The EFL has released a further statement regarding the abandoned game between the Blues and Blackburn Rovers at Ewood Park on Saturday with the EFL board set to meet before the end of the week to make their decision.

The statement reads: “Following the abandonment of the Sky Bet Championship fixture between Blackburn Rovers and Ipswich Town, the two clubs were given a deadline of 4pm today to make any final representations to the League.

“Once in receipt of the submissions, the matter will be discussion by the EFL board before the end of this week, with the outcome to be confirmed shortly thereafter.”

The match was curtailed in the 80th minute as the torrential rain which had persisted throughout the game had made the surface unplayable.

At the time, Rovers were 1-0 in front via a Todd Cantwell penalty, while Town were down to 10 men following Jacob Greaves’s red card, an incident in which the conditions played a significant role.

An EFL statement following the game read: “[Saturday]’s Sky Bet Championship fixture between Blackburn Rovers and Ipswich Town was abandoned due to an unplayable surface. The decision was taken in agreement with both managers.

“The board will consider what action is to be taken as a result of the abandonment, in line with EFL regulations.”

EFL regulation 34.2 indicates that any league match which from any cause falls short of 90 minutes’ duration may be ordered to count as a completed fixture or be replayed in full or in part on whatever terms and conditions the board shall in their absolute discretion determine.

A full restaging of the match seems the most likely option given that FA rule 20(E)(iii) states: “In the event of a competition match not being played or abandoned owing to causes over which neither club has control, it should be played in its entirety on a date to be mutually agreed by the two clubs and approved by the competition.”

There has been some disquiet among Town fans that one of the EFL board members who could decide the outcome is Norwich City executive director Zoe Webber. Whether she will recuse herself from the process given the obvious conflict of interest is not known.

The other members of the board are chair Rick Parry, chief executive Trevor Birch, Peter Risdale (Preston), Neil Bausor (Middlesbrough), Liam Scully (Lincoln), Julian Tagg (Exeter), Charles Grant (Crewe) and non-executive directors Caroline Artis and Justine Roberts.

Photo: IMAGO/Pro Sports Images via Reuters Connect

OliveR16 added 13:37 - Sep 24 In all fairness Peter Risdale balances Zoe Webber. Surely it is best if nobody with Championship allegiances takes the vote.
3

Adnams added 13:38 - Sep 24 If there is a rule which states the game must be replayed under these circumstances it begs the question why we’ve had to present our case and it’s going to be discussed. A rule is a rule, surely!
2

JeffN added 13:41 - Sep 24 Sounds like they only work one day a week!
3

virginblue added 13:48 - Sep 24 Exactly Adnams. Apply the rule and move on.
0

Jugsy added 13:53 - Sep 24 Surely the only outcome is to award the game to Ipswich after Blackburn failed to prepare the pitch correctly, and also dock them 3 points for the inconvenience. Seems fair.
9

LowerNorth added 14:01 - Sep 24 So because it’s an EFL competition, EFL regs apply??… When do FA rules come into action… anyone able to shed a little light on this for me please.
0

IpswichToon added 14:09 - Sep 24 In all honesty I would still expect Zoe Webber to be professional and make an objective decision, regardless of any rivalries between us and Norwich. Then again, I thought this whole decision would be way more black and white. In my eyes, the game state is also a result of poor conditions for which the match was ended. So why should it matter they were 1-0 up and we were down to 10 men? There was easily 20 minutes left to play out!

2

BlueRaider added 14:15 - Sep 24 I'd have thought the Boro guy has a bigger conflict of interest given their start
3

blueoutlook added 14:18 - Sep 24 Why are any championship club representatives present ? They all have interests in a certain result,whether that be at the top of the table or at the bottom. It shouldn’t involve anyone in the championship. Should all be neutral.
3

ElderGrizzly added 14:22 - Sep 24 @LowerNorth - FA rules hold favour over EFL where there is a 'conflict' apparently
2

darkhorse28 added 14:24 - Sep 24 The rules are there is discretion to award the game to a team, have a full or partial replay. People need to stop taking what they read as verbatim. The rules afford any outcome at the panels discretion based on circumstances, and quiet right they do. Phil posts whatever will keep tub thumpers happy today .., he’s got to make a living too. The context of the situation is important…, we’re good at nuance on here, so I don’t see the issue.

0

Lightningboy added 14:31 - Sep 24 Amateur hour...is every single thing in this country run by clowns these days? Amazed that there isn't a rule in place for this sort of thing?
0

bigacorns added 14:41 - Sep 24 If you noticed at half time there were seven forkers on the pitch. What they thought they would do I will never know!! But my point is this, given that the ground was so soaked the forks should have easily disappeared through the surface without hardly any pressure. I was watching them and the forks hardly penetrated the surface. This indicates that underneath the top layer of grass there was a solid base of something that did not allow the water to penetrate thus the top surface water logged. Therefore the onus of the problem has to be with Blackburn surely. We will however find out by the end of the week.

1

BlueArrow added 15:05 - Sep 24 Good job not a matter of life and death then ……
0

blues1 added 15:09 - Sep 24 Darkhorse28 omg. Ur even having a,dig at phil now. The person who's site this is, that ur posting on. Hopefully he'll do everyone a favour and ban you. While ur right about the efl being able to make any decision, the FA rules state that any game abandoned at k fault of either club, has to be replayed in full. Whether thst takes precedence to the efl rules, who knows. However, a precedent has been set, that there have been 2 games previously that were abandoned, that were ordered to be replayed in full. So would expect them to be consistent with their decision. What will be, will be tho. Just have to wait and see.

0

IP1Blue added 15:09 - Sep 24 The longer this goes on, the more I worry about what they are going to decide…
0

Broadbent23 added 15:12 - Sep 24 This is still not good enough. They expect clubs and fans to change plans when switching games. Surely they could use teams internet media to make decisions in a shorter time. The playing contract of 90 minutes has been broken because of an Act of God, therefore replay the game if the score is not surmountable. 1-0 can easily change in 10 minutes+ extra time.
0

hammo56 added 15:12 - Sep 24 Really don’t see this decision going in our favour and expect the points to be awarded to Blackburn.
0

blueboy1981 added 15:15 - Sep 24 Is it such a Big Decision to make ?? Should have been decided within 24 hours - it smacks of more incompetence at League Management level. WHY does such a such a Simple Decision take so long ???
0

ArnieM added 15:16 - Sep 24 EFL are bloody ridiculous.
0

RegencyBlue added 15:21 - Sep 24 To make what seems should be a very straightforward decision, full replay, there seems to be a right faff going on. Blackburn are making themselves look tin pot with their public pronouncements and surely the onus was on them to provide a playable surface in the first place. If the EFL award the points to Blackburn it sets a very odd precedent and if they make us go up there to play 11 minutes plus stoppage time that’s just ludicrous.

0

westernblue added 15:23 - Sep 24 The end of the relevant EFL Reg. (34.2) states that in the event of conflict the FA Rules shall prevail. So it seems that the absolute discretion of the EFL Board referred to in the news item should be restricted to situations other than ‘causes over which neither club has control’. Given that neither club had control in these circumstances then a full replay seems the most logical/justified outcome. While it may seem harsh to some, let’s hope so!

0

tetchris added 15:24 - Sep 24 I’m not convinced there will be a replay and therefore 3 points awarded to Blackburn
0

Tedray added 15:26 - Sep 24 The problem would seem to be that Blackburn did not present a pitch up to the standard on which an EFL football match could be played . As they have had problems with the drainage in the past it appears that little has been done to rectify the problem. That being so perhaps they should incur a fine and compensate ITFC for travel and accommodation expenses as well as (?) our supporters.The result of the match and on which we do not have a resolution is purely acedemic. The game should be replayed in full when the facilities have been brought up to the necessary standard .

0

100grambarrier added 15:27 - Sep 24 I read an excellent summary of the 7 games in history where the result stood rather than game replayed. In each case, you would read the summary and say "Yes, they are highly unusual circumstances, and its actually a good job there is a panel to ensure fairness. One example was WBA v Sheff U...where one side had three players sent off, were 3 down, and then withdrew 2 further players through "injury"...therefore arguing that it cant constitute a match....hoping for a full replay. Another example was 1974 when Man City relegated Man Utd wih a winner late in the game...ironically scored by Dennis Law. Man U fans invaded the pitch...clearly hoping for abandonment....but a panel rightly adjudicated that the result stood. All seven examples were something like this, and where the losing team was highly culpable. Surely the base rule is rule 20(E)“In the event of a competition match not being played or abandoned owing to causes over which neither club has control, it should be played in its entirety on a date to be mutually agreed by the two clubs and approved by the competition.” The purpose of the panel to change that base rule is when one club did have "control"...like the Man U and WBA examples above.

1

Blogs 297 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls