demon_dog Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 From the Web. STOP, SUSPEND, ABANDON OR TERMINATE? March 31, 2010 Question: On what grounds can a referee stop and abandon a soccer match An interesting question, one that requires a good bit of space to answer completely. Under the Laws of the Game (or, as they are called in Great Britain, the Laws of Association Football), the referee has the power to stop, suspend or abandon the match, at his discretion for any infringements of the Laws or for outside interference of any kind. A referee (or where applicable, an assistant referee or fourth official) is not held liable for a decision to abandon a match for whatever reason. We need first to differentiate between “abandon” and “terminate” a match. The difference between terminating a match and abandoning a match is a subtle one, but it is historically correct and supported by traditional practice. (Research into the history of the Laws will reveal this clearly; the IFAB now uses “abandon” almost exclusively, most likely just to confuse us all.) The referee may abandon a match if there is an insufficient number of players to meet the requirements of the Law or the competition, if a team does not appear or leaves before completion of the game, or if the field or any of its equipment do not meet the requirements of the Laws or are otherwise unsafe; i. e., for technical (Law 1) or physical (Law 4) safety. An abandoned match is replayed unless the competition rules provide otherwise. The referee may terminate a match for reasons of non-physical safety (bad weather or darkness), for any serious infringement of the Laws, or because of interference by spectators. Only the competition authority, not the referee, has the authority to declare a winner, a forfeit, or a replay of the match in its entirety. The referee must report fully on the events. “Suspended” means that a match was stopped temporarily for any of various reasons. After that the match is either resumed, abandoned, or terminated and the competition rules take over. CONDITION OF THE FIELD (AND APPURTENANCES) • Law 1 states that if the crossbar becomes displaced or broken, play is stopped until it has been repaired or replaced in position. If it is not possible to repair the crossbar, the match must be abandoned. In addition, if the referee declares that one spot on the field is not playable, then the entire field must be declared unplayable and the game abandoned. • A careful inspection of the field before the start of the game might lead the referee to abandon the game before it was started. If, once the match has begun, the referee discovers a problem that is not correctable, then the referee’s decision must be to abandon the game and report the matter to the competition authority. • Under Law 5, the referee is authorized to stop play if, in his opinion, the floodlights are inadequate. INTERFERENCE BY PLAYERS, OTHER PARTICIPANTS, OR SPECTATORS If an object thrown by a spectator hits the referee or one of the assistant referees or a player or team official, the referee may allow the match to continue, suspend play or abandon the match depending on the severity of the incident. He must, in all cases, report the incident(s) to the appropriate authorities. Using the powers given him by Law 5, the referee may stop, suspend or terminate the match, at his discretion, for any infringements of the Laws or for grave disorder (see below). If he decides to terminate the match, he must provide the appropriate authorities with a match report which includes information on any disciplinary action taken against players, and/or team officials and any other incidents which occurred before, during or after the match. In no event may the referee determine the winner of any match, terminated or not. Nor may the referee decide whether or not a match must be replayed. Both of those decisions are up to the competition authority, i. e., the league, cup, tournament, etc. “Grave disorder” would be any sort of dustup involving the players and/or spectators and/or team officials which puts the officials in immediate or likely subsequent jeopardy — fights which metastasize beyond just 2 or 3, masses of spectators invading the pitch, throwing dangerous objects (e. g., firecrackers, butane lighters, etc.) onto the field, and so forth. THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS • The referee has no authority to force a team to play if they do not wish to continue a game nor to terminate the match in such a case. The referee will simply abandon the game and include all pertinent details in the match report. • In the opinion of the International F.A. Board, a match should not be considered valid if there are fewer than seven players in either of the teams. If a team with only seven players is penalized by the award of a penalty-kick and as a consequence one of their players is sent off, leaving only six in the team, the game must be abandoned without allowing the penalty-kick to be taken unless the national association has decided otherwise with regard to the minimum number of players. • The referee must not abandon the game if a team loses a kicker after kicks from the mark begin. The kicks must be completed. • If a player has been seriously injured and cannot leave the field without risking further injury, the referee must stop the game and have the player removed. If, for whatever reason, there is no competent person available to oversee removal of the seriously injured player from the field for treatment, then the match must be abandoned. • If player fraud is alleged prior to the game and the player will admit that he is not the person on the pass he has presented and the game has already begun, the referee will have to deal with the matter of an outside agent on the field. If the fraud were not discovered until after the game had been restarted, the only solution would be to abandon the match. If there is no goal issue, the fraudulent player is removed and the game is restarted with a dropped ball. • If a player, from a team with only seven players, leaves the field of play to receive medical attention, the match will stop until this player has received treatment and returns to the field of play. If he is unable to return, the match is abandoned, unless the member association has decided otherwise with regard to the minimum number of players. In all cases, the referee must submit a full report to the appropriate authorities. AMOUNT OF TIME PLAYED If the referee discovers that a period of play was ended prematurely but a subsequent period of play has started, the match must be abandoned and the full details of the error included in the game report. TEAM OFFICIALS The Laws make the point that the coach and other team officials must BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY and thus may not shout, curse, interfere, or otherwise make a nuisance of themselves The coach’s presence, or the presence of any other team official, is generally irrelevant to the game — under the Laws of the Game, but it may have some importance under the rules of youth competitions. If the coach or other team official is removed, known in the Law as “expelled,” that person must leave the field and its environs. If it is a youth game and the coach and all other team officials have been expelled, then the referee should consider abandoning the game. A full report must be filed with the competition authority. The referee has no authority to determine who has won or lost the game, whether by forfeit or any other process; that is the responsibility of the competition authority. The referee must file a report on all events associated with the abandonment. RESULT OF THE MATCH Once the game begins, only the referee has the right to decide whether the game continues, is suspended temporarily, terminated or abandoned. If a game is abandoned or terminated before it is completed, the determination of the result is up to the competition authority (league, cup, tournament). In most cases, competitions declare that if a full half has been played, the result stands, but that does not apply to all competitions. The referee does not have the authority to declare what the score is or who has won the game. The referee’s only recourse is to include in his game report full details of what caused the match to be abandoned or terminated. The status of an abandoned is determined by the rules of the competition or the competition authority itself. There is no set amount of time, but many rules of competition will call a game complete if a full half has been played.
Swalker Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 Attwell was scared to tell Roy Keane that the game should be called off. Cost us points because we can't play football on snow it has to be long ball which is the type of football that the FA don't like they prefer passing. How do we do that when we can't pass the ball? Sven should charge the FA for the medical fees and the wages of both Vitor and Davies because their stupid appointment of the referee Stuart Attwell has cost us two injuries.
yorkie1999 Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 what it showed was that roy keene was prepared to sacrefice the safety of his players for a weeks stay of execution and how desperate ipswich are for 3 points
Trav Le Bleu Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 Once it was started, looking at the rules Demon Dog posted, can't see any reason why he could stop it, since the conditions didn't get that much worse. However, it's patently obvious that, had the game not been on TV, it wouldn't have started. I'd liked to have seen if any Sky officials had a word with Attwell before the match. And sod the result - Ipswich switched to the right style of playing for these conditions (which given their current form I could believe is their default style) which is to hoof it upfield, keep it in the air and pass pretty much as soon as you get it. We tried to play football and looked stupid. You can't run with the ball or dribble in these conditions, not effectively at least. We didn't twig this at all it seemed, even when we brought Howard on (an obvious move by Sven - get Dyer the dribbler off and get the big man on) we still didn't do it. But it should never have started. Watching in the pub I left after 40 minutes because I just couldn't tell what was happening. Even with the orange ball it was hard to see, City's black strip contrasted too much against the white snow, making many of the players difficult to identify other than by their postion or size and the entertainment value, due to the conditions, was dire. I have never left a game early, TV or when I've actually been there, even when we've been beaten worse than that - Portsmouth springs to mind - but it just simply wasn't a proper game of football, it was a lottery.
Guy Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 From an everyman's point of view, not just a Leicester fan's......! The game was only allowed to go ahead...... A - (first and foremost) because the game was being shown on Sky and their scheduled games in the Prem. for today have already bitten the dust so they were desperate to get this one at Ipswich on - and at any cost. No other games like this were allowed to go ahead so why should ours have been the exception........? B - because the referee was sub standard and wasn't firm enough in his decision making at crucial times.....and that was even before a ball was kicked! He shouldn't have even been allowed to let the game start - let alone mess with the players' minds when bringing them off in the second half for ten minutes before letting the game continue.......a decision which effectively included letting all 22 players on the pitch risk injury (Vitor being a case in point)! The game then became a procession of hit and hope at 3-0 with our players not only running down the clock but with their minds purely focussed on the referee blowing his whistle after 80 or so mins. and rearranging the game - which somehow never happened! Players can't play football when things are like that, let alone when they're under pressure to chase a game through being 3-0 down! C - Everything about the game starting and carrying on stank to high heaven! Roy Keane's influence was probably a major factor in the decision making as far as the referee was concerned in the second half while Sky were purely behind the game taking place at all. Besides I don't think Sky like us very much either - which is maybe why this whole farce of a fixture happened at all!!
Craig Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 Once it was started, looking at the rules Demon Dog posted, can't see any reason why he could stop it, since the conditions didn't get that much worse. However, it's patently obvious that, had the game not been on TV, it wouldn't have started. I'd liked to have seen if any Sky officials had a word with Attwell before the match. And sod the result - Ipswich switched to the right style of playing for these conditions (which given their current form I could believe is their default style) which is to hoof it upfield, keep it in the air and pass pretty much as soon as you get it. We tried to play football and looked stupid. You can't run with the ball or dribble in these conditions, not effectively at least. We didn't twig this at all it seemed, even when we brought Howard on (an obvious move by Sven - get Dyer the dribbler off and get the big man on) we still didn't do it. But it should never have started. Watching in the pub I left after 40 minutes because I just couldn't tell what was happening. Even with the orange ball it was hard to see, City's black strip contrasted too much against the white snow, making many of the players difficult to identify other than by their postion or size and the entertainment value, due to the conditions, was dire. I have never left a game early, TV or when I've actually been there, even when we've been beaten worse than that - Portsmouth springs to mind - but it just simply wasn't a proper game of football, it was a lottery. Well they clearly did. The pitch was playable at kick off, by 20 minutes it wasn't. Anyway, it happened, we lost, lets move on.
Corky Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 I did enjoy Mr Attwell's pitch inspection in the second half, looking at the areas that were not being cleared and deciding that it was either much better or no worse than 10 minutes before when he called a halt to the game. Fantastic work.
Coolpooper Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 This is an excellent example of the way football has gone unfortunately, which is why i'm becoming increasingly disinterested in football. Why can't you just accept that the game was fine, the hot air balloon sheet was on the pitch for nearly the whole period before the match. The pitch wasn't frozen, the ball was running fine, the conditions were the same for both teams stop fooking moaning. You're acting like the bunch of girls that were playing in black yesterday! Modern football fans eh.
smudger63 Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 Not that i`m suggesting anything here, but, if your curtis davies, and your hoping for a premier league move in january, the last thing you need is to get injured, in december, playing a game, in those conditions.
stripeyfox Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 I'm still not sure why sky would be so desperate for the game not to be called off? Sure, they'd prefer it if it went ahead, but I can't see how they really lose out significantly. The real losers would be the home club who most likely lose the tv cash. It's not like the game is ppv, and no doubt those companies who were due to have adverts just get them moved elsewhere. I reckon ipswich would've been keener for the game to start than sky?
nothin2seehere Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 I'm waiting to see whether Ipswich's next game in similar conditions, is played or called off. Bitter of course at losing, I won't deny that Ipswich won fair and square though. But the game shouldn't have started.
Thracian Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 This is just like listening to Labour Party politicians. Everyone's to blame except themselves. Now let's see ... We couldn't see the sodding lines. Chelsea and United didn't have to play. It was too dangerous for the Leicester team. We weren't winning. The three snowmen on the wall weren't cleared to play. The groundstaff's shovels were making the penalty area too slippy for our defenders. Kirkland was at risk cos of his bad back. Our players were getting injured. The ball was holding up in the snow and restricting our silky skills. Ipswich were passing the ball too quickly for us to cope. One of our players fell over. The delay in play meant fans missing their train. The same stoppage risked the fans getting pneumonia. We never win at Ipswich and shouldn't have been forced to play there. The ref was against us. The groundsmen were against us. The snow was against us. Their players were against us. The clouds were against us. The floodlights were shining in our eyes. Sven couldn't see through his glasses. Oh yes, and just found one that it was Sousa's for leaving us in such a mess! What a bunch of sore losers we sound. But the truth is we didn't compete and got exactly what we deserved.
broughtonblue Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 This is just like listening to Labour Party politicians. Everyone's to blame except themselves. Now let's see ... We couldn't see the sodding lines. Chelsea and United didn't have to play. It was too dangerous for the Leicester team. We weren't winning. The three snowmen on the wall weren't cleared to play. The groundstaff's shovels were making the penalty area too slippy for our defenders. Kirkland was at risk cos of his bad back. Our players were getting injured. The ball was holding up in the snow and restricting our silky skills. Ipswich were passing the ball too quickly for us to cope. One of our players fell over. The delay in play meant fans missing their train. The same stoppage risked the fans getting pneumonia. We never win at Ipswich and shouldn't have been forced to play there. The ref was against us. The groundsmen were against us. The snow was against us. Their players were against us. The clouds were against us. The floodlights were shining in our eyes. Sven couldn't see through his glasses. What a bunch of sore losers we sound. But the truth is we didn't compete and got exactly what we deserved. Absolutely! To think I pay their wages through the tickets I buy. Tomorrow I might refuse to work because on th site I work the conditions will not be what I like!
Daggers Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 First things first, if this wasn't on Sky there is absolutely no doubt that this wouldn't have gone ahead. Absolutely, huh? Totally and utterly no doubt about it? That'll be why I'm sitting down in the warm this afternoon watching Blackpool-Spurs and Chelsea-ManU on the TV then.
Dylan Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 Absolutely, huh? Totally and utterly no doubt about it? That'll be why I'm sitting down in the warm this afternoon watching Blackpool-Spurs and Chelsea-ManU on the TV then. Chelsea and Man U have much more power- there's no way Ancelotti and Ferguson are going to send their players out and risk injury in them conditions. And once it was still on (and should've been cancelled yesterday afternoon LATEST), Sky would've pressured whoever they did to make the match go ahead, as it would be the only live match of the weekend. They would lose out severely if every live match was cancelled, and they can easily pressure 'smaller' clubs like us and Ipswich.
stripeyfox Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 I wonder how the wider public would have coped without ipswich v leicester to entertain them on a saturday teatime. I mean, imagine everyone having to go a whole weekend without a live game.
bettso Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 Did Ipswich cope better than us? I dont think so. The 3 goals weren't exactly blisteringly good football were they? We hit the post because nobody could see what the hell was going on. All the players spent the 2nd half just trying not to fall over. The score line should have had nothing to do with the decision to abandon the game. It was a complete farce that the game was played and could have potentially caused serious injury to someone. Any Leicester fan who tries to critisise after this defeat needs to take a look at the game again and realise that neither team coped with the conditions. In all the years i've watched football, this has to be the most ridiculous thing i've ever had the displeasure of watching.
Jackirius Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 Did anyone go that is arguing for the match being played? Out of interest?
Daggers Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 Chelsea and Man U have much more power- there's no way Ancelotti and Ferguson are going to send their players out and risk injury in them conditions. And once it was still on (and should've been cancelled yesterday afternoon LATEST), Sky would've pressured whoever they did to make the match go ahead, as it would be the only live match of the weekend. They would lose out severely if every live match was cancelled, and they can easily pressure 'smaller' clubs like us and Ipswich. Oh behave and listen to yourself. What about Blackpool then: Are they bastions of power too? Really, the notion is fvcking ridiculous.
The Doctor Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 What about Blackpool then: Are they bastions of power too? no but spurs are a fairly big club.
stripeyfox Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 A game can only be postponed by the ref, possibly in consultation with both clubs, the police, councils and other interested parties. One club can't postpone a game (remember middlesbrough's flu a few years ago) and sky's viewpoint doesn't really come into it
Daggers Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 no but spurs are a fairly big club. We lost, we weren't any good, there's no conspiracy - it's Occam's Razor. Deal with it.
Tommeh Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 In heinsight it probably shouldn't have started had common sense been used in seeing the situation and games off in London, the snow was obviously coming and it would have been unplayable, which it was. However, once we went 3-0down, and it really started getting extreme at best we'd have got the call off at h/t then what? We return on a Tuesday night in February, and possibly give them the start like the Forest game? I could see it happening, on that assumption surely it's better to get the fixtue over with, prepare for Leeds and keep an important time of the season free of silly trips to Portman Road. The mistake we and Sven made was keeping the passing game, it just wouldn't work, still at least we stuck to our principles. Class weekend however, and we defeated all Ipswich in the snowball fights that went off.
Brainy Posted 19 December 2010 Posted 19 December 2010 Absolutely, huh? Totally and utterly no doubt about it? That'll be why I'm sitting down in the warm this afternoon watching Blackpool-Spurs and Chelsea-ManU on the TV then. actually agree.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.