Techiman City secures six points, six goal to its accumulated points

in the zone one national GN division one league.

0
Techiman City
Techiman City

Techiman City vrs Berlin Fc case full ruling.

Techiman City
Techiman City
The GFA Disciplinary Committee (A) has awarded Techiman City three points and three goals in respect of their GN Bank Division One Week 29 match against Berlin scheduled for September 27.

Techiman City Football Club (the Petitioner) on September 29, 2015 protested against Berlin Football Club (the Respondent) for failing to honour the match at Ameyaw Park, Techiman in contravention of Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the Division One League Special Regulations and Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations of the GFA.
Below is the full ruling of the Disciplinary Committee:
PANEL
1. Prosper Harrison Addo, Esq. – Chairman
2. W.O.1 J.W. Amoo – Member
3. Godsway Glah – Member

Emmanuel Newton Dasoberi – Secretary

PROCEEDINGS
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) considered the depositions from Techiman City Football Club (Petitioner) and the reports of the match officials.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

CASE OF TECHIMAN CITY FC
Techiman City Football Club (the Petitioner) on September 29, 2015 protested against Berlin Football Club (the Respondent) for failing to honour their Match Day 29 GN Bank Division One League match at Ameyaw Park, Techiman City FC in contravention of Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the Division One League Special Regulations and Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

According to the Petitioner, Berlin FC failed to honour the match without just cause when all the attendants including the four referees, the match commissioner, security men, ball boys and the home team were present. The Petitioner contended that match officials waited for Berlin FC for over 35 minutes and when they did not show up the referee whistled to end the match.

The Petitioner consequently, demanded that per Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations of the GFA, the club should be declared the winner of the match.

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF BERLIN FC
The Protest was served on Berlin FC by the GFA and the club had until 5pm on Monday, October 5, 2015 to send their Statement of Defence to the GFA.

Berlin FC?s Statement of Defence was written on the club?s letterhead and was signed by the club?s secretary, Kingsley Dartey. This Statement of Defence was addressed to the Disciplinary Committee and was received by the GFA through its official email info@ghanafa.org at 5:25pm on Monday, October 5, 2015.

The Statement of Defence gave four reasons for Berlin FC?s failure to honour the match including an allegation of abusive language by Techiman City FC against Berlin FC CEO and supporters on radio and at CEO?s home, allegation of a threat of acid attack and alleged accusation by Techiman City FC against the CEO of Berlin FC for being behind the case brought against Techiman City FC at the Ethics Committee of the GFA.

Berlin FC stated that ?the management of was not happy for not playing the match but there is a saying that had I know is always at last. The Executive knew that, they have breached the GFA General Regulation and GFA Article 34(1)(f)?.

Berlin FC appealed to the Disciplinary Committee to consider the reasons stated and the life of the club?s Founder, CEO and the supporters.
FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION

First and foremost, the Disciplinary Committee takes judicial notice of the fact that the Statement of Defence of Berlin FC failed to meet stipulations of Article 37(8)(a) of the GFA Regulations in terms of the three (3) days deadline. The Statement of Defence was also not addressed to the General Secretary of the GFA as required by the same Article 37(8)(a) of the GFA Regulations. The said Article 37(8)(a) of the General Regulation reads:

?The Club(s), official(s) or player(s) against whom a protest is lodged and who wishes to defend the said protest shall within three (3) days excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays of being notified or served with a copy of the written grounds and Statement of Case file a Statement of Defence with the General Secretary of the Ghana Football Association and copies to the protesting club(s), official(s) or player(s).

On the computation of time and the three (3) days deadline, Article 84(4) of the First Amendment to the GFA Statutes states as follows:
?For the purposes of computation of time in these Statutes or any Regulations or Rules of the Ghana Football Association:
(a) Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays shall not be counted,
(b) Days shall start reckoning from the next working day of the week;
(c) One(1) day shall mean until 5pm of the next working day
(d) Twenty-Four(24) hours shall mean until 5pm of the next working day?.

Thus, three days means 5pm on the third day following the service of the process.

Thirdly, the Statement of Defence was not sent on the appropriate forms for filing Statement of Defence as required by Article 37(8)(b) of the GFA General Regulations but rather on the club?s letterhead. The said Article reads as follows:
?Filing of Statement of Defence shall be made on appropriate forms to be purchased at the offices of the Ghana Football Association, Regional Football Associations and District Football Associations?.

In light of the foregoing, the Committee cannot rely on the contents of the letter sent to the Disciplinary Committee by Berlin FC.

The absence of a properly filed Statement of Defence by Berlin FC on the appropriate form notwithstanding, the Committee in accordance with Article 37(10)(c) of the GFA Regulations proceeds to consider the protest and deliver its decision. The said Article states that:
?The Disciplinary Committee may deliver its decision in any given case even if one party fails, neglects or refuses to file a statement of defence or a reply as the case may be within the stipulated time.?

The Committee shall adjudicate the Protest brought by Techiman City FC on its merit in light of Article 34(13)(a) of the General Regulations of the GFA. The Committee, therefore, expects Techiman City FC prove its case to merit the decision the club requires even though Berlin FC has no Statement of Defence. The said Article 34(13)(a) of the GFA General Regulations reads:
?The burden of proof regarding a protest between clubs rests on the protesting club and in the case of a charge by the GFA Prosecutor, the burden rests with the Prosecution?.

On the instant matter, the relevant regulations are very clear. According to the Petitioner, Berlin FC should be made to suffer forfeiture of the match under Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations of the GFA which reads as follows:
?A team commits an offence punishable by forfeiture of a match where it fails to report for or fails to honour a match without just cause?.

This Regulation is replicated in Article 7(2) of the Division One Special Regulations stated below:
?Any Club that fails to honour any match without just cause shall be guilty of an offence punishable by forfeiture. Force majeure shall be considered a just cause.?
The official match reports confirm the failure of Berlin FC at the match in support of the Petitioner?s case. Now at the pre-match technical meeting, Berlin FC informed the meeting of the same reasons in their defunct Statement of Defence as the reasons they will not play the match. The Committee will therefore consider the merit of those reasons. It is the considered position of this Committee that it is the preserve of the match commissioner to call off a match before kickoff and that of the referee to call off a match after kick off.

Thus, once the Match Commissioner concluded that the match was to go ahead because adequate security was available, it was not the place for Berlin FC to decide not to honour the said match in contrary to Article 19(9)(e) of the GFA General Regulations. The said Article reads:
?A Match Commissioner designated by the GFA shall be present at each match.
His duties shall be:
(e) The Match Commissioner may, if he deems it necessary for the security of the Referee or the visiting team decide not to have the match played until his instructions are carried out, but once the match is started, it is exclusively the prerogative of the Referee to suspend or end the match for any of the reasons in Law 5 of the Laws of the Game.

The Committee finds that the Respondent failed to honour the Match without just cause. It is also the finding of this Committee that the failure of Berlin FC to honour the match was not as a result of a force majeure. Berlin FC is therefore, caught squarely by Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations and Article 7(2) of the Division One Special Regulations.

The Committee thus, holds that the Protest of Techiman City FC shall succeed.

DECISION

The Committee therefore makes the following decisions:

1. That for failing to report for and to honour the match, Berlin FC shall forfeit its Match Day 29 GN Bank Division One League match in accordance with Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations of the GFA and Article 7(2) of the Division One Special Regulations.

2. That having forfeited the match, Berlin FC shall be considered as having lost the match in accordance with Article 34(3) of the GFA General Regulations and accordingly, three (3) points and three (3) goals are hereby awarded in favour of Techiman City FC.

3. That in addition, for being the defaulting club, Berlin FC is hereby fined Two Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH?2,500.00) payable to the GFA, 50% of which shall be paid to Techiman City FC pursuant to Article 34(5)(a) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

4. That as the defaulting club, Berlin FC shall lose three (3) points from the club?s accumulated points from previous matches, pursuant to Article 34(5)(a) of the General Regulations.

5. That the fines mentioned in Decisions 3 above, shall be paid to the GFA within fourteen (14) days upon receipt of this Ruling, failing which Berlin FC shall automatically forfeit all subsequent matches after the said deadline in accordance with Articles 39(8)(b), 39(8)(d) and 39(8)(f) 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 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]

Bolga Allstars vrs Techiman City case full ruling.

The GFA Disciplinary Committee has declared Bolga All Stars losers of their GN Bank Division One League match against Techiman City after they fielded two unqualified players.

Techiman City Football Club (the Petitioner) on September 25, 2015 protested against Bolga All Stars Football Club (the Respondent) for fielding four (4) unqualified players in their Match Day 27 GN Bank Division One League match in contravention of Articles 29(2)(a) and 34(1)(e) of the General Regulations of the GFA in the persons of:

1. Alhassan Sadik (player in jersey number 4),
2. Abdulai Basit (player in jersey number 9),
3. Rasak Toufiq. (player in jersey number 13),
4. Attiah Ayambire (player in jersey number 10

PROCEEDINGS
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 Techiman City Football Club (Petitioner) and the official reports of the match officials.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

CASE OF TECHIMAN CITY FC
Techiman City Football Club (the Petitioner) on September 25, 2015 protested against Bolga All Stars Football Club (the Respondent) for fielding four (4) unqualified players in their Match Day 27 GN Bank Division One League match in contravention of Articles 29(2)(a) and 34(1)(e) of the General Regulations of the GFA in the persons of:
1. Alhassan Sadik (player in jersey number 4),
2. Abdulai Basit (player in jersey number 9),
3. Rasak Toufiq. (player in jersey number 13),
4. Attiah Ayambire (player in jersey number 10),

On Alhassan Sadik, Techiman City FC contended that the player received yellow cards in Match Days 9, 11 and 25 of the GN Bank Division League. The Petitioner stated that the player should have missed the next official match per article 29(1)(e) and 35(5)(a and b) of the GFA General Regulations but failed to do so and was fielded against Techiman City FC.

In the case of Abdulai Basit, Techiman City FC contended that the player received yellow cards in Match Days 16, 18 and 25 of the GN Bank Division League. That the player should have missed the next official match per article 29(1)(e) and 35(5)(a and b) of the General Regulations. They claim that Abdulai Basit was fielded against Techiman City FC.

On Razak Toufiq, the Petitioner stated that he received yellow cards in Match Days 11, 15 and 20 of the GN Bank Division League. Petitioner stated that the player per article 29(1)(e) and 35(5)(a and b) of the GFA General Regulations should missed the next official match but did not and continued to play all the matches as well as against Techiman City FC.

Techiman City FC in the case of Attiah Ayambire stated that the player was shown a red card on Match Day 23 and was fined GHc100.00. Petitioner stated that the player per article 29(1)(f) and 39(8)(b) of the GFA General Regulations must pay the GHc100 fine and miss the next official match. The Petitioner claimed that Bolga All Stars FC failed to pay the required fine and therefore the player?s suspension was not fully fulfilled. Techiman City FC claimed that the player was unqualified to play against Techiman City FC in the said match.

The Petitioner, consequently, demanded that by the application of Article 34(1)(e) of the General Regulations of the GFA the match points should be awarded in their favour.
DEFENCE OF BOLGA ALL STARS FC
The Respondent failed to file a Statement of Defence to the Protest within three (3) days of receipt of the Protest as stipulated by the GFA Regulations.

FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION
The absence of a Statement of Defence by Bolga All Stars FC notwithstanding, the Committee in accordance with Article 37(10)(c) of the GFA Regulations proceeds to deliver its decision. The said Article states that
?The Disciplinary Committee may deliver its decision in any given case even if one party fails, neglects or refuses to file a statement of defence or a reply as the case may be within the stipulated time.?

The Committee shall therefore, adjudicate the instant Protest brought by Techiman City FC on its merit with regards to Article 34(13)(a and b) of the General Regulations of the GFA. The said Article 34(13)(a and b) of the GFA General Regulations reads:
(a) ?The burden of proof regarding a protest between clubs rests on the protesting club and in the case of a charge by the Prosecutor, the burden rests with the Prosecution?.
(b) ?In the case of unqualified player in the sense of Article 29(1) the burden of proof shall be incumbent on the protesting club?.

The Committee needed to satisfy itself that Techiman City FC has complied with the requirements of the regulations before we proceed to the substantive issues. The Petitioner needed to satisfy the requirement of Article 37(1) of the GFA General Regulations by filing this protest within the seven (7) days from the end of the match. The said Article 37(1) of the GFA General Regulations reads:

?Protests in respect of inter-club matches shall be forwarded in writing direct to the General Secretary of the GFA not later than three (3) days from the end of the match concerned, except for protest in respect of an unqualified player where the protest can be filed within 7 days from the end of the match?.

On the computation of time, Article 37(2) of the General Regulations and Article 85(4) of the First Amendment to the GFA Statute are relevant. Article 37(2) of the GFA General Regulations reads:

?For the purpose of computation of time in these Regulations, Saturdays, Sundays and Public holidays shall not be counted?.
Article 85(4) of the First Amendment to the GFA Statute reads
?For the purposes of computation of time in these Statutes or any Regulations or Rules of the Ghana Football Association:
(a) Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays shall not be counted?
(b) Days shall start reckoning from the next working day of the week;
(c) One(1) day shall mean until 5pm of the next working day
(d) Twenty-Four(24) hours shall mean until 5pm of the next working day?.

Thus, the seven (7) days within which to file this protest from the end of the match on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 was to expire at 5pm on Tuesday, September 29, 2015 (Saturdays, Sundays and the two holydays not counted). Consequently, Techiman City FC in filing this protest on Friday, September 25, 2015 was within the required 7 days period within which to file this Protest.
With that out of the way, the relevant regulations on the substantive matter are very clear.

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:
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?.

Techiman City FC also relied on Article 39(5)(a) and 39(5)(b)(i) of the GFA General Regulations which are reproduce as folows:

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 FA Cup Competition. It is hereby declared, for the avoidance of doubt, that cautions received in the two competitions shall be counted as though they were received in one competition and a player who receives caution as in sub-paragraph (5)(a)(i-v) above either in one competition or in both the league and FA Cup shall be liable to a suspension of one (1) match?.

It is the case of the Petitioner that all the four (4) players played in the match against Techiman City 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?.

We now turn our attention on the four players and the Committee finds as a matter of fact that:

1. On Alhassan Sadik (player in jersey number 4), the player was in fact cautioned in the following matches:
Week 9 – Unity FC vrs Bolga All Stars ? 65th minute
Week 11 – Bolga All Stars vrs RTU – 77th minute
Week 25 – Guan United vrs Bolga All Stars ? 88th minute

The player also fielded in the Week 26 match between Bolga All Stars FC and Bolga Man City FC.

However, Alhassan Sadik was not fielded in the said match of the GN Bank Division One League between Bolga All Stars FC and Techiman City FC as he remained on the bench.

Thus, the Week 27 match between Bolga All Stars FC and Techiman City FC does not concern Alhassan Sadik at all.

2. On Abdulai Basit (player in jersey number 9), the player was in fact cautioned in the following matches:

Week 16 – Amajande FC vrs Bolga All Stars – 39th minute
Week 18 – Bofoakwa Tano vrs Bolga All Stars – 35th minute
Week 25 – Guan United vrs Bolga All Stars – 33th minute

The player also played in the Week 26 match between Bolga All Stars FC and Bolga Man City FC. Alhassan Sadik was fielded in the said Week 27 match of the GN Bank Division One League between Bolga All Stars FC and Techiman City FC.

Thus, Abdulai Basit had therefore not served the mandatory one match ban when he was fielded in the match for Bolga All Stars FC against Techiman City FC in Week 27.

3. On Rasak Toufiq (player in jersey number 13), the player was in fact cautioned in the following matches:

Week 11 – Bolga All Stars vrs RTU – 76th minute
Week 15 – Bolga All Stars vrs Amajande FC – 83rd minute
Week 20 – RTU vrs Bolga All Stars ? 31st minute

Alhassan Sadik was fielded in the said match of the GN Bank Division One League between Bolga All Stars FC and Techiman City FC. However, the player was not fielded in the Week 26 match between Bolga All Stars FC and Bolga Man City FC as he remained on the bench.

Thus, Rasak Toufiq had served the one match ban in Week 26 before playing for Bolga All Stars FC in the Match Day 27 match against Techiman City FC.

4. On Attiah Ayambire (player in jersey number 10), the player in fact received two cautions Week 20 in the match between Berekum Arsenals and Bolga All Stars FC in the 36th minute and in the 88th minute for dissent resulting in his sending off (red card) on Sunday, July 19, 2015.

Bolga All Stars FC was to pay the mandatory GHc100 and the player to sit out the next match before the player will be illegible to return to play for the club.

Attiah Ayambire was fielded in the match between Bolga All Stars FC and Techiman City FC when the fine had not been paid.

Thus, Attiah Ayambire was not cleared to be fielded in any match until the amount was paid.

It is clear from the foregoing that Alhassan Sadik and Alhassan Sadik were not in violation of the GFA regulations.

However, the Committee finds that Abdulai Basit and Attiah Ayambire were unqualified to be fielded in the Week 27 match by Bolga All Stars FC against Techiman City FC. It is therefore our finding that players Abdulai Basit and Attiah Ayambire were unqualified when they were fielded in the match against Techiman City FC by Bolga All Stars FC.

It is therefore our holding that the Protest of Techiman City FC shall succeed.

DECISIONS

The Committee therefore makes the following decisions:

1. That for fielding the two unqualified players, Abdulai Basit and Attiah Ayambire in the said match, Bolga All Stars 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, Bolga All Stars 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 Techiman City FC in accordance with Articles 34(2) and 34(10) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

3. That in addition, being the defaulting club, Bolga All Stars FC is hereby fined Two Thousand and Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH?2,500.00) payable to the GFA, 50% of which shall be paid to Techiman City FC pursuant to Article 34(5)(a) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

4. That in addition, being the defaulting club being the Home Team, Bolga All Stars FC is hereby order to pay an amount of Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH?500.00) payable to the GFA, which shall be paid to Techiman City FC as their Transportation Cost as the Away Team pursuant to Article 34(5)(a) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

5. That in addition, being the defaulting club, Bolga All Stars FC shall lose three (3) points from the club?s accumulated points from their previous matches pursuant to Article 34(5)(a) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

6. That the amounts of money mentioned in Decisions 3 and 4 above, shall be paid to the GFA within fourteen (14) days upon receipt of this Ruling, failing which Bolga All Stars FC shall automatically forfeit all subsequent matches after the said deadline by the Division One League Board or the GFA in accordance with Articles 39(8)(b), 39(8)(d) and 39(8)(f) of the First Amendment to the GFA General Regulations.

7. 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).

Credit: Ghana FA

Send your news stories to newsghana101@gmail.com Follow News Ghana on Google News

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here