RevidgeBlue

It's the best way to .maintain the integrity of the Competition. If Ipswich understandably decide its not worth the risk travelling 500 miles to play 15 mins from a goal down with 10 men then thats fair enough but it should be their choice. It should be at our expense though as it's not their fault the game was called off.

In devil's advocate mode, potentially they're opening themselves up for a lot more litigation from other teams by ordering a full replay and giving Ipswich a decent chance of winning 3 points than by replaying part of the game which probably wouldn't result in them getting any more than a point at best or ordering the result stands.

Would a rule that (unless both parties agree otherwise) "in the event of an abandonment the remaining part of the game shall be replayed under conditions as similar as possible to when the game was originally called off" work? Or would it raise more problems than it would solve?

No - because currently the rule isn't that there should automatically be a full replay. Nor that a result should stand after x mins. As Ive already said several times in this thread I think its correct the EFL have absolute discretion and technically any solution is available. I dont think we or anyone else should be awarded the points in the circumstances that occurred on Saturday - it suits us now but I wouldn't like us to be on the wrong end of that in future. Obviously if we had been three up with a minute to go the situation would be entirely different which again is why absolute discretion is useful. On the other hand I dont favour a full replay - as Ive said several times the fairest solution would be a part replay 11 v 10 if only the EFL have the stones to depart from the norm. Where have I stated that none of it ever should be up for debate or that it should always be a full replay? That's basically the opposite of what I've been saying.

No point going out to compete in any game if that's the attitude. Might as well accept thirty points from the next thirty games without going through the hassle of playing them and just play five or six games to determine promotion and relegation.

That in itself is also inherently extremely unfair. Who's to say you can't pull back a 1-0 deficit with 15 mins to go? What if you needed a point to go up or stay down on the last day of the season and the game was stopped in that position through absolutely no fault of your own?

Assuming we're not getting awarded the points, whilst a part replay is obviously the ideal scenario from our point of view a full replay would be second best. I can't believe any other Rovers fan would not rather take the "risk" of ending up with nothing balanced against the chance of getting three, as opposed to merely accepting a point.

Agreed - but somewhere within the framework which already exists. They couldnt order the new game lasts 120 mins for example because games last 90. Similarly they couldnt realistically say that we get one point and Ipswich none or we get two points and Ipswich one as that's not a combination of points anyone can get as the rules stand.

Yes, the EFL regulations allow the leeway to make absolutely any decision which is the best way I think. (As long as they have the courage to use them) No 2 sets of circumstances are ever exactly the same therefore the more discretion the better. Tbf on the contrary I think I've seen some FA guidelines intimating a match will always be replayed etc.

Nailed it. If Carlsberg did solutions........

That's one of the worst tbh you can't be giving an option that isn't otherwise available in normal play. Award "a win" for Rovers but only one point for Rovers/ none for Ipswich? Two points for Rovers one for Ipswich - I mean c'mon fellas. It surely has to be either a full replay or (hopefully) 10 mins + ET 11 v 10 with points awarded as normal at the end of it. The longer we drag on with no decision the slightly more hopeful I get about the latter...... Will be a bit of a blow now if it's just the bogstandard replay we were all originally anticipating.

One party is going to be extremely unhappy with the outcome. I wouldnt imagine awarding us the game will be on the table so we'll be basically looking at either a full replay from scratch or a 10 minute replay 11 v 10. The EFL is going to have to impose a ruling and the Club's will then have to thrash out the logistics between themselves presumably subject to any relevant appeal procedure.

Im a bit confused about which is the more up to date post from Nixon, the one saying they need more time or the one saying the decision is quicker than expected and is due tonight. If it's the former and there is any indecision on behalf of the EFL then tbf that's better than I was expecting. I was expecting a relatively quick announcement that the game would be replayed in full.

Technically, the rules allow for absolutely any decision to be implemented so I very much hope we are arguing our case for a ten minute replay 11 v 10 strongly. In practice of course I expect nothing other than a full replay as generally that seems to be the only decision thats been made in the past.

Only doing his job tbf.

Clearly trying to create the narrative that the only fair option is a full replay as the pitch was unplayable for most if not all of the second half. I wasn't at the game so can't comment on that. Is it the prevailing consensus on here the pitch became unplayable from round about the 75th minute? I hope someone at our end is pushing our Club's interests as hard as Mckenna is pushing his. Why am I not optimistic on that score?

If he said that, that's out of order because he's pre judging the issue and implying a replay in full or part is what should happen. I normally agree with everything Jeff Stelling says on Talksport but I can't understand why he and Ally think it would be unfair unless there was a full replay. It would be a lot less unfair if the match was reconvened under as near to the same conditions as possible as when the match was abandoned. The EFL have all the tools at their disposal in the form of the regulations - now they need the cajones to use them.

Did he express a view on what the decision should be regarding replaying the game? I can see why that wouldnt be allowed. Otherwise if he was merely talking about the game itself, can't see a problem.

This will really kick off at the end of the season if Ipswich win the replay and deny another Club promotion by less than three points. Who then do the aggrieved Club sue? The EFL for not having rules that are clear enough or us for having dodgy drainage facilities we've known about for ages and which have caused games to be called off in the past?

I think the rules as currently drafted with absolute discretion are the best way to go. Who's to say whether a team could or couldnt retrieve a two goal deficit with ten mins to go or a three goal deficit with twenty etc. What's required is a good old helping of common sense and the courage to set an initial precedent which uses that discretion fully. In this case replay the final 10 mins plus ET 11 v 10 with as many of the same players as are available and minus the guy who was sent off.

Which are that Ipswich can claim a maximum of about £4.8k did you say?

Ah - cheers!

If I was Ipswich I'd be demanding we covered all expenses for them and their fans for the replay.

There appears to be complete flexibility in the rules to make any decision they see fit - allow the result to stand/ replay the game in full or in part/ under whatever conditions they see fit. Unfortunately (from our point of view in this case) in practice that absolute discretion rarely seems to be used and the tendency seems to be to award a full replay. There is a danger in making a hard and fast rule that a result stands after a certain time that in extreme circumstances fans could attempt to force a stoppage or teams could attempt to deliberately pick up cards to get a match abandoned. Although that said when I first started watching the game fifty odd years go I was under the definite impression that a result stood if a certain proportion of the match had been completed. The figure that sticks in my mind is two thirds. Could anyone of a similar vintage confirm whether or not this was ever the case or if I am imagining it?

Im assuming fake news.