sort of agenda against Rovers, its nothing to do with anything anyone of an Ipswich persuasion has done. Theyve just followed the same treatment as in other abandoned games, even if they arent exactly the same. Whether its fair enough, thats a different question. Ultimately there is no way to resolve this in a truly fair and accurate way, the game was correctly abandoned and that obviously leaves a huge problem. But its not a choice made because anyone doesnt like Rovers.

My point is that they havent made the decision to spite our club or to favour Ipswich. Or to appease McKenna. Historical cases have in the main had the same outcome. You could argue that the precedent is flawed because each case was different in terms of the timing of the abandonment and the state of the game, and its the easy option. But I dont think this idea that they hate us or that it would have been different if the score was the other way round is anything other than unfounded bitterness and frustration manifesting into unreasonable conclusions.

Im not buying this idea that we have been hard done by because of the club we are, as if Ipswich hold power as if they are a massive club who can swing favours from the FA. Totally get why people are frustrated because its a shit situation. But this decision would have been made either way and we dont need a woe is me act. This tends to be how similar situations have been dealt with in the past.

What McKenna and Ismael want is irrelevant because neither is interested in anything other than a solution that best suits their club. I dont really get either why they have both been allowed to put their case forward. No decision will be fair. The pitch was unplayable so the game couldnt carry on. No subsequent solution would match the balance of playing a full game at the first time of asking. Hence why they will likely just insist on a full replay unfortunately, following precedent cases.

I think the problem is that none of them are fair. I think the best opportunity for a compromise (and this wouldnt always work eg if we had midweek fixtures) has gone. That would have been to keep the Ipswich squad in Lancashire, noting the forecast that the rain was to stop just after midnight. And finish the game on the Sunday with the same teams continuing, including number of subs available etc.

Ultimately, the main reason leading to a replay is precedent. Its not the logistics that are a big factor though. The options are either to have a result based on 80 minutes, a game based on 2 seperate part matches in totally different circumstances, or just to replay the game in full. I would love to be wrong but I cant see anything but a full replay and if that is the case I will be annoyed but I wont see it as a miscarriage of justice or an agenda against us.

The problem is, managers (or "head coaches") have comparably less power than ever before. You have non footballing men in suits deciding how the team will play. You have swarms of geeks spitting out "data" and it comes at the cost of individuality and variety.

I would love them to give us the 3 points but theres no way that you can do that in terms of fairness. The most obvious compromise of playing the remainder of the game also has all sorts of issues. Obviously, to get them up to play 11 minutes plus injury time is very unlikely. But also, the fixture loses integrity because it obviously splits into 2. You are then left with a second mini game weeks/months after the first 80 minutes, with different players, in different conditions, with both sides able to approach such a small period as if its a new game, basing tactics on trying to defend or peg back a lead. Therefore, I can only see in line with precedent that they replay the full game. Its really shit and its hard luck but its very difficult to go ahead with any other option. If it does happen, its not some hatred of us from the EFL, its just sadly following precedent and its the only real option which maintains any real integrity and normality in the fixture.

McKenna obviously wanted what is best for Ipswich, ive no issues with that and we would want the same, equally Ismael will have wanted whats best for Rovers. The ref was impartial and made the correct call to stop a game on a pitch not fit to continue a football match on.

Yeah its just a tactic to presumably try and strengthen our case. But whether he or indeed McKenna agreed is irrelevant to whether it should have been called off, both parties are obviously going to want what is best for their team. But the pitch was clearly not fit to continue so the only decision was to abandon the game. Ismael hasnt said he thought otherwise, just that he didnt agree to it. Its now all about them both trying to get not what is fair, as no solution is totally fair. But what suits each individual party.

It wasnt as simple as that. He clearly was the player with the transplant, he has not taken that hat off even in the pissing down rain. But he had been training in pre season, was seen training for example in the Spain pre season camp, and asked and played in an under 21 game to keep fit weeks before his spell frozen out of the squad ended, which happened to also be the first game post transfer window closing.

That isnt a reason to carry on the game. No matter what decision is made, it wont be a comparable substitute to playing the game when it was supposed to be played. But the game couldnt be finished. The pitch was unplayable. It is as simple as that. They cant carry on and finish a game on a totally waterlogged pitch, where the ball wasnt moving, wasnt bouncing and was also a clear injury risk, just to avoid these unfortunate legalities.

He cant make his mind up. Announcement tonight. When it doesnt come, they will need more time. Cutting edge journalism.

Well no, I have just not become so bitter and twisted over an admittedly frustrating situation to the point where my posts (and dishing out of thumbs down emojis) come across as petulant, bitter and twisted beyond sensible reasoning.

Yes, I am sure that he is laughing his head off that his masterplan of causing the pitch to be totally unplayable due to a waterlogged pitch came to fruition. They came out at the end to clap their fans who had travelled a long way. The pitch was unplayable. End of story.

This is totally irrelevant in deciding whether the pitch was fit enough to continue the game.

If the game is replayed then it is because that is outlined as the process as per the rules and also that has been the precedent in the past. This idea that the EFL "hate" us is ridiculous and doesnt help. And the game was not done and dusted. A 1 goal lead with 10 minutes plus stoppages is not done.

Yes it was a few years ago. They turned down the funding and it included the pipes underneath. Nothing about the club is a "priority" to these owners. The usual evasion of a direct answer but I am taking that as yes. You think a pitch where the ball was stopping repeatedly in the water, couldnt bounce and had loads of puddles on top of it was fit to play on. If thats your answer then you clearly are incapable of allowing your bias to be put aside when trying to judge things properly. Even Ismael seemingly agreed to the abandonmenment. Ive seen people amidst the frustration suggest unfair solutions or unfair directioning of blame but you seem the only one who actually thought the pitch was ok to play on.

The proposals I believe were a total overhaul. The woven pitch was a compromise once the owners didnt fund the overhaul which included a full replacement of the drainage system.