Going back to the abandonment, what i don't get, is why there is no set rule for this situation? The FA have rules for everything, surely there should be something set in stone that would take all the debate out of whether it should be repkayed, or the result standing, or to play the remaining minutes. The fact that the FA have to discuss it, amd make a decision is farcical. I'm sure plenty of games are abandoned before 90 minutes every season.
That's a fair description of what's happening, but the big question is why are these rampaging forwards creating so few chances ? Why are there so few shots being taken on ? With the one exception why are so few goals being scored ?
Lack of connections, that forward line have barely played together and many of them haven't played any consistent football for over a season.
I think we're playing this weird hybrid of possession football and the old system that got us back-to-back promotions. My feeling is that McKenna has to stamp a different, more controlled way of playing compared to the Championship promotion season. The playing squad has significantly changed after only two years and expectations as a parachute payment club has understandably got higher. This current lot can't play the system that the old guard did so well. In our promotion season, we had a lot of confidence from the League One promotion season, a settled squad with barely any new faces, and the system was designed around the strengths of several key players (Hdlaky's distribution, Davis rampaging down the left, Tuanzebe slotting in as a third centre-back, Morsy's control, Luongo's covering, Burns' pace, Chaplin's shooting on edge of the area, Hirst's hold up play etc.). That, and a never-say-die, don't know when we're beaten atmosphere from Portman Road created brilliant momentum week-to-week. Last year, the realities of high class Premier League opposition and the punishing tempo of that division (on a squad that had barely played a Premier League match beforehand) meant we were scrapping for every point. Our transfer policy was essentially to build a squad that would prepare us for likely life back in the Championship and get us straight back up. Our top flight experienced loanees - with the exception of Cajuste - all massively underperformed. The system of old was quickly abandoned when it wasn't getting us points, and then McKenna went through a succession of formations, playing styles, and personnel as the second half of the season turned into a soul-wrenching experience of seeing our team routinely outplayed and outfought. This year, the club seems to have conceded that last season's transfer splurge hasn't made us ready for an instant return and has spent big (again) to level up the team and made the squad deeper. Undoubtedly we've signed some really talented players. Players that are likely to adapt quicker to the Premier League. But we've got to get back there first. I think McKenna must identify the strengths of his players and use them in a system designed to their abilities. If we're playing Davis, keep him out wide and not this inverted full back nonsense. We may as well go the full hog and have a backline including Palmer, Furlong, O'Shea, and Kipre start - they have understanding from the West Brom years. Greaves needs time on the bench, the suspension might be a blessing in disguise. Why haven't we tried a 4-3-3 formation where Matusiwa is sitting behind Cajuste and Nunez with licence to get forwards? Two actual ball carriers waiting to be unleashed on this division. I've got no idea what McAteer's role is in the starting eleven, he's playing like a budget Burns. We should be aiming to dominate possession and mix it up with direct football when required. So get physical, hard-running players who are comfortable with the ball at their feet and willing to make things happen - like Szmodics and Egeli - in the starting eleven and drop the underperforming players like McAteer and Hirst.
Because you can’t account for every conceivable scenario. Just the same as with sentencing guidelines in courts, there is room for interpretation and common sense and precedent is taken into account.
Absolute rubbish.... "If the referee deems the pitch unplayable and unsafe for the players, and has to abandon the game before the final whistle, then the match will be replayed in its entirety/replayed with the remaining minutes/the result stands" (pick one of those three scenarios and stick it in the rulebook) You could also add "up to a certain time" (I.e if 75 minutes have been played the result stands). Come on, seriously, how many games get abandoned due to bad weather every season? It's not rocket science.
If you word the rule that way, a team can deliberately sabotage the pitch when they go 4-0 up or down by half time or they don’t want the fixture played at that time or some other reason. That is precisely why it’s up to a panel to see if there are any other factors to consider. They also can consider how far fans have to travel, whether the fixture has any bearing on the competition. So on, and so forth.
I think Blackburn's history with match postponements and abandonments needs to be taken into consideration into the final decision. This isn't the first time they've had to cancel a match because of bad weather. The pitch drains into a nearby river, which frequently burst its banks during heavy rainfall. There has been a persistent failure from the club to resolve this issue. The fact that Blackburn were unique in the top four divisions for being unable to handle the rain and complete its scheduled match should be an indictment on their poor facilities and preparation. The pitch looked in poor condition for most of the second half, arguably the match should have been abandoned well before the 80th minute. Having said that, if the roles were reversed I think we'd be up in arms about the thought of having to replay the entire match. From their perspective, they've gone toe-to-toe with a heavily fancied parachute payment club and deserved the three points. A comeback looked unlikely, particularly with us down to 10 men and not playing well. Blackburn will feel hard done by if it's scheduled for later in the season when we've had more time to gel and adapt as a squad. Despite that, replaying the full 90 makes most sense. You can't award three points in a match that wasn't completed - it will set a bad precedent. You can't replay the match with 10 minutes plus stoppage time left because it isn't practical - for example, squad and supporters travelling such a long distance to watch and participate in a match that will be at most one sixth of the normal playing time.
I think all the differing views expressed above confirm exactly why it’s taking the EFL so long to come to a decision on this one.Whatever the outcome one party is going to feel aggrieved.It’s difficult not to be partisan but my main thought is that the game should have been halted a lot sooner than it was given the poor state of the playing surface and that Rovers are largely to blame for this.I don’t think we can blame the sending off on the pitch but without looking at the highlights again I’m pretty sure it was a large factor in the penalty.Trying to be objective a full replay would seem the least worst option.
The 80 minute figure being banded about doesn’t even take into account the long stoppage for a discussion a few minutes before the game was resumed and then abandoned. The conditions really deteriorated for the second half. The penalty clearly wouldn’t have occurred in playable conditions. The idea of playing for just ten minutes or starting from 1-0 is as ludicrous as declaring a result. 45 minutes from 0-0 would be reasonable but no less.
Plot twist: https://pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/25487217.norwich-city-director-help-decide-ipswich-town-fate
I'm not talking about every conceivable scenario, I'm just talking about the weather. You don't need to make it too complicated. If the ball can't bounce, or travel along the ground more than a few feet due to water/snow, call it off. If the visibility is so bad you can't see the ball or a player within a certain distance, call it off. If there's thunder and lightning, which is making player and spectator welfare in danger, call it off. I'm baffled as to them saying there's no precedent....there was a game between Accrington and Sunderland, back in 2018/19 abandoned after 72 minutes due to a waterlogged pitch, and the match replayed (scoreline was 1-1 at the time).
Maybe she would vote to keep Blackburn lower than Naaarwich in event of a full replay. We should know the cttee result soon.
I’m not sure why club directors are on this panel or indeed any panel making a decision on a competing club. Surely that’s a massive conflict of interest - particularly if this had happened much later in the season. I notice Peter Risdale (surprised he’s still in football) at Preston is on the panel. They're rivals with Blackburn, so perhaps that balances things out? My gut feeling looking at the panel and considering the delay is that this doesn’t look overly positive for us. Those club owners might be more inclined to give a kicking to the heavily favoured parachute payment club here. Regardless of the decision, you just can’t replay 10 minutes plus stoppage time. The away fans won’t travel all that way for such a short match. You might not get a high attendance from home supporters either. So already it'll feel like a training exercise. How match fit can the players get within ten/fifteen minutes? Whoever starts fastest will benefit. For me, the only sensible outcome is to replay the match in full. I completely understand Blackburn fans would be annoyed because they most likely would've won that match had it continued or the pitch didn't get too waterlogged. We weren't playing well, they were making chances, and we were a player down. If they were 3-0 or 4-0 up, then I can definitely see the reason to award the win and warn them about being better prepared in the future. But a one-goal lead is not a strong lead at all. If the result is awarded to them, it sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine a club holding out for a 1-0 surprise win against a heavily fancied opponent in a midweek night game. They could sabotage their floodlights, get the match abandoned, and guarantee the result.
They should have put it to bed on Monday. Taking representations up to Wednesday is complete and utter nonsense. Ipswich: replay please. Blackburn: result please.
Blackburn are saying there’s no precedent for leading with not long to go, the opposition down to 10 men and on the front foot (two of those arguments are subjective). Home clubs can easily affect the state of the pitch to their advantage and they can do it at half time depending on the first half events even - using sprinklers, tampering with drainage, using or not using shovels and forks.
I think any footballing authority would come down pretty hard on a Club sabotaging a fixture in that way.
