| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? 11:55 - Jan 22 with 4275 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 postponement? on 12:17 - Jan 22 with 3334 views | Sharkey |
The EFL can be a bit sneaky! In April 2017, Orient fans protesting about the ownership of their club invaded the pitch and forced the players off when Macauley Bonne scored to make it 3-1 to Colchester with a few minutes to go; it was then announced that the game had been abandoned. Supporters were doubtful that this was true, but were eventually persuaded to leave the ground. An hour or so later, the last three or four minutes were played out with both teams not leaving their own half and Colchester (I think) having 100% possession. For some reason the League preferred those minutes to be played rather than simply to let the score stand, even though the teams seem to have been told not to make any effort to attack.
You write that "Once established, precedents are applied consistently in the same circumstances, for fairness", but I wonder if the League will ever dare try and pull this stunt again.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2706627-leyton-orient-vs-colchester-abandone
Edit: Actually reading that link, I think I'm remembering wrong. The league did not tell the players not to play football, but did not punish either team for the way in which they finished the game, (with as I say the Colchester players just knocking the ball around among themselves, totally unchallenged in their half of the pitch.) Colchester were in with a shout of the play-offs, and goal difference was potentially significant.
[Post edited 22 Jan 2023 12:26]
|  | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:19 - Jan 22 with 3296 views | Trequartista |
Could you show us which EFL games were abandoned after 75 minutes where the result stood? |  |
| |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 12:24 - Jan 22 with 3268 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 12:17 - Jan 22 by Sharkey |
The EFL can be a bit sneaky! In April 2017, Orient fans protesting about the ownership of their club invaded the pitch and forced the players off when Macauley Bonne scored to make it 3-1 to Colchester with a few minutes to go; it was then announced that the game had been abandoned. Supporters were doubtful that this was true, but were eventually persuaded to leave the ground. An hour or so later, the last three or four minutes were played out with both teams not leaving their own half and Colchester (I think) having 100% possession. For some reason the League preferred those minutes to be played rather than simply to let the score stand, even though the teams seem to have been told not to make any effort to attack.
You write that "Once established, precedents are applied consistently in the same circumstances, for fairness", but I wonder if the League will ever dare try and pull this stunt again.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2706627-leyton-orient-vs-colchester-abandone
Edit: Actually reading that link, I think I'm remembering wrong. The league did not tell the players not to play football, but did not punish either team for the way in which they finished the game, (with as I say the Colchester players just knocking the ball around among themselves, totally unchallenged in their half of the pitch.) Colchester were in with a shout of the play-offs, and goal difference was potentially significant.
[Post edited 22 Jan 2023 12:26]
|
The EFL were not responsible for what was announced at the stadium (which is under the club’s control). The clubs are punished if the fixtures cannot be fulfilled for such reasons so were probably trying to avoid that. It’s not the EFL being sneaky as it was not an action of the EFL. So this does not influence the precedent under discussion at all. | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:25 - Jan 22 with 3260 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
This is your fourth post on the exact same subject since 6:45 this morning.
Given everything going on at the moment, I hope you don't mind me saying it's a very small area of the match to get caught up on. You said yourself, "the EFL Board could determine the result as valid but their rules don’t cover it explicitly"
So the CoSec isn't misleading anyone is he? It's literally, 'not in the rulebook'. No one is implying that the ref 'lied', but that he interpreted the rules incorrectly. [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 12:26]
|  |
| |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:26 - Jan 22 with 3250 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:19 - Jan 22 by Trequartista |
Could you show us which EFL games were abandoned after 75 minutes where the result stood? |
I mentioned one of them in the OP but there is no consolidated analysis I’m aware of. Google will find you lots of examples. Abandonments when the weather comes in are not that uncommon. | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 12:29 - Jan 22 with 3214 views | Sharkey |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 12:24 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
The EFL were not responsible for what was announced at the stadium (which is under the club’s control). The clubs are punished if the fixtures cannot be fulfilled for such reasons so were probably trying to avoid that. It’s not the EFL being sneaky as it was not an action of the EFL. So this does not influence the precedent under discussion at all. |
OK, but why were the players not punished for bringing the game into disrepute for flagrantly not trying in those minutes? That's surely a league issue. It has strong implications for betting, for a start. [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 12:29]
| | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:30 - Jan 22 with 3201 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:25 - Jan 22 by Cheltenham_Blue |
This is your fourth post on the exact same subject since 6:45 this morning.
Given everything going on at the moment, I hope you don't mind me saying it's a very small area of the match to get caught up on. You said yourself, "the EFL Board could determine the result as valid but their rules don’t cover it explicitly"
So the CoSec isn't misleading anyone is he? It's literally, 'not in the rulebook'. No one is implying that the ref 'lied', but that he interpreted the rules incorrectly. [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 12:26]
|
I agree with the point about me talking about this a fair bit. But it’s something I know a little about and it’s something the club are currently wrong about so thought it would be helpful to clear up. Saying ‘it’s not in the rulebook’ is not a fair reflection because there is established precedent which is part of the wider rules. McKenna’s interview does imply what the ref told him was untrue. And it’s not untrue. We as a club should correct that because we are a decent club and the truth matters. | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 12:32 - Jan 22 with 3166 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 12:29 - Jan 22 by Sharkey |
OK, but why were the players not punished for bringing the game into disrepute for flagrantly not trying in those minutes? That's surely a league issue. It has strong implications for betting, for a start. [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 12:29]
|
I take your point. Very difficult to prove conclusively though. ‘Not trying’ is too subjective. A lot of games fizzle out at 3-1 in the final minutes. I agree this example is worse but hard to take through a disciplinary process | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:34 - Jan 22 with 3137 views | marchy |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:25 - Jan 22 by Cheltenham_Blue |
This is your fourth post on the exact same subject since 6:45 this morning.
Given everything going on at the moment, I hope you don't mind me saying it's a very small area of the match to get caught up on. You said yourself, "the EFL Board could determine the result as valid but their rules don’t cover it explicitly"
So the CoSec isn't misleading anyone is he? It's literally, 'not in the rulebook'. No one is implying that the ref 'lied', but that he interpreted the rules incorrectly. [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 12:26]
|
Do you always audit how many posts a poster has made on a subject? | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:43 - Jan 22 with 3046 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:30 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
I agree with the point about me talking about this a fair bit. But it’s something I know a little about and it’s something the club are currently wrong about so thought it would be helpful to clear up. Saying ‘it’s not in the rulebook’ is not a fair reflection because there is established precedent which is part of the wider rules. McKenna’s interview does imply what the ref told him was untrue. And it’s not untrue. We as a club should correct that because we are a decent club and the truth matters. |
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. | |
| |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:43 - Jan 22 with 3037 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:34 - Jan 22 by marchy |
Do you always audit how many posts a poster has made on a subject? |
Not yours. Not worth reading. | |
| |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 12:47 - Jan 22 with 3017 views | Sharkey |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 12:32 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
I take your point. Very difficult to prove conclusively though. ‘Not trying’ is too subjective. A lot of games fizzle out at 3-1 in the final minutes. I agree this example is worse but hard to take through a disciplinary process |
The players resumed the match without any kind of pre-match warm-up after a long break. I strongly suggest they had been told (by the league) that they could stay in their own half.
What set me off was the word 'precedent'. By doing this the league set a precedent that says that a game is not necessarily abandoned when the paying public is told that it has been abandoned. THE EFL later admitted that it had 'tricked' the public. | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:53 - Jan 22 with 2976 views | marchy |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:43 - Jan 22 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Not yours. Not worth reading. |
No, sounds like you're plenty busy enough. | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:54 - Jan 22 with 2977 views | Trequartista |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:26 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
I mentioned one of them in the OP but there is no consolidated analysis I’m aware of. Google will find you lots of examples. Abandonments when the weather comes in are not that uncommon. |
The scoreline of the Battle of Bramall Lane was decided one week later by a Football League commission, it was not registered as 3-0 on the night. Moreover, 3-0 walkovers are often awarded where a match has been abandoned due to disciplinary reasons, not fog.
I think we can safely assume that if the team that caused the abandonment were drawing 0-0 in the 82nd minute, the result would not have stood.
My google is not working very well, but as they are easy to find for your google, could you give an example of an EFL weather abandonment after 75 minutes where the result stood? [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 12:56]
| |
| |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:11 - Jan 22 with 2844 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. |
This adds nothing to the analysis. Most of it is about postponements which is totally, totally different [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 13:12]
| | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:13 - Jan 22 with 2818 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 12:54 - Jan 22 by Trequartista |
The scoreline of the Battle of Bramall Lane was decided one week later by a Football League commission, it was not registered as 3-0 on the night. Moreover, 3-0 walkovers are often awarded where a match has been abandoned due to disciplinary reasons, not fog.
I think we can safely assume that if the team that caused the abandonment were drawing 0-0 in the 82nd minute, the result would not have stood.
My google is not working very well, but as they are easy to find for your google, could you give an example of an EFL weather abandonment after 75 minutes where the result stood? [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 12:56]
|
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]
| | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:16 - Jan 22 with 2793 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:11 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
This adds nothing to the analysis. Most of it is about postponements which is totally, totally different [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 13:12]
|
There is literally nothing in the EFL rulebook about abandonments. | |
| |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 13:20 - Jan 22 with 2761 views | HemelBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 12:47 - Jan 22 by Sharkey |
The players resumed the match without any kind of pre-match warm-up after a long break. I strongly suggest they had been told (by the league) that they could stay in their own half.
What set me off was the word 'precedent'. By doing this the league set a precedent that says that a game is not necessarily abandoned when the paying public is told that it has been abandoned. THE EFL later admitted that it had 'tricked' the public. |
Would love to see your source of the EFL admitting it tricked the public… | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:36 - Jan 22 with 2664 views | PhilTWTD |
Accidental upvote. I know the opinion expressed by the club isn't just theirs and seems nothing out there to back up the referee's view. Am assuming it might be a rule north of the border. |  | | |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 13:37 - Jan 22 with 2641 views | Sharkey |
| McKenna misinformed about postponement? on 13:20 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
Would love to see your source of the EFL admitting it tricked the public… |
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]
| | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:43 - Jan 22 with 2609 views | EastTownBlue |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:36 - Jan 22 by PhilTWTD |
Accidental upvote. I know the opinion expressed by the club isn't just theirs and seems nothing out there to back up the referee's view. Am assuming it might be a rule north of the border. |
Not an SPFL rule either as their stance is pretty much the same.
All a referee should be saying in these circumstances is that abandoned matches are for the board to decide if the result stands or is to be replayed. | | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:07 - Jan 22 with 2512 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:36 - Jan 22 by PhilTWTD |
Accidental upvote. I know the opinion expressed by the club isn't just theirs and seems nothing out there to back up the referee's view. Am assuming it might be a rule north of the border. |
Either way, its no longer relevant.
We need to move on from this. |  |
| |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:11 - Jan 22 with 2487 views | DJR |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:36 - Jan 22 by PhilTWTD |
Accidental upvote. I know the opinion expressed by the club isn't just theirs and seems nothing out there to back up the referee's view. Am assuming it might be a rule north of the border. |
I did search the SFA and Scottish Professional Football League rules with the word "abandon" but couldn't see anything about this. [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 14:15]
|  | | |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 14:14 - Jan 22 with 2466 views | DJR |
| McKenna misinformed about abandonment? on 13:11 - Jan 22 by HemelBlue |
This adds nothing to the analysis. Most of it is about postponements which is totally, totally different [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 13:12]
|
That's not right because I looked at both sets of rules independently, and the provisions quoted are the only things there are about abandonment. [Post edited 22 Jan 2023 14:14]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
