Blues boss Kieran McKenna says Town will get to the truth of the confusion surrounding referee Bobby Madden’s claim he couldn’t abandon and then restage this afternoon’s 2-1 defeat at Oxford once the game had passed the 75-minute mark.

As reported earlier, both managers were happy to abandon the match with the players struggling to see the ball in the thick fog but Madden, who has begun officiating in the EFL this season having previously refereed in Scotland for 20 years and in FIFA competitions for more than a decade, told them that if he did after 75 minutes had passed then the current scoreline, 1-1, would stand.

However, McKenna says club secretary Stuart Hayton has informed him that the EFL rulebook says nothing of the sort.

“Myself and Karl both told our concerns to the fourth official at the start of the second half, that we couldn't see the ball and it was looking like there were mistakes on the pitch on account of that. We spoke to the referee on the 74th minute spoke to the fourth official,” McKenna said in his iFollow Ipswich post-match interview.

“Between the staff and players the feeling was let's come back and fight another day in proper conditions.

“At that stage the referee said that because the 75-minute mark had passed the result would have to stand, there would have to be a draw and there would be no replay.

“In those conditions, my team, we want to win and we thought we would take our chances that we can get the winner.

“The frustration and the confusion is that our club secretary has told us that is not the rules and there is nothing in the rulebook about that.

“We will address it and get to the truth of what it was. I don't think the game should have been played in those conditions, but we can't get it back.”

Photo: TWTD

VanDusen added 22:44 - Jan 21 Massive cock up. It was a farce: none of us could see what was happening so I'm sure the managers couldn't either. Normally an abandoned game is the last thing the crowd wants but on this occasion it was so obviously needing to be done that everyone was calling for it. And of course - as usual it ends up costly for us... The league still owe us imho anyway after Bolton inexplicably avoided any punishment whatsoever (probably the first team ever to do so) for failing to fulfil a fixture in 2018/9 when just a point deduction would have seen us avoid finishing bottom.

5

Bert added 22:52 - Jan 21 If the laws of the game have been misinterpreted and the conditions materially affected the result then the game should be replayed. Bias is irrelevant here.
14

Gforce added 23:12 - Jan 21 If the referee got it blatantly wrong, surely we can put an appeal in,to have the game replayed.
11

Umros added 23:30 - Jan 21 We can get to bottom of it now! Incompetent officiating. That's all.
5

IpswichToon added 23:34 - Jan 21 It happened, both teams played in the same conditions regardless. Oxford went on to win, let's move on.
-2

BrettenhamBlue added 23:55 - Jan 21 Fog effects both teams equally
2

planetblue_2011 added 00:15 - Jan 22 We would of still lost the replay so what's the point🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️ We can't finish end of!!
-5

Fansince64 added 01:20 - Jan 22 Both managers and officials should have been well aware of the rules. Very unprofessional all round.
6

Suffolkboy added 01:50 - Jan 22 Actually very very important to get to the bottom of this matter !! Important to discover where and how this Referee became convinced these were the rules ; what other rules are not in his knowledge bank – and therefore what misinterpretations are being committed . Standards ought to be thoroughly queried where RULES are at the centre and one hopes this confusion is resolved quickly and with due publicity ! It maymake no difference to the game outcome ,but should result in clarification ! COYB

13

TractorBeezer added 02:09 - Jan 22 Perhaps there is an opportunity to appeal. Not only did the fog spoil the game, it was also bad for the fans. I tried to watch on iFollow wih much difficulty.
5

dyersdream added 07:18 - Jan 22 We have never won an appeal so would'nt bother with this one
1

HemelBlue added 07:24 - Jan 22 IFAB laws say a match which has to be abandoned after 60 minutes *may* be considered complete. EFL competition rules leave it to the sole discretion of the EFL Board, in conjunction with IFAB and FA laws, so they may consider a match complete if abandoned after 60 minutes, because IFAB rules give them that option. What I am missing is details of precedent. If the EFL Board has set a precedent - perhaps on matches after 75 minutes - then that will be established from then on. Precedent becomes ‘case law' and will be binding for reasons of fairness unless there is something exceptional about this case. The EFL Board must have set precedent here because postponements for weather happen quite often. And that does not need to be mentioned in the EFL rules. I suspect McKenna is not fully informed.

5

HemelBlue added 07:35 - Jan 22 Following from above, all abandonments in EFL games past 75 minutes that I can find records of, for reasons ranging from weather to ‘the battle of Brammall Lane', seem to have carried the score at that point (unless one team caused the abandonment - then that team is typically punished via a losing score of 0-3). So it does seem a clear precedent. Looks like the ref was right and our company secretary does not understand precedent.

3

Saxonblue74 added 08:07 - Jan 22 Fog was very heavy before kick off. Surely all concerned would brush up on the rules surrounding this prior to kick off? That said, both managers should have taken their players off the pitch at 1:1 if the consensus was that it was unfair and unsafe to play out the game. It's not going to be dealt with retrospectively,particularly as the game resulted in a win. Very poor from the referee, but pretty unprofessional all round.

2

Stato added 08:09 - Jan 22 Sour grapes on our part. We would be furious if we had won and we're told to play again. This is all a deflection technique to take away the focus from another defeat, another very poor performance, the muddled thinking of 4 subs on the bench which body is talking about and the disappointing display of Hirst who looked like a player who hasn't played much footy this season. With all the complaining over players playing too many games why add another game in other than just being very bad losers. Blame KM for the defeat not the fog

2

Saxonblue74 added 08:10 - Jan 22 Hemelblue, with respect I would imagine McKenna has been fully and accurately informed.
-2

Nobbysnuts added 08:26 - Jan 22 I'm sorry but this is a distraction technique by KM to try and cover up another pathetic performance.....your not fooling me I'm afraid.
3

dirtydingusmagee added 08:36 - Jan 22 Hemelblue ,are you really Judge Rinder ? asking for a friend .
3

Tractor_Boy_in_HK added 10:00 - Jan 22 The conditions were terrible all day. Why didn't we know the rules before the match? Why didn't anyone look up the rules at halftime? This is an organisational failure and makes us look amateur.
3

SouperJim added 10:29 - Jan 22 I'd be interested to know how many of those saying it was a poor performance actually watched the game. For me, we were very unlucky to only be level at half time and had much the better chances. I was very confident we'd go on to win the game had the second half been played in normal conditions. The heavy fog second half was a significant leveller. Those saying it was the same both sides are conveniently ignoring that. We really don't seem to be getting the rub of the green at the moment and although I'm not surprised by it, it's really poor how quickly some fans are turning on McKenna.

13

Lightningboy added 10:31 - Jan 22 Seriously - the standard of refereeing at this level is abysmal.
4

HemelBlue added 10:54 - Jan 22 Saxon Blue - it appears not. He's saying there is nothing in the rulebook, but that is not the whole reference frame. IFAB laws say 60mins is enough for a result and EFL have full discretion under their competition laws and have set the precedent at 75mins. It's like case law. It is effectively now the rule because of the need for fair application from that precedent onwards. When McKenna says ‘it's not in the rulebook' he has clearly not been informed about the importance of precedent. So, obviously, not fully informed.

3

HemelBlue added 10:55 - Jan 22 Dirtydingusmagee - not far off. Camper though
0

BobbyBell added 10:57 - Jan 22 Whether it should have been called off or not I was annoyed because we were having a good spell when the ref stopped the game to have long chats about the fog. By delaying it he broke up our momentum and whilst he was the talking the fog was only going to get worse. My opinion for what it's worth is that if the ref feels a need to talk to the managers then he must being having difficulty in seeing the game, the lines and his assistants. If he had no issues then he had no reason to talk to anyone. So it's down to the ref and if he is having difficulty controlling the game then it should be abandoned. If offsides, handballs, fouls etc can't be seen then how can you play on?

8

blues1 added 11:07 - Jan 22 Boss man. No it's not a case of trying to deflect the fact we lost. BOTH managers wanted the game called off, as did the players of both teams. The rest of thd game was a farce. As for those,saying its unprofessional of the managers not to know the rules surrounding this type of event? No, this is the type of matter that is dealt with by the club secretary. Managers would only be aware of it after the event. Not in their remit to know of these rules. End of thr day, the referee had no right to tell the managers the result would stand, bcse its nothing fo do with him neither. His job is purely to officiate thr game, including whether to abandon the game in those kind of circumstances, or not. Whether the result stands or the game is replayed would very much depend on the scoreline at the time the game was stopped. Clearly if one team had a 2, or more, goal lead, the result would likely stand. But at 1-1, would likely have been replayed.

-1

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls