The Ghana Football Association Disciplinary Committee has declared Kintampo Marcus losers of their MTN FA Cup Round of 64 match against Bolga Man City played on 18th March, 2015 at the Techiman Park.
Man City sought redress with the GFA Disciplinary to overturn the results of the match in their favour with the claim that Kintampo Marcus used four unqualified players in the said match.
In accordance with Article 41.5 of the GFA Statutes and Articles 37(10)(a) to 37(10)(d) of the Ghana Football Association (GFA) General Regulations, the Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) examined the depositions from Bolgatanga Man City Football Club (Petitioner) and Kintampo Marcus Football Club (Respondent) and the official reports of the match officials.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
CASE OF BOLGATANGA MAN CITY FC Bolgatanga Man City Football Club (the Petitioner) on March 19, 2015 protested against Kintampo Marcus Football Club (the Respondent) for fielding unqualified players in the MTN FA Cup Round of 64 match namely: 1. Asoma Maada; 2. Abdulai Illiasu 3. Yussif Wahabu; and 4. Afram Seth.
According to the Petitioner, the Respondent failed to produce the licences of the four (4) players for inspection before their match. It is the Petitioner’s case that the Respondent rather produced the 2012 cards from the previous clubs of the players. (The picture of the four players and the match referee attached to the Protest) They contended further that in accordance with Article 26(3) the four players were not registered officially to play in an official match of the football association which prompted their immediate protest to the match officials. The Petitioner consequently, demanded that by the application of Article 34(1)(e) the match points should be awarded in their favour.
DEFENCE OF KINTAMPO MARCUS FC
In its Statement of Defence filed on March 21, 2015, Kintampo Marcus FC contended that the protest against them was without merit and ought to be dismissed because of the following reasons: i. That it had registered the four players through the Brong Ahafo Regional Football Association. ii. That the particulars of the players had been sent to the Ghana Football Association; iii. That all the four players are duly registered in accordance to the rules. iv. That the club was waiting for the biometric cards of the players from the GFA. v. That it would be recalled that the Regional Football Association told the club to use the old cards of the players for the MTN FA Cup. vi. That all the registered documents of the four players were with the GFA. vii. That the club had a receipt covering the registration of all its 20 players including the four (4) players (indicated that it had attached the release letters of the four players, the T1 and T2 and the receipt of payment but was not attached). viii. That the Brong Ahafo Regional Football Association can testify to the directive it gave for the use of the old registration cards in lieu of the Biometric Cards which were not ready at the time of the match.
REPLY OF BOLGATANGA MAN CITY The FA Cup Regulations does not allow for a Reply and hence this Committee shall ignore any Reply filed by the Petitioner (see Article 30(f) of the FA Cup Regulations of the GFA).
FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION The Committee finds as follows: 1. That the Respondent did not present the licences of the four named players at the match for inspection. It rather showed the old cards of the players. 2. That a picture of the players of the Respondent together with the match referee was taken. 3. That the Petitioner protested to the Match Commissioner and the Referee at the match and same was noted in their reports. 4. That the Respondent had submitted the relevant information of the players to the Brong Ahafo Regional Football Association (RFA) for onward submission at the GFA. 5. That the Brong Ahafo RFA had indeed submitted the documents to the GFA for registration. 6. That the registration of four players was at the verification stage of the registration. 7. That the players have not been duly registered at the time they played the match.
The relevant regulations on this matter are very clear. The Petitioner relied on Article 26(3) of the General Regulations in support of its Protest. The said regulation states as follows: Article 26(3)(a)“If a player who has not been registered with the Association appears for a club in any official match, that player will be considered as having played illegitimately….”.
This above Article finds supports is the definition of an unqualified player under Article 29(1)(a) and also Article 29(2)(a) of the General Regulations as follows: Article 29(1)(a)“An unqualified player is any player not registered at an association who appears for a club in any official match”. Article 29(2)(a)“An unqualified player shall not take part in any competition organised by the Association.
The Petitioner again, rightly stated that the Respondent should suffer forfeiture under Article 34(1)(e) of the General Regulations of the GFA. The said article reads: Article 34(1)(e)“A team commits an offence punishable by forfeiture of a match where it fields an unqualified player(s)”
In order for the Protest to succeed, however, the said unqualified player must have been fielded in the said match. A player who remains on the substitute bench is deemed not to have been fielded under Article 29(2)(b) of the Regulations. This article provides as follows. Article 29(2)(b) 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.
It is our finding that Asoma Maada and Yussif Wahabu were actually fielded in the match and are caught in the web of the Article 34(1)(e) of the General Regulations. It is therefore our holding that the Protest shall succeed.
The Committee is however wary of the assertions of the Respondent about their Regional Football Association. It is the position of the Committee that whereas a club’s registration may be facilitated through the Regional Football Association, it is the sole responsibility of the club to ensure that it's players have been correctly registered before it uses them in an official match.
However harsh this decision may be on the Respondent (because it cannot hide behind the pitfalls of the RFA, even if it's assertions are true), it will serve as a warning to all lower division clubs to be attentive to the GFA Regulations and be personally responsible as expected by the regulations.
DECISION The Committee therefore makes the following decisions:
1. That for fielding unqualified players in the match, Kintampo Marcus FC shall forfeit the match in accordance with Article 34(1)(e) of the General Regulations of the GFA.
2. That having been found to have forfeited the match, Kintampo Marcus FC shall be considered as having lost the match in accordance with Article 34(2) and accordingly, three (3) points and three (3) goals are hereby awarded in favour of Bolgatanga Man City FC in accordance with Articles 34(2) and 34(10) of the General Regulation of the GFA. That this match being a MTN FA Cup match Bolga Man City shall be awarded only the three goals and shall advance to the next stage of the competition.
3. That in addition, being the defaulting club, Kintampo Marcus FC is hereby fined Two Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GH¢250.00) payable to the GFA, 50% of which shall be paid to Bolgatanga Man City FC pursuant to Article 34(5)(b) of the General Regulations of the GFA.
4. That in addition, being the home club, Kintampo Marcus FC is hereby ordered to pay an amount of Two Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢200.00) as the transportation expenses of the away team, Bolgatanga Man City FC payable to the GFA which shall be paid to Bolgatanga Man City FC pursuant to Article 34(5)(b) of the General Regulations of the GFA.
5. That the amounts of money mentioned in Decision 3 and 4 above, shall be paid to the GFA within fourteen (14) days upon receipt of this Ruling, failing which Kintampo Marcus FC shall automatically forfeit all subsequent matches after the said deadline in accordance with Article 39(8)(b) of the First Amendment to the GFA General Regulations.
6. That should any party be dissatisfied with or aggrieved by this Decision, the party has within two (2) days of being notified of this Ruling to appeal to the Appeals Committee of the Ghana Football Association (see Article 31(b) of the FA Cup Regulations of the GFA).