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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
After all, this is not England, we normally have damn fine weather during the football season.
BtoThePower3
Guest
That was a Sunday afternoon match. Why would not the match stopped for half an hour and re-started if the rain became light? That is to say the match re-started to play the rest of the 20 minutes after stopping for half an hour.
BtoThePower3
Guest
Hello Wii, Is it more dangerous to play on a water logged field than playing on a very wet and rainy field? Anyhow, your assumption is playing on a water logged field is more dangerous than playing on a very wet field. However, there are so many matches being played in very wet field always. The fields in UK, Thailand, Singapore, Costa Rica, etc and many ocean weather countries are very wet always.
Lionheart
Guest
"by a far better side" No need to read beyond that opening line. Any logic is obviously flawed by your bias.
Paul
Guest
who in your opinion has over reacted Midfielder? it's all very well saying that but who or what in particular do you disagree with? Or have you just found something to get angry about yourself? ;-) Player safety is important without doubt - but "player safety" is a glib statement without context: did the referee endanger player safety by leaving them on the pitch too long for example? Both captains wanted to play on - what does that say about player safety? Did the referree leave them out there longer than necessary thereby endangering player safety because he knew his only alternative was to abandon the match and award the game to whoever is leading? Would player safety have been endangered by halting the game and waiting 50 minutes to resume as they did in Brazil at the weekend? In the context of Janek Speight's article, were the needs of player safety met or do protocols need reviewing? I've found this a difficult discussion to involve myself in because too many people have taken the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude, this site is about opinion and discussion and without a lot of tolerance and respect it won't work, emotions are forgivable - it is football after all. There's some really good debate going on here but you have to work quite hard to find it.
Midfielder
Guest
Cannot believe the total over reaction by many on this thread ... Kinda like I wanta find something to be angry about .. Fact is and its in every game player safety is important and in the ref opinion and part of his job is to protect player safety .. he made a call the field was dangerous ... huge respect to him for that ...
Greg
Guest
Yes, beaten is 73 mins by a far better side. "There's no fair play in Australian soccer" is the biggest load of rubbish I have heard. No, 10,000 people paid to watch the game. Adjustments to games for weather impacts are simply a condition of purchasing a ticket. Cricket is a perfect example, they may go over the alloted playing time slightly, but if rain interrupts play then the game is shortened. By your argument, the game shouldn't be shortened just simply extended further into the evening (or possibly morning, maybe a 4 am finish?). The 10,000 fans I am sure will stick around for that simply because they paid to see a full game, not a rain shorter game no matter what the weather conditions. What if the game was a Friday or Saturday night with an 8pm kick off. Instead of finishing at 10, we should keep going long into the night until it is ready to resume. Fans will love a midnight finish. How does that impact stadium rental, costs of staffing etc? Are ground allowed to have their lights on past midnight? Do you apply different rules for different game times? That would be less fair and it is not consistent each game of the competition. The rule is reasonable, it's applied consistently and without any bias. But apparently "there is no fair play in Australian soccer".
Bob
Guest
Very true Towser, but a trigonometry convention, now there's a scary thought. It might have helped if the author had popped back in and straightened a few curves out as the discussions seemed to center on two topics firstly on whether the rules were or were not applied correctly on Sunday (which I thought was not the point of the original article?) and secondly whether the rules needed reviewing in light of Sunday's game which few posters seemed to have an opinion on. Best of all for me is that the two best pieces of information came right at the end of all these twists n turns ... First up In Brazil they waited 50 minutes for the rain to pass at the weekend and then restarted and completed a game and secondly that Suncorps playing surface was supposedly playable about 45 minutes after the game was abandoned. This would suggest we could and should look at the protocols as this article originally asked before if happens again be it rain, fog, floodlight failure or pitch invasion by the visiting trigonometry convention disputing the purity of the arcs on a soccer field. There but for the grace of God go I all the other teams should be thinking ...! It's been an enjoyable and yet frustrating discussion. I'm Done.
Towser
Guest
Amazing 160 hits about the weather. What is it it about the weather that causes us to mention it to complete strangers in the street? Judging by some of the comments we just cant help ourselves, talking inane crap about precipitation,hail or heat. The two psychiatrists on Fawlty Towers would have a field day with this article as there's more tangents than a trigonometry convention. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU3S14xVTnc
Bondy
Guest
Interesting with the NRL I think their crowds are down because they play at night when people dont want to go to the games ... (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-attendance-figures-have-alarmingly-slumped-to-their-lowest-level-in-12-years-in-the-opening-three-rounds-of-2015/story-fnp0lyn3-1227277020004) ...
j binnie
Guest
Martyn -You may have hit right at the core of this discussion when you use the word " lightning". Let me explain. Back in the days when "summer soccer " was being put forward there were many, especially media men who had other interests in summer, who spoke out against the move, citing all sorts of reasons why the 'move" should not take place. One of these reasons was that in Brisbane,in summer, players could die being exposed to high temperatures.The "pro-move" brigade consulted the local meteorology bureau and were told there was far more danger to players from thunder and lightning,which usually accompanied these Brisbane summer storms' than there was from "heat exhaustion." or torrential rain. One now wonders that when the "law-makers" set about making the laws cited in this discussion was this argument put up as summer storms and rainfall being a "danger" to players,when in fact it was the thunder and lightning that was seen as the potential danger,not the rain. jb
Paul
Guest
Makes the referees decision on Sunday look pretty stupid then doesn't it.
Lionheart
Guest
Reactions from the crowd and players don't reflect that
Lionheart
Guest
What a strange post.
TK
Guest
Seems to be a law for limiting liability to me
Martyn50
Guest
It's this Amateurish rulings that brings the game in Australia to where it is now. The laughing stock of the world. So it rained. Big deal. Other football codes play on in rain. Was their lightning causing danger to players and officials?. Get out of the stone age.
Ryan Cook
Guest
"Grow up! You were clearly beaten by a far better side." Beaten in 73 minutes? There is so many things wrong with that sentence.
Waz
Guest
Well that's true, thd ABC could be wrong, so could the photographs (the pitch does drain 7.5cms of water in 45 minutes), and the Suncorp stadium rep could be wrong and trying to save face. The only persons opinion that matters is the referees - so if the protocols were changed to get the referee to inspect pitches every 15 minutes for a period of time to be decided, we could avoid this same situation in the future. In this instance we will never know because the match referees opinion is all that matters and he either decided not to do an inspection later or the protocols he was following didn't permit him to do it - but if I were asked my opinion by thd FFA in a fan survey I would suggest they change their protocols. 10,000 people walked out of that stadium disappointed on Sunday - that should matter.
Waz
Guest
Thanks Wii, that summary explains why we've been at odds (maybe) - the question the author posed was not "were the rules implemented correctly" so that's the wrong arguement your in; the author asked the question "FFA need to look at abandoned match policy" based on this match. So you've been arguing the rules were implemented correctly but I am trying to argue, especially based on the latest statements, that the protocols should be reviewed and changed if necessary to avoid future occurrences. Maybe we both got off topic at times?
Wii
Guest
Waz you really can not comprehend this issue can you it has clearly gone well beyond you. FFA did everything they did by the rules they did not have to wait 45mins to make the call. It was a completely legitimate decision and you need to accept that fact, it was made well within the law books of the A-League ,FFA and FIFA but continue to ignore that fact! Let's agree to disagree because I'm getting tired of your constant ignorance of the facts. Your comments are shrouded by your own personal bias. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However the officials acted by the rule book to the letter of the law and that is all that matters here. Like I said days ago now sure the rule may need to change but the way you have implied I have said things is quite hysterical not to mention referencing 'Wikipedia'.... Seriously that is an embarrassment
Realfootball
Guest
The photographic evidence suggests the ABC was wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. What a waste of time this argument is. Over and out.