Three minutes of play, two hours of interruption and procrastination, a press release against five tweets and an endless controversy. The flagship match of the 14th day of Ligue 1 between Lyon and Marseille, interrupted prematurely Sunday, November 21 after a projectile throw at the star player of OM, Dimitri Payet, continues to spill ink. Particularly about the decision not to resume the game. Lyon president Jean-Michel Aulas said on Sunday evening that the referee wanted to resume the match, before changing his mind, which the man in black denies. For its part, the Professional Football League (LFP) maintains that the prefect tried to force the resumption of the meeting, which the state services dispute. The opportunity to look at the texts to find out who is empowered to make this decision.
What does the regulation say?
It is written in black on white in article 549 of the regulations of the French championships (PDF), devoted to match incidents: “If the match interruption (s) have been manifestly ineffective, the referee should ultimately, after consulting the match delegates and representatives of the public authorities, stop the match definitively.” The final decision therefore returns, after consultation, to the referee of the match, the same person who decided to send the players back to the locker room from the 3rd minute of play during Lyon-Marseille, after the throwing of a bottle of Full water on OM playmaker Dimitri Payet, who was about to take a corner in front of one of the Lyon supporters’ stands.
What is the prefect’s room for maneuver?
Sunday evening, football France witnessed a surreal war of press releases and tweets between the Professional Football League (LFP), which governs the Ligue 1 championship, and the Rhône prefecture. In a text published in the middle of the evening, and while the most total vagueness reigned around a possible resumption of the meeting, the first accused the second of forcing the referee’s hand to bring the actors back on the lawn and play the game. This was announced by the stadium announcer at the microphone, at 10:20 p.m., before the decision was finally overturned about twenty minutes later.
The prefect firmly denies the statements of the @LFPfr.
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.– Prefect of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes and Rhône region (@prefetrhone) November 21, 2021
The referee of the match, Ruddy Buquet, explained half-word on Amazon Prime Video, the broadcaster of the L1, that the prefect had put forward reasons for possible disturbances to public order to plead the resumption of the match. “There are many considerations to take into account, such as having a full stadium, evacuating players, these are important parameters.”
Does the referee really have free rein to decide?
“My sporting decision has always been not to resume the game. It was mentioned risks of disturbing public order. But I maintain that my decision has always been not to resume the game”, defended the referee of the meeting. According to the report made by the President of Lyon, Jean-Michel Aulas, the man in black also consulted the two teams – which he is not required to do – and the strong reaction of Marseille players (already victims of similar facts on several occasions in recent months) at the prospect of returning to the lawn has tipped the scales. “OL’s security services reacted immediately, the individual was arrested, we had imagined that the match could resume, and the referee had decided to resume”, argued the media president of the Rhône on Prime Video. “And then, when he came back to announce it to the players, there was a violent reaction from Marseille. Ruddy Buquet asked to see the prefect again, and reversed the decision, it’s incomprehensible.”
A similar situation occurred during the Nice-OM match on August 22, when Dimitri Payet was already targeted by projectile throws, before Nice supporters invaded the field. The referee, Benoît Bastien, had this time decided to resume the match after a long interruption (and on the favorable opinion of the prefecture again), but the OM players remained in the locker room. “The referee decided to stop the game, but there was no pressure to resume the game”, described on RMC Sport, Karl Olive, member of the board of directors of the LFP. The prefect of the Alpes-Maritimes recognized after the fact on the same radio as“it was necessary to continue the match to preserve public order and avoid the general riot”.
Which is not the version of Pablo Longoria, the president of OM, in Provence: “The referee explained that his decision was to stop the match and that he was required to restart it for questions of public order.” After this memorable (and deplorable) evening, Benoît Bastien, had remained silent on the course of the events, but had been supported by his hierarchy. The boss of the referees, Eric Borghini, had nevertheless recognized in The team that it was not the referee who had the last word:“He did well to respect the instruction, the instructions, I dare not say the order, given to him by the prefect.”. This precedent could play on the decision of Ruddy Buquet Sunday evening.
Could the procedure be reformed?
This is what defended the Minister for Sports, Roxana Maracineanu, Monday, November 22 on franceinfo. “Today, in the disciplinary regulations, it is not marked that, for a projectile throw at a player and when the physical integrity of a player is affected, we stop [définitivement] the game. It’s not marked in black and white. “ It also wishes to strengthen the prerogatives of the referee, to make him the sole decision-maker of the final stoppage of the match. The Minister Delegate also wants a scale of sanctions to be included in the regulations: “Everywhere else, in handball, in basketball, we can incriminate the club public and penalize the club because its public, its supporters have acted badly in the stands. Today, in football, that does not exist in the texts. ”
So far, the sanctions are the sole responsibility of the disciplinary committee, which generally decides on sanctions as a precaution (most often closed-door matches) before, a few weeks later, to punish the offending clubs after investigation. For the incidents during Nice-OM, the Riviera club had been sentenced to three games behind closed doors (including one replayed on neutral ground against Marseille at the end of October) and a withdrawal of two points in the standings, including one suspended.