There was a time for everything Sunday evening.
That of the emergency, which saw the express arrest of the bottle launcher from 9.15 p.m. in the stands of the Groupama Stadium and then his placement in police custody.
Then there was everything else.
An endless and pathetic farce.
For nearly two hours, time was suspended around the OL-OM meeting, the silence ultimately giving way to a succession of contradictory and annoyed words from the various "officials" (referee, presidents, prefecture , LFP).
This Monday morning, we challenge anyone, other than those in Ruddy Buquet's locker room, to unravel the chain of responsibilities for this rout. There are lots of questions. Why isn't every stadium equipped with anti-projectile nets? Isn't that an effective solution if there is one to avoid seeing a football player like Payet receive a full bottle of water in his temple, or a phone charger brushing against Lionel Messi as during the clasico last month?
Before thinking about the aftermath, and the reforms vital for the dignity of the French championship, the Professional Football League will have to grasp the reasons for these procrastination on Sunday evening in the Rhône. An emergency commission is meeting just this Monday. With a central point: why the stadium announcer was authorized to announce the resumption of the match around 10:15 p.m. before formalizing the stoppage of the match thirty minutes later? A question that points to the lack of transparency in decision-making, while everyone is throwing the ball back in front of the cameras.
The regulations of the LFP stipulate that "if the interruptions to the match have clearly been ineffective, the referee must, as a last resort, after consultation with the delegates of the match and the representatives of the public authorities, definitively stop the match". First, it is difficult to judge the effectiveness or otherwise of a match interruption, and to be sure that no further projectile rolls will occur. The thesis of an "isolated act", as advanced by Jean-Michel Aulas, being easily refutable to the image. But above all, another problem here, the referee of the meeting Ruddy Buquet quickly spoke to the broadcaster Prime Video to give a more complex version, revealing the divergent interests of the clubs (OL, OM) but also of the authorities (LFP, prefecture).
"The stadium is full, the evacuation of the players is also an important element in terms of safety"
“My decision was always not to resume the game.
There were other considerations to take into account.
For obvious sporting reasons, I decided not to resume the game.
There is the pitch and there is the extra-sportsman, but the decision ultimately came back to me and I made it.
We made a first announcement on the microphone, we have to protect the players in the game, we are the primary guarantors of security, so I decided to go back to the locker room.
We must also take into account the external parameters, the stadium is full, the evacuation of the players is also an important element in terms of safety ”.
🔴 EXCLUDED: Insults and projectile throwing at Payet seen from the stands 😲 #OLOM pic.twitter.com/mhRG7d7GGb
- PiedsCarrés (@PiedsCarres) November 21, 2021
Everything is not very clear in the why of this decision in two acts.
Buquet suggests that he felt for a time that resuming the game would avoid additional overflows in the stands.
But without explicitly claiming to have given his approval to the announcer during the initial announcement of the resumption of the match.
"We regret the duration of the final decision-making which would obviously have been shorter if the LFP and the referee were the only decision-makers," added the general manager of the LFP to the team.
The prefecture charges the arbitrator and the LFP
The prefecture of the Auvergne - Rhône-Alpes region did not fail to react to these accusations on social networks. If Jean-Michel Aulas attributed this "about-face" to the pressure that Marseille leaders would have exerted on the referee, the public authorities have charged Mr. Buquet and the League. “Following the incident, a crisis meeting was organized, in the presence of the referees, the prefect, the vice-prosecutor, the DDSP and the presidents of the two clubs. The referee decides to resume the match. Almost an hour later, the LFP discards and publishes a press release saying that the decision to take over came from the prefect of the Rhône. FALSE. This decision was taken by the referee in the presence of authorities and club presidents.The referee then invites the authorities and club presidents to his locker room to say that he changes his mind and that he stops the match. "
Aulas and the prefect on one side, Buquet and the LFP on the other, and Phocaean President Pablo Longoria in the middle of it all?
He sided with the referee, confirming his initial wish to end the sad spectacle.
On the side of the Ministry of Sports, it is in any case time to rewrite the texts.
"The League will certainly have to clarify its regulations so that such an act of aggression on a player in the game leads to an automatic stoppage of the match," said Minister Roxana Maracineanu.
"Without immediate and radical awareness of the clubs to guarantee safety on the lawn and in the stands, we are going into the wall," she added on Twitter Sunday evening.
