IN THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE GHANA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

Transcription

1 IN THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE GHANA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION CORAM 1. Prosper Harrison Addo, Esq. - Chairman 2. Eva Okyere, Esq. - Vice Chairperson 3. Osei Kwadwo Addo, Esq. - Member 4. W.O.1 J. W. Amoo - Member 5. Alex Kotey - Member Emmanuel Newton Dasoberi - Secretary Protest Case: No. A ZEIN UNITED FC vrs KOTOKU ROYALS FC - PROTEST IN RESPECT OF THEIR MATCH DAY 10 GN BANK DIVISION ONE LEAGUE MATCH PLAYED AT PANTANG PROCEEDINGS In accordance with Article 41(5) of the GFA Statutes of the Ghana Football Association (GFA), Articles 37(10)(a) to 37(10)(d) of the GFA General Regulations, the Division One Special Regulations, the Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee ) considered the depositions from Zein United Football Club (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner ) and Kotoku Royals Football Club (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ) together with all the supporting attachments, the reports of the match officials and match videos. SUMMARY OF FACTS 1 P a g e CASE OF ZEIN UNITED FC Zein United FC (the Petitioner) on Monday, April 24, 2017 protested against Kotoku Royals FC (the Respondent) for fielding unqualified player in their GN Bank Division League match played on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 in contravention of Articles 29(1)(e), 34(1)(e), 34(2) and 34(5)(a) of the General Regulations of the GFA. The case of the Petitioner is that the home team, Kotoku Royals FC fielded player Nurudeen Seidu (in jersey No. 2) in the match when he was unqualified to play the match. The Petitioner argued that at the time of the match in question, the said players of the Respondent had received cautions in Match Day 5, 6 and 8 and should not have been fielded. The Petitioner consequently, prayed that Kotoku Royals FC should forfeit the match under Article 34(1)(e) of the GFA General Regulations. DEFENCE OF KOTOKU ROYALS FC The Respondent in their Statement of Defence to the protest, urged the Committee to dismiss the protest arguing that the club played the match with only qualified players in accordance with the GFA General Regulations. According to Kotoku Royals FC, before the Match Day 10 match, the player had already received three cautions in three separate officials matches and had missed or served the next official match (Kotoku Royals FC vrs Phar Rangers FC) in Match Day 7 of the GN Bank Division One League.

2 The Respondent explained further that the player received cautions in Match Day 5, 6 of the GN Bank Division One League and another caution in the MTN FA Cup preliminary round match in the 48 minute of the match. Kotoku Royals FC also stated that the player got a direct red card in the MTN FA Cup match after the player challenged the decision of the referee. The club argued that the player missed Match Day 7 of the GN Bank Division One League and also paid GHc100 as stated on the Letter from the GFA. The club submitted a video to justify the argument and also attached the photocopies of the letters from the GFA on the cautions received by the player. The Respondent consequently urged the Disciplinary Committee to dismiss the protest in accordance with Article 37(16) of the GFA General Regulations. REPLY TO DEFENCE BY ZEIN UNITED FC In the Reply to the Statement of Defence, the Petitioner insisted that the Respondent fielded an unqualified player in the match and must forfeit the match. Zein United FC stated that the player received a second yellow card in the MTN FA Cup match and not a direct red card. The Petitioner attached caution notices for Match Day 5, 6 and 8 as well as that for the MTN FA Cup Preliminary Round match and the team sheet for the Match Day 9 match as evidence. The Petitioner also stated that the player played in the Matchday 9 match against Heart of Lions FC. The Petitioner consequently, prayed that Kotoku Royals FC should forfeit the match under Article 34(1)(e) of the GFA General Regulations and that Zein United FC should be awarded three goals and three points. FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION The Petitioner stated that the Respondent should suffer forfeiture under Article 34(1)(e) of the General Regulations of the GFA. The said article reads as follows: A team commits an offence punishable by forfeiture of a match where it fields an unqualified player(s) Also per Article 29(2)(a) of the General Regulations of the GFA an unqualified player shall not play in a match. Article 29(2)(a) of the GFA General Regulations reads: An unqualified player shall not take part in any competition organised by the Association. The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent fielded an unqualified player in respect of Articles 29(1)(e) and 29(1)(g) of the General Regulations of the GFA. Articles 29(1)(e) and 29(1)(g) of the General Regulations of the GFA defines an unqualified player as follows (emphasis ours) : Article 29(1)(e) An unqualified player is a player who has received a caution in three separate official matches of the GFA and has not miss THE next official match (i.e. A MATCH in the League, the FA Cup or the Elite Cup competitions). 2 P a g e

3 Article 29(1)(g) An unqualified player is a player who has received two cautions in the same match and has not missed THE next match and/or paid the related fine. This Committee also wishes to reproduce Articles 39(5)(a) and 39(5)(b)(i) of the GFA General Regulations as follows: 35(5)(a) Without prejudice to the powers of the Disciplinary Committee, a player cautioned by a referee for: (i) foul play; or (ii) criticism of the referee s decision; or (iii) making derogatory remarks concerning other players; or (iv) temporarily leaving the field of play without the express permission of the referee; or (v) any other offence on the field of play, shall be informed in writing by the GFA for a first and second offence; he shall be automatically suspended from taking part in the next official match for any other subsequent offence. 35(5)(b)(i) In this section next official match means a match in either the league or the FA Cup or the Elite Cup competitions. It is her eby declared, for the avoidance of doubt, that cautions received in the three (3) competitions shall be counted as though they were received in one (1) competition and a player who receives caution as in sub-paragraph (5)(a)(i-v) above either in one (1) competition or two (2) or all three (3) competitions (the League, the FA Cup or the Elite Cup) shall be liable to a suspension of one (1) match.. It is the case of the Petitioner that the player Nurudeen Seidu (in jersey No. 2) played in the match against Zein United FC thereby violating the condition in Article 29(2)(b) of the GFA General Regulations. Article 29(2)(b) of the GFA General Regulations reads: For the avoidance of doubt, a player shall not be deemed to have been fielded in a match unless he actually played in the match. Therefore, the first issue to be determined by this Committee is whether or not the player, Nurudeen Seidu (player in jersey number 2) actually played in the match in question (GN Bank Division One League Zone 3 Matchday 10). For if the player was not fielded in the match in question then the protest shall not have a leg to stand on. However, in the instant matter, it is the finding of this Committee from the match report that Kotoku royals FC actually fielded the player in the match against Zein United FC. This Committee now turns its attention on the disciplinary records of the player and the Committee finds (from the original match reports and the video evidence provided by the Respondent) on Nurudeen Seidu (player in jersey number 2), that the player was in fact cautioned in the following matches: A. DOL Match Day 5 - Kotoku Royals vrs Amidaus Professionals - 36 th minute A. DOL Match Day 6 - Danbort FC vrs Kotoku Royals FC - 88 th minute B. MTN FA Cup Prelims - Believers FC vrs Kotoku Royals FC - 44th minute - 48th minute (2nd Yellow) - 48th minute (Red Card) B. DOL Match Day 7 - Kotoku Royals vrs Phar Rangers FC- Was not fielded A. DOL Match Day 8 - Dynamo FC vrs Kotoku Royals FC - 82 nd minute A. DOL Match Day 9 - Kotoku Royals vrs Kpando Heart of Lions - Was fielded A. DOL Match Day 10 - Zein United FC vrs Kotoku Royals - Was fielded 3 P a g e

4 This Committee also watched the video provided by Kotoku Royals FC of the MTN FA Cup preliminary round match and the facts therein agrees with the report of the match referee and the cautions letter from the GFA indicating the letter N for a second yellow card. It is clear from the facts above that the player received two (2) yellow cards in the MTN FA Cup match which was immediately changed to a red card. This resulted in the player missing the next match (Matchday 7). It is worth noting that the cautions received by the player on Match days 5 and 6 remained outstanding because they were not affected by the expulsion in the MTN FA Cup. Therefore, the caution received in Match Day 8 becomes the third separate caution and warrants that the player must miss the next official match which was ONLY Matchday 9. This Committee wishes to refer the parties to the Ruling of this Committee in the Protest case of Kpando Heart of Lions FC vrs Kotoku Royals FC delivered earlier on Tuesday, May 9, 2017 in which Kotoku Royals FC served the punishment for fielding the unqualified player in Matchday 9. Now the question of whether or not the player continues to remain unqualified on Matchday 10 has already been answered by the respected Appeals Committee of the GFA. This Committee finds this answer to this age long question in the Appeal Case of Kumasi Asante Kotoko SC vrs Accra Hearts of Oak SC delivered by the Appeals Committee on October 20, Paragraph 18 of the said decision is very clear and unambiguous on the subject matter. A portion of Paragraph 18 is quoted here to put the matter to rest: it is the respectful view of this Committee that if Obed Owusu was unqualified when he featured for Kotoko against Berekum Chelsea his said ineligibility ended after that particular match whether or not a protest was duly lodged. Therefore at the time Obed Owusu featured for (sic against) WAFA, Ashgold and Hearts he was qualified to feature and Hearts had no basis protesting. This position was cited with approval in the Appeal Case of Bofoakwa Tano FC vrs Steadfast FC dated August 9, In that case the Appeals Committee determined very clearly that once the club forfeits the next official match, the punishment frees the player for the subsequent matches. A classic example is what we have in this case. The player was therefore free to play against Zein United FC. It must be noted also that even if Kpando Hearts of Lions FC had slept on their rights in Matchday 9, the player does not remain unqualified and the issue was settled by this Committee. This Committee had cause to write the following explanation in its Ruling in the Protest case of Accra Great Olympics FC vrs Okyeman Planners FC (case 1) delivered on Monday, September 19, 2016 at pages 5 to 6: We will now turn our attention to the issue of whether or not an unqualified player remains unqualified after the next official match within the GFA regulations as suggested by Accra Great Olympics FC in light of the Appeals Committee decision (Bofoakwa Tano FC vrs Steadfast FC dated August 9, 2016 at paragraphs 5-11). This Committee appreciates the comments of the Appeals Committee on this matter which were not part of the sustentative issue but an obiter. Secondly, Article 39(5)(b)(i) of the GFA general Regulation as passed by the GFA Congress on November 9, 2015 legislates or codifies the position expressed in the Kumasi Asante Kotoko vrs Hearts of Oak Appeals Committee decision of the next official match being only one match which cannot be stressed to make a player become or remain permanently unqualified. 4 P a g e

5 The said regulation sates as follows: In this section next official match means a match in either the League or the FA Cup or the Elite Cup competitions. It is hereby declared, for the avoidance of doubt, that cautions received in the three (3) competitions shall be counted as though they were received in one (1) competition and a player who receives caution as in sub-paragraph (5)(a)(i-v) above either in one (1) competition or two (2) or all three (3) competitions (the League, the FA Cup or the Elite Cup shall be liable to a SUSPENSION OF ONE (1) MATCH This Committee shall not therefore entertain any invitation to follow the obiter in the face of clear express provision of the regulation. Thus, whether the player is punished or not, the next official match to be missed is only one match and one match only which follow the third caution. The argument fails in this respect. This Committee therefore finds that Nurudeen Seidu was qualified to be fielded in the Match Day 10 match by Kotoku Royals FC against Zein United FC. It is clear from the foregoing that Nurudeen Seidu was not in violation of the GFA regulations and therefore it is the holding of this committee that the Protest of Zein United FC shall not succeed. DECISIONS The Committee therefore makes the following decisions: 1. That player, Nurudeen Seidu (in jersey number 2) was qualified to play in the Matchday 10 match of the GN Bank Division One League. 2. That for failing to prove that Kotoku Royals FC fielded an unqualified player against Zein United FC in the Matchday 10 GN Bank Division One League match played at Pantang, the Protest of Zein United FC is hereby dismissed. 3. That the match results shall stand. 4. That no cost is awarded against Zein United FC. 5. That should any party be dissatisfied with or aggrieved by this Decision, the party has within three (3) days of being notified of this Ruling to appeal to the Appeals Committee of the Ghana Football Association {See Article 37(11) of the General Regulations of the GFA}. Prosper Harrison Addo, Esq. Chairman, Disciplinary Committee (A) Tuesday, May 9, P a g e