The GFA Disciplinary Committee has overturned decision of the Volta Regional FA Disciplinary Committee in the Appeal case between NADM and Unbeatable XI FC.

PROCEEDINGS In accordance with Article 41.6 of the GFA Statutes and Articles 37(10) (a) to 37(10) (h) of the Ghana Football Association (GFA) General Regulations, this Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) considered the depositions from NADM Sporting Club (Appellant), Unbeatable XI Football Club (Respondent) and the record of proceedings from the Disciplinary Committee of the Volta Regional Football Association (VRFA DC).

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

CASE OF NADM SC NADM Sporting Club on October 5, 2015 brought an appeal to overturn the decision of the VRFA DC delivered on October 1, 2015 which punished both NADM SC and Unbeatable XI FC for forfeiture when the club protested against Unbeatable XI FC for allegedly causing the abrupt end of their Week 4 Second Division League match.

The Appeal was grounded on five points some of which can be submerged into one main point. On the first ground of appeal, the Appellant alleged that only two members of the VRFA Disciplinary Committee adjudicated the protest and therefore the requirement of quorum was not fulfilled in accordance with Article 41(1) and 41(2) of the GFA Statute.

On the second to fifth ground of appeal, the Appellant alleged that the finding of the VRFA DC that both clubs committed the offence of forfeiture was wrong. The claim of the Appellant was basically that it was the home team which invaded the field of play in violation of Article 34(1)(b) of the GFA General Regulations.

The Petitioner consequently, demanded that the decision of the VRFA DC should be set aside, the Appellant declared the winner of the match and among others.

DEFENCE OF SIR ERNEST FC The Respondent, Unbeatable XI FC, in its Statement of Defence stated the appeal was frivolous and unreliable because the membership of the RVFA DC cannot be questioned on hearsay. The Respondent also stated that the Appellant has not provided any proof that the membership of the VRFA DC who adjudicated the case was deficient.

On the second to fifth grounds, the Respondent did not provide any answers to the issues raised in the appeal.

The Respondent requested for the dismissal of the Appeal and allow the decision of the VRFA DC to stand.

FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION

On the first ground, as to the composition of the VRFA DC, our finding is that three members of the Committee adjudicated the matter as required by the GFA Statutes. It is our finding that all three members of the VRFA were appointed to serve on the Committee by the VRFA Executive Committee.

It must be made very clear that it is the General Secretary of the Regional Football Association (RFA) who must act as a Secretary of the Committees of the RFA or alternately appoint a Secretary for the various Committees. However, in the absence of the Secretary to the Committee, it is not out of place to have a member of a Committee to double as a Member/Secretary of the Committee.

This Committee, therefore, holds that there was quorum when the VRFA adjudicated on the protest and delivered its verdict. We, however, recommend that the VRFA DC should indicate their panel on their decisions and also state the dates the decisions are signed by the Chairman.

On the second to the fifth grounds of Appeal, it is our finding that the Match Reports of the Referee and that of the Match Commissioner on the incident were at variance. The Referee wrote “at 77th minute after an equalizing goal, the coach of Unbeatable FC by name Karim Osman rush to the pitch to assault the referee and assistant referee. This make the spectators of the home team also rush into the field and stated assaulting the referee which we have to run out of the field for our life”. The Match Commissioner’s account was “a game which could not end because supporters of both teams invaded the field of play in the 84th minute”.

The VRFA DC seems to have relied heavily on the statement of the Match Commissioner. It is our position that the VRFA should have sought assistance from Article 85(3) of the GFA Disciplinary Code. The said Article 83(3) of the GFA Disciplinary Code states as follows: “If there is any discrepancy in the reports from the various match officials and there are no means of resolving the different versions of the facts, the referee’s report is considered authoritative regarding incidents that occurred on the field of play; the match commissioner’s report is considered authoritative regarding incidents that took place outside the field of play”.

This Committee will therefore resort to the Referee’s report as the true and accurate facts of the incident which caused the abrupt end of the match. That “at 77th minute after an equalizing goal, the coach of Unbeatable FC by name Karim Osman rush to the pitch to assault the referee and assistant referee. This make the spectators of the home team also rush into the field and stated assaulting the referee which we have to run out of the field for our life”.

With that settled the relevant regulations on this matter are very clear. According to the Appellant in its protest Unbeatable XI FC should be made to suffer forfeiture under Article 34(1)(b) of the General Regulations of the GFA. The said article reads: Article 34(1)(b) “A team commits an offence punishable by forfeiture of a match where that team positions itself in such a way as to render the progress of the game impossible or the player(s) or supporter(s) of the team initiates an act responsible for the abrupt end of the match”.

It is the position of this Committee that the behaviour of the supporters of Unbeatable XI FC triggered a number of actions and inactions which led to the abrupt end of the match. It is the position of this Committee that Unbeatable XI FC cannot be allowed to benefit from the club’s unjustified invasion of the field of play which led to the abrupt end of the match. “A team commits an offence punishable by forfeiture of a match where that team positions itself in such a way as to render the progress of the game impossible or the player(s) or supporter(s) of the team initiates an act responsible for the abrupt end of the match”.

It is our position that the final part of the provision above (bolded in red) is even enough for a club to be punished by forfeiture of a match. It is therefore our holding that the appeal of NADM SC shall succeed and the decision of the VRFA DC shall be overturned.

DECISION