roversfan99

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.

The part in bold is just wild speculation on your part. The ref blew his whistle after a 2nd/3rd successive simple pass had totally stopped in the water. That surely suggests that it was a correct response directly to witnessing the fact that the pitch was clearly unplayable in front of his eyes. A couple of minutes before, Clarke had tried to counter attack and as he ran with the ball it totally stopped in the water. Ipswich hadnt "certainly" lost the game yesterday but ultimately its irrelevant as the game clearly could not continue on that pitch. Your injury hypothetical situation would be on a pitch fit to play football. It might be more of a case if the ref had continued yessterday on a pitch not fit to play football on. If anyone got injured in a replay, it would be unfortunate but it would be as per the process followed in the rules should a game be abandonded.

Also read what @Mike Graham said about Waggott trying to get approved funding for improved drainage and Suhail saying no. Also a few years ago, as per fans forum minutes, Waggott had mentioned a potential total revamp of the pitch including the drainage but the owners then decided not to fund it. At the time, I believe you defended the decision. But either way. The only question relevant to yesterday is, and forget other games, managers, potential injury and form changes etc. Do you believe the pitch as at 80 minutes was playable? If the answer is yes then I suspect you was in a different stadium.

That was a unique situation where there was no possibility to complete the season. Logic only says that if we are Rovers fans. Id take that but it wouldnt be fair. But we didnt have it in the bag. There was 10 minutes plus some injury time so as much as I would happily take a win, it wouldnt be fair to do so. Basing a result on an incomplete match would be the least fair way. Any other way would at least put the game back in the hands of the 2 teams.

It was a waste of time and seemingly just for show. The pitch was obviously unplayable.

You are clearly incapable of looking beyond your bias because obviously we are frustrated that the game was called off. You are manifesting a situation whereby McKenna has managed to force the referee to stop a game that could have been played. You also keep manifesting a situation where all of our players are injured for the replayed game and suggest that people would change their mind if that was the case. Its all irrelevant to the decision that had to be made. The game couldnt be continued, it is as simple as that. 5 yard passes were stopping in the water. The ball couldnt bounce on the pitch. Players couldnt run forward with the ball, Clarke tried to do so and was essentially tackled by standing water. This narrative of being "screwed" and the way you are talking is just you allowing your petulance to convince yourself that they could continue on a pitch like that. They clearly couldnt. If you want to be angry at someone beyond the weather, direct it at the owners and Suhail for failing to fund the work required to upgrade the drainage on the pitch.

But to say that a result is final based on an incomplete game is conclusive. To replay the game is at least open ended.

You cant base a result on 80 minutes of football.

But the game being called off today was not because of him. It was unfortunately the only possible decision. They came out to clap the fans who have travelled a long way.

Thats not an equal comeback. I get your frustration and we all share it. But your replies are that of someone unable to put aside bias to come to a reasonable conclusion. The only possible solution today was to stop the game. The pitch and conditions were clearly unfit to complete it, the ball wasnt moving or bouncing on the ball. Its as simple as that. The stuff comparing it to the Portsmouth game years and years ago is clutching at straws. Its irrelevant, although I concur that the conditions that day were worse and also the outcome of the game was much more secure, todays game was in the balance. In no way could we have carried on today purely because another game in 2017(?) also carried on. Was the game playable today? No. End of story. Its a really unfortunate situation for us fans, and the players too. But the game had to be stopped and just giving us the win isnt a fair outcome based on 80 minutes either. Any anger should be placed towards the owners/Suhail for being unwilling to improve the drainage. And sadly, the rules indicate that a full replay will take place.

How would that be fair? There were still 10 minutes plus injury time left. The fair solution would be to play the last chunk of the game with the man advantage. But I am sure it will be a full replay. Not because the FA want to "fuck us over" but it seems to be precedent.

Its more than "a bit of rain FFS." It had become impossible to play on that pitch. I dont care how other games compare. Players couldnt make 5 yard passes without the ball stopping in a puddle. The ball stopped dead on the pitch.

Theres no way that game could have carried on. The ball couldnt move.

I dont get the bitterness towards McKenna. The game clearly couldnt carry on regardless of what anyone wanted, the ball couldnt move or bounce. Telling that only our game fell foul in the North West.

He may have done. (Although its a different ask playing right of a back 3). But we wanted a right back to compete and signed Alebiosu. We then went ahead with Miller as soon as a fee for Brittain was agreed. Therefore its a safe assumption that he was signed to take his place in the squad at right back. Either way, we are massively short of reliable defenders.

I am not having that he was signed predominantly to be a centre back. See my above post. But either way, we are massively short of defenders that can stay fit, due to the clubs negligence.

But the original discussion surrounded the fact that Carter has already again seemingly picked up an injury. We have no natural centre backs who are right footed who can play matches consecutively. Its negligence. We wanted a right back in the summer to compete and signed Alebiosu. We then signed Miller within 24 hours of Brittain leaving. That gave us 2 right backs which is fine. Now they are trying to spin it that we always intended to sign him as a centre back. Even if it turns out that he plays predominantly at centre back. We are short both there and at right back. Might be able to make do now, early in the season with 1 game a week, we wont as the games mount up.

He wasnt a centre back here though. But either way, even if he does turn (luck rather than judgement as you say) into a Championship capable centre back. We are still short not only there but also then at right back.

Im not on about whether Miller will be a good signing. Im talking about the negligence shown in letting Hyam go and leaving us with only one natural right footed centre back, and one whose body simply cannot be relied on at Championship level. One game and its already broken down. It will cost us being so short as the season goes on.

Whether he covers well or not. Dont be fooled, he was signed as a right back, and its not 6 games in that it will cause us these issues, its as the games go on.

The fact that we have to manage their minutes due to their injury records only makes it more ridiculous that we let Hyam go and didnt replace him. That position will cause us huge issues as the season goes on. And they wont even admit that we are short.