RevidgeBlue

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.

No Sky in Blues Bar........

Well if nothing else it was our fault......

So theoretically - other than the fact it hasnt been done before - there'd be nothing preventing the EFL saying that the last 10 mins plus ET should be played 11 v 10. It won't happen but it does specifically provide for it in the rules "may be ordered to be replayed in full or in part". Wonder if faced with the prospect of having to pay for Ipswich to come up and maybe stay somewhere overnight Pasha would rather concede the 3 points?

So by the same token Im guessing by extension you now can't stand Ismael any more either as he was in agreement with calling the game off?

I daren't! Sorry dont agree on your other points either. We're far from the only ones to have owners who subsequently turned out to be disastrous initially approved and if we send in transfer registrations late or with clerical errors that's our fault. ( I suspect the latter were deliberate anyway)

I'm not an engineer so can't comment on your opinion at the end. Why though do you think Waggott thought it was possible? (According to Mike Graham) Edit: Regardless of cost and time a permanent long term solution needs to be undertaken with mitigating measures such as pitch covers and squeegee (sp) machines utilised in the interim until the problem is fixed. You can just brush it off and shrug your shoulders on the basis of cost or that it's not completely straightforward.

6 points made but none of them valid. I can just imagine the reaction on here if we had a game called off at 1-0 down with 10 mins to go at our opponenent's place because their pitch was unfit and the EFL awarded them the points. Is if fair to Ipswich to deprive them of the chance to equalise with 10 -15 mins to go? Is a game still "done and dusted" at 1-0 with 20 mins of normal time to go? That's just as arbitrary. If we get a game called off at half time due to our knackered drainage later in the season and we're 2-0 up - do we get the points then as well? If you have to play another game so be it. Players could get injured at any time, not just in that particular game.

Why do we know they "hate us"? Can you cite any examples?

Come on, you know the EFL hate us, all referees are biased against us, and there's a conspiracy against us in general. (Despite the fact the ref awarded us a penalty and reduced our opponents to 10 yesterday) In this instance it would actually help if the EFL threatened to suspend our membership of the League unless we take immediate steps to put temporary measures in place to alleviate the problem pending a permanent solution being carried out in due course. Sadly I dont suppose anything will be done at either end and it will happen again and again.

Completely disagree. The game was nowhere near "done and dusted" at 1-0 with potentially up to 15 mins to go. If it had been 5-0 with a minute or two to go I'd agree It was very unlucky on the team, but at the end of the day it's the Club's fault for not being willing to spend money on resolving the longstanding drainage problems which we've known about for some time.

We wouldnt have a leg to stand on I dont think for the reasons I outlined above.

There's no way they can award us 3 points when it's our fault our pitch isn't fit for purpose and the game was only at 1-0 with 10 mins plus injury time to go. If we were 1-0 up at their gaff and the same thing happened, or it was here and we were 5-0 up with a minute to go there would at least be an argument to be had I'd imagine.

If we dont then Ipswich will just be awarded the 3 points. What good does that do us or Ipswich's promotion rivals?

That was just certain sections of the pitch as I recall. (Round the penalty spot etc) May be wrong

Stop trying to defend the indefensible John. So why then, according to Mike Graham, after the previous debacle to this one,did Waggott wish to put in place a solution (that Pasha turned down on the basis of cost) if it was allegedly undoable? You'll correct me if Im wrong on this but as far as I'm aware the major infrastructure of the pitch (drainage etc) hasnt been done since it was built over 30 years ago and a complete pitch replacement hasn't been done in years if at all, with for as long as I can remember the Club choosing to merely undertake the cheaper option of turning over the soil on the top part of the pitch. We never got these problems when the drainage system was new. If it needs upgrading/renovating or the method of drainage has simply been superceded by events, the work needs doing otherwise this will happen again and again. We're (temporarily at least) playing in the second tier of English football, not the Dog and Duck competing in a Sunday Pub League. As it stands the pitch is currently unfit for purpose.