| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? 11:55 - Jan 22 with 5138 views | HemelBlue |
McKenna says that the referee told him that, with an abandonment at 75min, the score of 1-1 at that stage would stand as a result. He then says the company secretary told him ‘it’s not in the rule book.’
So I’ve looked into that. The EFL rules say it’s the sole discretion of the EFL Board, considering IFAB and FA rules. The IFAB say that results can be valid after 60mins of play. So the EFL Board could determine the result as valid but their rules don’t cover it explicitly… but that is not the end of it.
If you look back at precedent, for all EFL games abandoned after 75 mins (for reasons from weather to ‘The Battle of Brammall Lane’) the score at that point has become the result. The only exceptions are where one team’s misconduct causes the abandonment and then the EFL generally punish that team with a 3-0 loss.
Precedent, like case law, should be considered part of the rules. Once established, precedents are applied consistently in the same circumstances, for fairness.
The story where he says ‘it’s not in the rulebook’ misstated the facts, or at least did not state the complete facts and is misleading. It’s not a criticism of McKenna - it’s not his job to know obscure competition rules. But he has been misinformed (or incompletely informed) by our CoSec. Ultimately, the referee appears correct.
I’m pleased we went for the win. It’s the right mentality. We were unlucky but we have to live with the consequences of our choices and not imply the ref lied to us when he didn’t. [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 12:12]
|  | | |  |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:16 - Jan 22 with 854 views | Trequartista |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:13 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
I’ve said that - if one team causes the abandonment, the result is changed to punish them.
No-one suggested that 1-1 against Oxford would have been determined ‘on the night’. It would have gone through the same process to confirm the result 1 week later. Which was my point, entirely. [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 13:19]
|
ok let's put when the result would be decided aside as a red herring, where are these lots of examples on google? [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 14:18]
|  |
| |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:34 - Jan 22 with 817 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:16 - Jan 22 by Cheltenham_Blue |
There is literally nothing in the EFL rulebook about abandonments. |
Just because you posted an essay on postponements does not mean the EFL are silent on abandonments. Their rules say it’s at the EFL Board’s discretion, with reference to IFAB and FA rules. | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:35 - Jan 22 with 820 views | 44_not_out |
Firstly, I was at the ground and saw for myself the conditions
IMO it became a farce soon after half time. There is no way the assistants could see the far touch line.
I get the point ‘it was the same for both sides’ but my point is in regard to those who paid to watch a football match. I think it is fair to say that from the 60th minute, we (the Town fans) could only see a quarter of the pitch. No regard (as always) is given to the fans. The Oxford supporters behind the goal would not have been able to see the other end.
Surely an abandonment, a partial refund (if not total) or free entry to the rescheduled fixture for those able to attend.
It’s almost as though the ref was determined to play on regardless…. It reminded me of the home match with Leicester a few years back in the snow (although I’m guessing that was played because of pressure from Sky). However, al least I could see that match albeit another farce! [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 15:34]
| | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:37 - Jan 22 with 809 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:16 - Jan 22 by Trequartista |
ok let's put when the result would be decided aside as a red herring, where are these lots of examples on google? [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 14:18]
|
As it goes, they saw no reason to change the result. The score after 82 minutes stood. There are a century of examples. I’m not wikipedia and don’t need to list all of them. If you disagree, find some examples from the century that are contrary | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:38 - Jan 22 with 806 views | Sharkey |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:35 - Jan 22 by 44_not_out |
Firstly, I was at the ground and saw for myself the conditions
IMO it became a farce soon after half time. There is no way the assistants could see the far touch line.
I get the point ‘it was the same for both sides’ but my point is in regard to those who paid to watch a football match. I think it is fair to say that from the 60th minute, we (the Town fans) could only see a quarter of the pitch. No regard (as always) is given to the fans. The Oxford supporters behind the goal would not have been able to see the other end.
Surely an abandonment, a partial refund (if not total) or free entry to the rescheduled fixture for those able to attend.
It’s almost as though the ref was determined to play on regardless…. It reminded me of the home match with Leicester a few years back in the snow (although I’m guessing that was played because of pressure from Sky). However, al least I could see that match albeit another farce! [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 15:34]
|
A refund AND free entry to the replay seems a bit of a lot to ask. |  | | |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 14:43 - Jan 22 with 779 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 13:37 - Jan 22 by Sharkey |
ESPN : https://www.espn.com/soccer/report/_/gameId/453780
An English Football League (EFL) statement released after the match said: ``The Sky Bet League Two fixture between Leyton Orient and Colchester United has been concluded behind closed doors.
``The decision to play the match to a conclusion was agreed with both Managers and with the support of the match officials. The Police and Stadium security staff were happy for the match to restart and this took place at approximately 6.40pm.
``Despite requests for the fans to clear the pitch, there wasn't sufficient movement to allow the game to restart following a pitch invasion. A decision was taken with the Police to announce that the game had been abandoned, as it was felt this would help clear the pitch, which proved correct.
I don't think there's any reasonable way to read this statement other than in the order the paragraphs are written. i.e. They agreed they'd play the game to the end, and then they told the fans the game was off. Basically, I can only see this as the league saying they (and the police) told a little fib.
Here's the EFL's own site: https://www.efl.com/news/2017/april/efl-media-advisory---leyton-orient-v-colches
Here is the BBC reporting the match as abandoned:
BBC shows the league table and how goal difference was an issue at the top:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/39676226
Not really relevant to what you said you'd love to see, but it seems I'm wrong when I said the players stayed in their own half. But all reports said that when they came back (for eight minutes) the players 'went through the motions'. As I say, the clubs were not reprimanded for this. [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 14:07]
|
So the clubs and the police colluded to make the announcement. The EFL released a statement after the event. Does not equate to the EFL being or admitting being tricky | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:57 - Jan 22 with 769 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:43 - Jan 22 by Cheltenham_Blue |
But, with respect, you don't seem to know a little about it.
IFAB/FA Rule. 7.5
Abandoned Match
An abandoned match is replayed unless the competition rules or organisers determine otherwise.
EFL Rule 29.1 and 29.2
29 POSTPONEMENTS, ABANDONMENTS AND RE-ARRANGEMENTS
29.1 In the event of a fixture postponement no matter the cause, the EFL will decide the new date on which the fixture is to be played following consultation with both Clubs.
Guidance
It is not permissible for a club to make a decision to postpone a match and in the first instance Clubs should contact the Football Services Department for advice. The full guidance document is available in the Football Services section on the Club Portal.
Re-dating of Postponed Fixtures.
Detailed guidance is available in the Football Services section on the Club Portal, in summary:
the EFL will ask the Clubs to mutually agree a date in the first instance;
if Clubs are unable to mutually agree a date, the EFL will set the date of the fixture and will take into account the following considerations:
the provisions of the relevant EFL policy (as updated from time to time);
the preferred dates of both the Home and Away Club and the rationale for preferences;
Home and Away fixtures either side of the proposed dates;
the ability to date already existing and further potential postponed fixtures;
any interference or possible clashes with Cup fixtures, replays or international fixtures;
any Police views/requirements; and
any pairing issues.
29.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 29.1, The League reserves the right at any time to reschedule a League Match after consultation with and consideration of representations from the Clubs involved.
You've been asked multiple times for your 'precedents' and have failed to supply any, precedents are generally as you point out, for case law. But that doesn't apply in competitive sport, else once you book a player for a soft tackle, you have to book for every single soft tackle.
Sorry, but you are wrong, the club are completely right to investigate it, nothing will happen, but we've misled no-one. |
Missed the part where you were confusing laws within the game (what to do with tackles) with rules of a sporting competition. Rules of competition do form part of the legal framework of sport and often end up in ICAS disputes. So precedent is legally important. Laws of the game are different because they are provided for in the rules of the competition by basically saying ‘the referee is correct unless we decide otherwise’. You’ve posted war and peace and then confused yourself | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 15:00 - Jan 22 with 765 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:57 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
Missed the part where you were confusing laws within the game (what to do with tackles) with rules of a sporting competition. Rules of competition do form part of the legal framework of sport and often end up in ICAS disputes. So precedent is legally important. Laws of the game are different because they are provided for in the rules of the competition by basically saying ‘the referee is correct unless we decide otherwise’. You’ve posted war and peace and then confused yourself |
In the time you spent thinking about that you could have come up with 3 or 4 examples of where the match result stood when abandoned after 65 or 75 minutes.
But again, despite repeated asking, (on multiple threads), by different posters, you've failed to do so. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 15:32 - Jan 22 with 733 views | 44_not_out |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:38 - Jan 22 by Sharkey |
A refund AND free entry to the replay seems a bit of a lot to ask. |
Fair point. I wasn’t thinking that one through. I will edit | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 15:57 - Jan 22 with 711 views | Sharkey |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 14:43 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
So the clubs and the police colluded to make the announcement. The EFL released a statement after the event. Does not equate to the EFL being or admitting being tricky |
You surely agree the League WERE tricky, ... whilst being very clever at not admitting being tricky (with some clever use of passive constructions that obscured all agency) ? By which I mean, I take it you don't actually think it was McGreal and the other manager and the ref and the stadium announcer who agreed with the police to this lie, "for the integrity of the league". [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 16:03]
| | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 16:26 - Jan 22 with 687 views | OldFart71 |
In the great scheme of things does this really matter ? Rules seem to be interpreted differently by one referee than another. Take the goal where Man Utd scored. Rashford was offside, couldn't really be described as not interfering with play as the ball was passed to him. Admittedly he didn't touch the ball and Fernandes scored. The goal allowed. In many cases this would have been ruled out. One player goals down in the box, penalty. Another goes down, no pen. Where's the sense in VAR the only difference is you have three or four opinions and possibly only two on the pitch. The ref and the lines person. | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 16:30 - Jan 22 with 672 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 15:57 - Jan 22 by Sharkey |
You surely agree the League WERE tricky, ... whilst being very clever at not admitting being tricky (with some clever use of passive constructions that obscured all agency) ? By which I mean, I take it you don't actually think it was McGreal and the other manager and the ref and the stadium announcer who agreed with the police to this lie, "for the integrity of the league". [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 16:03]
|
Not at all. The league had nothing to do with the decision making. Seems almost entirely the police advising the club. EFL not even involved in the ‘trick’ | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 16:33 - Jan 22 with 665 views | Trequartista |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:37 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
As it goes, they saw no reason to change the result. The score after 82 minutes stood. There are a century of examples. I’m not wikipedia and don’t need to list all of them. If you disagree, find some examples from the century that are contrary |
Just one would be good. Otherwise, we can assume there is no such rule. | |
| |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 16:36 - Jan 22 with 656 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 16:33 - Jan 22 by Trequartista |
Just one would be good. Otherwise, we can assume there is no such rule. |
Was asked this morning by a poster to point them to the "60 minute rule" in IFAB. Did nothing of the sort and just started a fresh thread.
Both managers agreed to call game off by Danny_G 22 Jan 2023 7:20Could you point me to this 60-minute rule? I have the IFAB rules open and I can’t see anything about it in there
https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/the-duration-of-the-match/
If the rule is there, the rule is there, but I strongly suspect it isn't. | |
| |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 18:35 - Jan 22 with 604 views | Sharkey |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 16:30 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
Not at all. The league had nothing to do with the decision making. Seems almost entirely the police advising the club. EFL not even involved in the ‘trick’ |
At the time, the Orient manager was very clear about what happened.
When asked about the decision-making process Riza said: “The EFL came down. They sat and spoke with the officials and the managers and said we had to come up with a plan, to make sure the game finished.
“No one wants to come back and play six, seven minutes next week so the only way we were going to disperse the fans was to say the game was cancelled. It was a solution the EFL came up with and we agreed.”
https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/sport/leytonorient/15255839.leyton-orient-boss
Colchester manager John McGreal said "The referee, the two sets of players and the Football League were desperate to get the game done,"
[...] "You have to play it by the rules and we'd set aside four days at the end of the season for if a game is abandoned, so that's in place.
"But when it goes to this amount of time, you don't really want to be coming back five minutes plus stoppage time.
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/sport/15255826.players-were-unbelievable-says-col
So provision is made for a game being canceled. In this case, the league preferred the teams to finish the game and told the teams they'd have to come back for the sake of six or seven minutes. I think McGreal's *You have to play by the rules" followed quickly by 'but' shows that he knew that Colchester were being offered an unusual deal.
The Orient manager could hardly have been clearer that the 'let's lie' idea came from the League, except that he did not go as far as naming names.
[Post edited 22 Jan 2023 18:39]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
