who had the power to stop the meeting?

If the Football League and the Regional Prefect have continued to blame each other on Sunday evening, the decision to definitively interrupt the OL-OM match following the bottle throwing at Payet was up to the referee and no one else. .

The throwing of a bottle of water at Dimitri Payet getting ready to take a corner, the temporary suspension of the match and the subsequent mess at Groupama Stadium concerning the final fate of the match on Sunday evening highlighted the difficulty of the match. ‘had the different parties to agree on the fate of an event disrupted by this type of incident. After long discussions between the refereeing body, represented by Ruddy Buquet, the leaders of the clubs and the public authorities, the Olympico between Lyon and Marseille seemed on the point of resuming Sunday evening (the Lyonnais warmed up in the hypothesis of ‘a resumption of the match announced at 10:07 p.m.), before being definitively arrested by decision of the referee a good half hour later.

The regulations of the French Championship give full powers to the referee

Confusion reigned during a good part of the evening on Sunday evening between the prefecture of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, the professional football league who blamed themselves during an ubiquitous evening where Ruddy Buquet ended up taking his responsibilities. Article 549 of the French Championship regulations is moreover clear and limpid on the subject: it is up to the referee, who can consult, if he wishes, the different parties, to take the final decision on continuation or termination of a meeting. Here is the content of this article:

«A match may be interrupted, on several occasions, by the referee, for an indefinite period, due to serious incidents which may or may not result in the players and the referee team returning to the locker room. The match can only resume if the serious incidents have ceased, thus indicating the point relating to incidents during the match. If the match interruption (s) have clearly been ineffective, the referee must, as a last resort, after consultation with the match delegates and representatives of the public authorities, definitively stop the match. Such incidents fall within the competence of the Disciplinary Commission of the LFP. Any decision of the Disciplinary Commission is returned for registration to the Competitions Commission.»

My sporting decision has always been not to resume the game. I maintain that it was my decision ”

Ruddy Buquet

However, it took two hours (at 10:42 p.m.) for a decision to be finally taken by the refereeing body, putting an end to an endless cacophony between the various stakeholders. “My sporting decision has always been not to resume the game. I maintain it was my decision», Assured Ruddy Buquet justifying his choice after having openly dialogued with the leaders of the two clubs in particular.

A determination questioned by Jean-Michel Aulas, president of the Lyon club. “Given that the individual author of the gesture had been arrested, we imagined with the prefect that the match could resume and the referee made the decision to resume. When he announced the resumption to the players, there was a very violent reaction from OM“, Argued the president of OL. “His decision (of the referee, Editor’s note) was to stop the match“, Assured for his part Pablo Longoria, the president of OM.

The LFP and the Regional Prefect pass the buck

In this case, the Professional Football League and the Prefecture have nevertheless continued to pass the buck to each other through tweets. The LFP regretting “ the decision to resume the match“At first before the prefect replied in a new categorical message:”In no case has he made the decision to resume the match, which does not belong to him. This decision was taken by the arbitrator, in the presence of the prefect, the vice-prosecutor, the DDSP and the club presidents.»

.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.