| Haha, well put Swanners on 10:56 - Sep 27 with 326 views | Dyland |
| Clickbait on 10:45 - Sep 27 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s nuts innit. It’s a good example of how using the phrase ‘common sense’ doesn’t mean your half baked idea is correct. |
nft |  |
|  |
| Clickbait on 11:39 - Sep 27 with 260 views | glasso |
| Clickbait on 09:18 - Sep 27 by MrBeckinsale |
The problem with ‘playing the last 10 minutes’ would suggest that it was a sudden incident that caused the abandonment. At which point in the 79 minutes that were ‘played’ did it stop being a football match and more about trying to cope with the farcical conditions. The only reason there were only 10 minutes left was that it hadn’t been stopped much sooner when it should’ve been, so where is this supposed ‘fairness’ of just playing the last 10 minutes? |
It's also a ridiculous premise because it assumes that playing the last 10 minutes would be the same as if we'd finished the game at the time.
We have a much, much stronger bench than them. We have strength in depth. Us going in to the last 10 mins against a tired team is massively different from playing 10 minutes against a fresh, rested team who could just park the bus and see it out.
Do we reinstate all the yellow cards as well? To make sure that player is second guessing every tackle he makes? What about the knocks and minor injuries players have picked up during the previous 80 minutes? Do we have to go round reinstating little bruises and scrapes before the game starts?! It's honestly ridiculous. What about the player who was having a 'mare and been turned a couple of times too many by one of our players... do we have to make sure his confidence is low before they get back on the pitch?
It's a daft suggestion - there are too many ifs and buts to guarantee a 'fair' outcome. [Post edited 27 Sep 11:43]
|  | | |
| And it rumbles on … on 11:56 - Sep 27 with 227 views | billlm |
The blame is with Blackburn,
Failure to maintain a playable surface,
So all there moaning isn't needed, |  | | |
| And it rumbles on … on 11:57 - Sep 27 with 228 views | burnbudgiesburn |
I'd love to see a legal team try to argue against precedent and the actual FA rules (which the EFL clearly follow even though they have discretion)
The 'show some class' thing is totally gaslighting considering Ipswich are 100% innocent in this case
We are entitled to play a full 90 minutes, in playable conditions. | | | |
| And it rumbles on … on 12:03 - Sep 27 with 213 views | ArnieM |
Make it a draw. 1 point each. End of drama. The EFL couldn't wipe its own arse without a tribunal |  |
| |
| And it rumbles on … on 12:15 - Sep 27 with 177 views | bazza |
| And it rumbles on … on 09:01 - Sep 27 by DJR |
Seems to me that people are earning a living writing nonsense. |
There’s a few on here who should be billionaires..😂 |  | | |
| And it rumbles on … on 12:42 - Sep 27 with 125 views | NBVJohn |
| And it rumbles on … on 09:13 - Sep 27 by norfsufblue |
Absolutely... pre internet, everyone just sucks it up and gets on with it, with no one looking for engagement or clicks |
I was thinking something very similar.
Pre-internet the arguments were confined to a few dullards in the pub.
Now there’s a lucrative career to be had in writing this drivel… | | | |
| Clickbait on 13:17 - Sep 27 with 79 views | Vic |
| Clickbait on 08:47 - Sep 27 by Dyland |
“Personally, I think the EFL decision completely defies common sense. Play the last 10 minutes plus added time behind closed doors. Why overcomplicate it? Alternatively, there is a precedent for giving a goal away. I’m not sure about going a man down. But if Ipswich showed some class, there are surely ways around it without the need for anyone to get litigious.”
Another rent-a-gob who seems to know neither know the rules nor anything about the realities of playing football. |
What does that last sentence even mean? What would showing class look like? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
