The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Roar fury shows FFA need to look at abandoned match policy

22nd March, 2015
Advertisement
Matt McKay, Brisbane's grizzled veteran. (AAP Image/Glenn Hunt)
Expert
22nd March, 2015
166
2795 Reads

For the first time in A-League history a little known rule was forced to emerge on the weekend, in order to determine the result of Wellington Phoenix’s visit to Brisbane Roar.

After 73 minutes, with the Suncorp Stadium pitch waterlogged and the weather only worsening, referee Alan Milliner blew the whistle for the final time and signalled a premature end to the match.

With the score at 2-1 in favour of Wellington, both teams were furious. Profanities and heated words were directed towards officials from both captains, Matt McKay and Andrew Durante, as confusion reigned.

Both players were clearly eager to continue the tie. McKay’s side were about to take a free kick in a dangerous position, while Durante was clearly concerned that a replay was on the cards with his side leading with less than 20 minute to play.

It’s likely even Milliner had no idea what would happen to the result, his main focus was on the players’ safety, and possibly a warm bath.

Soon it was all cleared up, an FFA match official explaining through the television screens that the Phoenix had secured their first ever win in Brisbane, and extended their lead at the top of the A-League.

“The game is over and the result stands, as it’s 2-1 to Wellington Phoenix,” he told Fox Sports.

“It’s the score of the time [not the half-time score]. If the game had been stopped before half-time it would have been a replay.”

Advertisement

Rule 22.22 backed up his words, which states that any game stopped in the second half takes the end scoreline as the result.

Bizarre, to say the least.

Brisbane Roar manager Frans Thijssen was livid, but remarkably calm at the same time, in the post-match press conference. His understanding of the rules had a completely different spin, which he had acquired from having “always worked in Europe”.

“What do you expect me to say?” he asked journalists. “This is crazy.”

“If it happens in the first half it’s a replay. But if it happens after half-time then you play the second half again.

“That’s not an honest competition [with the current ruling].”

Thijssen is of course wrong, depending on what he defines as Europe.

Advertisement

In England, the rules state that all games must last for 90 minutes. And in their history on most occasions where a game has been abandoned, a full replay occurred, no matter which half play was halted.

But is this even the fairest way to determine abandoned games? History suggests that it is a bit of a mixed bag.

The most high profile case which provides an argument against full replays comes from 1904, when Everton travelled to play Arsenal in November. Leading 3-1 in the 75th minute, the Toffees were almost guaranteed victory, however heavy fog forced play to stop.

A full replay was scheduled, and in April 1905 Everton lost the match 2-1. They were forced to play three games in four days towards the end of their season, and they ended up finishing second to Newcastle by one point. The original result from the Arsenal game would have seen them win the league by one point (victories were worth two points back then).

Yet most of the time the ramifications are less extreme.

The Merseyside Derby on October 20, 1996 between Everton and Liverpool was also abandoned after less than an hour, this time due to a waterlogged pitch. A full replay was ordered, the score ending 1-1 a month later and with no complaints.

But while most cases in England have resulted in a full replay, it has not always been the case.

Advertisement

On October 19, 1961, Barrow were leading Gillingham 7-0 when their lack of flood lights caused the game to be abandoned. Gillingham had arrived to the game late, and the Football League took pity on the home side and let the result stand.

Then there was that fateful match at Old Trafford on April 27, 1974, when Denis Law (playing in a Manchester City shirt) condemned his beloved United to relegation with a back-heeled goal on 81 minutes to give the Citizens a 1-0 lead.

Knowing that even a draw would mean relegation, Red Devil fans stormed the pitch, clearly hoping to cause such a disturbance that the game would be replayed. The match was indeed abandoned, but the result stood and Law was forever haunted.

So clearly there is a bit of confusion around the rules.

FIFA certainly doesn’t help clear up matter with their fantastic interpretation that: “An abandoned match is replayed unless the competition rules provide otherwise”.

So basically anything goes. In fact Football Federation Tasmania appears to stray away from FFA’s official line. They stipulate that “should a match be abandoned after 65 minutes of play, the score shall stand”. Similarly, if it’s before 65 minutes, the game is replayed.

So none of this half-time cut-off at all.

Advertisement

In Spain, there is a completely different approach to dealing with interruptions.

On December 12, 2004, Real Madrid were locked at 1-1 against Real Sociedad when a bomb scare forced officials to evacuate the Santiago Bernabéu. With two minutes and 40 seconds left to play, plus four minutes of stoppage time, a draw was surely a fair outcome.

However, with no set precedent, a discussion between both clubs and the Spanish FA proceeded the next day, and they agreed that just the final seven minutes would be replayed.

So on January 5, 2005, Real Sociedad made the 480-kilometre roundtrip to play a seven-minute game of football. It was bizarrely Wanderley Luxemburgo’s first game in charge of Madrid, and a Zinedine Zidane penalty settled the tie.

So what is the best ruling? Should FFA be looking to change their interpretation following the Brisbane-Wellington debacle?

I feel in this case the full game should have been replayed between Brisbane and Wellington. But then again, Wellington were clearly the better side and probably should have been 4-1 up had Michael McGlinchey and Roy Krishna converted two fantastic chances. Should they perhaps have just played the extra minute at another stage?

The problem with the A-League is the distances travelled, especially for Wellington Phoenix. Having the club travel back to Brisbane for 13 minutes of action just does not make sense.

Advertisement

Then again, we saw Perth Glory robbed of three points due to a last-minute Central Coast Mariners goal on Saturday, so you can’t say that Brisbane would not have achieved it themselves.

Perth will be fuming, alongside Brisbane and the chasing pack of Melbourne Victory, Sydney FC and Adelaide United, who still harbour ambitions for the premiership. This ruling has assured Wellington a four-point lead. Meanwhile, Melbourne City will be fairly pleased, given their sole competitor for sixth place is the Roar.

Phoenix manager Ernie Merrick suggested his players weren’t pleased despite the win because it came in controversial circumstances. But if it wins them the A-League title, I doubt they will care one bit about the nature of their achievement.

It’s a bit of a concern, however. Deciding a match where 90 minutes hasn’t been played just does not seem right. If Wellington win the league by two points, and Melbourne City finish sixth by a similar margin, will it taint the 2014-15 season? It’s a tough set of circumstances, and hopefully the result does not affect the final standings to such a degree.

What can be said is that Milliner’s decision was poorly carried out. Yes, the match should have been abandoned, and Milliner made the correct call. But there should have been consultation with both managers or club representatives first. Player safety is paramount, yet avoiding confusion is also essential.

Neither McKay or Durante had a clue what abandonment meant, and neither did viewers, club staff or television commentators. It was all a bit of a farce that could have been avoided. Without a precedent in the A-League, perhaps it would have been best to follow the Spanish approach and hold discussions about how to find a solution to keep everyone happy.

But rules are rules, and the FFA have had no choice but to follow through with their original regulations. Is there reason for FFA to look at making changes, or now that it has happened should it just be accepted?

Advertisement

After all, this is not England, we normally have damn fine weather during the football season.

close