After the throwing of a firecracker, the Montpellier-Clermont match will be replayed behind closed doors

This is an explosion that is costly to the MHSC. The Ligue 1 Montpellier-Clermont match, definitively stopped on October 8 after the throwing of a firecracker, will be replayed behind closed doors in Montpellier, which saw a point withdrawn on Wednesday by the LFP disciplinary committee.

The Étang de Thau stand, from which the firecracker was thrown which exploded near Clermont goalkeeper Mory Diaw, will also be partially closed for two matches. The Hérault club, which had indicated that it wanted to file a complaint against the perpetrator of this act, called for “eradicating this type of behavior within our stadiums”.

Montpellier led 4-2 when the firecracker was thrown

Counting for the 8th day, the match was stopped in the 91st minute while Montpellier led 4-2. There were still five minutes of added time to play when the firecracker exploded near the Auvergne goalkeeper, who then lay down with his hand to one ear, before being evacuated on a stretcher. He subsequently received one day of total incapacity for work (ITT) before being authorized to join his Senegalese team for a friendly match against Cameroon on October 16 in Lens.

The disciplinary committee did not specify a new date for the match to be replayed, but indicated that the sanction would take effect immediately. The body decided to withdraw two points, including one firm and one suspended, from the Hérault club. The MHSC, which was tied with Lens with nine points, must therefore lose one place in the championship standings and move from 14th to 15th place.

Two men tried on November 16

A man suspected of having thrown the firecracker and another who allegedly supplied the projectile were placed under judicial supervision. These two men will be tried at a hearing set for November 16 at 2 p.m.

The first is being prosecuted for “violence with the use or threat of a weapon leading to an ITT of less than eight days” during a sporting event and “use of a rocket or fireworks in a sports venue”. The second, suspected of having given the firecracker to the first – which he denies – is being prosecuted for “possession of a rocket or fireworks in a sports venue during a sporting event”.

source site