We often talk about the difference between the law and the spirit of the law.
Of the leeway that may exist between what a text orders and the interpretation that can be done in a specific context.
But when the "evil spirit" and individual interests reign, what is really left of the rule of law?
Since Sunday evening and the sad events at Groupama Stadium, we have once again wondered who has the last word in the event of incidents in a Ligue 1 stadium.
The interruption of the match between Olympique Lyonnais and Olympique de Marseille will have required almost two hours of negotiations after the bottle throw aimed at Payet.
An eternity marked by the false resumption of the match announced by the stadium announcer at 10:15 p.m. before deciding thirty minutes later.
It is this point that crystallizes the tensions.
To read also OL-OM stopped: follow our live
In theory, things are clear (Article 549 of the Statutes and Regulations): “If the match interruption (s) have been manifestly ineffective, the referee must, as a last resort, after consultation with the match delegates and representatives of the authorities public, definitively stop the match. "The referee would therefore be the sole decision-maker ... Has he therefore been pressured in the locker room from the public authorities, being afraid of overflows in the stands in the event of a final stop, as was the case in Nice in August , or leaders of OL or OM? It will be up to the LFP to dig.
This Monday, the referee Ruddy Buquet repeated to RMC Sport that he was at no time at the initiative of the surprise speech of the announcer.
The prefecture of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region and Jean-Michel Aulas assure them the opposite, claiming to have only suffered the "about-face" of Mr. Buquet.
The latter would have first "summoned in his locker room the two coaches and captains, who will be able to confirm it, to notify them of the resumption of the match and the timing of their return to the field".
Before deciding, according to him, under pressure from Marseille coach Sampaoli and two players.
The LFP blamed the prefecture on Sunday evening
The disciplinary committee of the LFP must meet urgently on Monday to begin to unravel what is possible to unravel. The case will be put under investigation and the hearings will be linked in the next two or three weeks. It remains to be seen on which rule the authorities will base themselves to determine the responsibilities.
Because the League itself has made the file more complex by sowing the seeds of the identity of the final responsible. In her press release published on Sunday evening in the midst of an imbroglio, she assured that "the safety of the matches is the responsibility of the home club and the local authorities, to whom it is ultimately the resumption or the final stoppage of the match. ". Asked about this apparent contradiction, the League has not yet answered us. Silence also on the side of the Technical Direction of Arbitration (DTA), which we requested on this same point of regulation.
The FFF and the LFP will meet tomorrow at Place Beauvau for an interview with the Interior Ministers Gérald Darmanin and Sports Roxana Maracineanu.
"Yesterday, everyone should have agreed to stop the match immediately," lamented the latter on BFMTV, which will now have to manage a serious and deep governance problem.
