The Premier Soccer League (PSL) have appealed the decision of their own disciplinary committee (DC) in respect of the sanction against Mamelodi Sundowns regarding the fielding of an ineligible player‚ Wayne Arendse‚ against Bidvest Wits.
Sundowns and Arendse were both fined R250‚000 each‚ with half suspended‚ for the club having fielded the player in a 1-1 Absa Premiership draw against Wits at Loftus Versfeld in October‚ when he had not been named in the original match squad of 18.
This was in contravention of PSL regulations. Downs were not deducted a point.
No points were awarded to Wits by the DC ruling. This is one of the main points the PSL appeal is seeking to have overturned in the arbitration‚ asking that a 3-0 victory be awarded to Wits.
The National Soccer League (NSL) – the mother body of the PSL – has taken the sanction on appeal to arbitration at the SA Football Association (Safa).
The NSL are appealing against Sundowns as the first respondent‚ Arendse as the second‚ and the PSL’s DC as the third respondent‚ according to the document in which the appeal was submitted‚ which TimesLIVE is in possession of.
In the document‚ the grounds of appeal include that the third respondent (the DC)‚ “over-emphasized the role of the Match Commissioner [Mark Linden] in the commission of the acts of misconduct in that the Match Commissioner is not empowered to waive compliance with any of the Appellant’s rolls [sic‚ rules]”.
It also states the DC “failed to take into consideration the interests of the greater football community in only handing down a sanction of a monetary fine”.
Among items in the “Relief Sought” by the NSL is that “a sanction of awarding the match to the first respondent’s [Sundowns] opponents on the day‚ Bidvest Wits with a 3-0 goal advantage be substituted for the monetary fine”.
And also that Arendse be “sanctioned with a two-match ban”.
A 3-0 victory being awarded to Wits could have implications in the title race.
Sundowns’ 2-0 win against Lamontville Golden Arrows on Tuesday night saw them top of the PSL on 56 points with a game to go.
Orlando Pirates are second 54. Wits are third on 51 and should have been out of the championship race‚ but would also go to 54 if they were awarded a 3-0 victory by the arbitration.
How would a Similar Case Play out at Phelindaba Local Football Association?
There are generally three ways that this could be brought to the attention of the association, namely, 1) by raising a Misconduct, 2) by raising a Complaint, and 3) by raising a Protest.
If this matter comes through as a misconduct and / or as a compliant, there may be points expunged from the offending club, however, there will be no points gained by the opponent. There will be other kinds of sanctions though, like it has been the case in the PSL vs Mamelodi Sundowns matter.
However, should the matter be raised as a protest, the sanctions will apply, and in addition, the deduction of points may apply as well. Here is what the Rules say about protesting is such cases:
Any Affiliate directly involved in a fixture may lodge a protest with the association in respect of any match played under the auspices of the association, provided that protest relates to:
1) the use of a player reflected on the opposing Affiliate team sheet who is allegedly unregistered, suspended, banned, fraudulently or improperly registered, the protesting Affiliate shall, at any time prior to the kick-off of the fixture, object in writing to the use of the said player (setting out the reasons for the objection) by furnishing the referee in the presence of the opposing captain, with such objection, and the objection is counter-signed by the opposing captain; or
2) any other contravention of the Constitution and/or these Rules and Regulations by an Affiliate, Affiliate official, player or match official who participated in the said fixture, the exact nature and cause of the protest is furnished in writing to the referee and is counter-signed by the opposing captain, prior to the kick-off of the fixture, or on the field of play at any time before the final whistle;
Paragraph 21.3 of the Rules and Regulations of PLFA
Where Misconduct is concerned about this matter, here is what the Rules say:
Should an Affiliate be found guilty for fielding an unregistered, improperly registered, fraudulently, banned, suspended player, it shall be charged and if found guilty the points gained in that fixture shall be expunged and not awarded to any Affiliate unless the opposition has lodged a protest in which case the points will be awarded to the opposition. In case of a knock-out fixture the offending Affiliate shall be disqualified and its opponents shall proceed to the next stage of the Competition provided the opposition had lodged a Protest.
Paragraph 2024 of the Rules and Regulations of PLFA
Members of the Association (PLFA) need to take heed of the differences between Misconduct, Complaints, and Protests. The Rules make this distinction on paragraph 19, zooming onto the first sub-paragraph here-below:
There will be five (5) processes of Corrective Action Interventions available to the Members of the Associations, which are:
a) Misconduct process;
b) Protests process;
c) Complaints / Grievance process;
d) Dispute Resolution process;
e) Appeals process; and
f) Arbitration process.
Paragraph 19.1 of the Rules and Regulations of PLFA
There are cost associated with all these processes. These are also stipulated in the Rules, see here-below:
The fees per Corrective Action Request type are as follows:
a) Misconduct process: Free
b) Protests process: R 500.00
c) Complaints / Grievance process: R 200.00
d) Dispute Resolution process: R 350.00
e) Appeals process: R 5,000.00
f) Arbitration process: R10,000.00
Paragraph 19.5 of the Rules and Regulations of PLFA
Also the Rules regulate how the above matters must be raised. There is a specific form to to be used, and the above-mentioned fees must have been already paid to the bank account of the Association in order to validate the request. See here-below:
A Corrective Action Request (CAR) must be raised by completing a Corrective Action Request Form within fourteen (14) days of the breach event, indicating the type of Corrective Action request, and attaching any documented evidence to support the request as well as the deposit slip of the fee for such request in accordance with paragraph 19.5 here-above.
Paragraph 19.6 of the Rules and Regulations of PLFA
The Corrective Action Request mentioned here-above can be obtained from this link. Therefore, members must not write letters to raise misconduct, or complaints, or protests, or even disputes, appeals or arbitration. This form is the only recognised template to raise the Corrective Action Requests. It ensures that the correct information is provided from the first time, and all provisions are complied with as the Corrective Action is being raised.
In conclusion, from a PLFA perspective, Members must know that there is a time limit within which Corrective Action Requests can be raised from the time the breach occurred. This is to ensure that there is stability in the disciplinary process, and that disciplinary information is not used as a currency of blackmail and coercion towards the end of the season. Secondly, failure ensure that the protest process is followed will also be a missed opportunity for the opponent to gain points, although the offending team will still face the might of the law.
From a PLFA perspective, the PSL sanction to Mamelodi Sundowns is incorrect in that it should have had that 1 point gained through the draw expunged from Mamelodi Sundowns in addition to the financial sanctions. Wits should have gained the three points of the game if the matter was raised correctly as a protest, or not gain such point, leaving the 1 point of the draw as is if the matter was NOT raised as a protest.
Trusting that this PSL report also helps us zoom into our own operations and helps us to understand how to handle such matters for ourselves going forward.
END
Be the first to comment