April 18th, 2002
Future - Scholars Dispute Unravelled

Bruce Blake - General Secretary
Cayman Islands Football Association


As many are already aware there was an incident in the Scholars/Future match last Saturday, which resulted in a protest by Future, and an examination by CIFA of the relevant details.

In-order to bring transparency to the matter and give the public an adequate and factual overview of what has taken place CIFA thought it prudent to outline all that has transpired since last weekend as well as outline the key principles and logic behind its decision.

The issue has been discussed at meetings of both the Competitions Committee, and the Executive Committee, and a decision has been taken to stage a further one-off match to determine the winners of that playoff tie. The winner of this single match would advance to the final. That further match was scheduled for the Ed Bush field in West Bay, at 7.30pm on Wednesday April 17th, 2002. The two clubs concerned were advised of a possible extra match by the Competitions Committee on Monday April 15th, and the match was confirmed to them by the Executive Committee after lengthy deliberation on Tuesday April 16th.

A synopsis of the deliberation process is attached as CIFA feels that the full picture must be presented to all parties interested in order to avoid any misunderstandings, which might arise from the release of incomplete information.

The Incident

The CIFA League 2nd leg playoff match on Saturday 13th April between Scholars and Future at the Ed Bush field in West Bay ended with the score at 2-1 in favour of Scholars, and 4-1 in favour of Scholars over the 2 legs. Scholars were then scheduled to meet George Town Sports Club in the League Final on April 21st. However, an incident arose towards the end of that 2nd leg match which resulted in an official protest by Future, and an investigation process by CIFA.

The facts of the incident are not in dispute. Scholars made a substitution in the 88th minute of that match, whereby their player David Arch entered the field of play. The match score was already 2-1 to Scholars. David Arch was not shown on the match commissioner's copy of the team sheet or on the referee's copy of the team sheet as either one of the starting 11 or one of the 7 nominated substitutes. As a consequence, David was not entitled to be admitted to the field of play, and Scholars therefore committed an offence.

The incident was immediately noted by CIFA's match commissioner and reported to senior CIFA officers at the game. However, as an observer, the match commissioner had no authority to change decisions being made by any team, whether correct or not. Investigations by CIFA commenced immediately, and during the morning of Monday 15th April, while these investigations were gaining speed, an official protest, supported by the standard fee, was submitted to CIFA by Future FC.

As this was an incident within a CIFA competition, the CIFA Competitions Committee took up the responsibility for reviewing all relevant information. An emergency meeting of the Competitions Committee was called for 5:15 p.m. on Monday April 15th, and representatives from both teams concerned were invited to attend, to offer their explanations and comments, prior to the Competitions Committee proposing a solution to the CIFA Executive.

At an early stage of the discussions, the committee advised that it had conducted an extensive review of all the relevant match paperwork and had noted a further discrepancy in respect of a substitution made by Future, which would need discussion too. It was also noted that the referees report (which was examined by all present) identified both discrepancies.

It was also noted at the meeting that CIFA was conducting research on the matter and awaiting additional guidance from CONCACAF, and that CIFA was also collecting data on comparable incidents from elsewhere in the football world.

In the presence of the team representatives, the committee advised possible courses of action. The result could stand, and Scholars progress to the final; the result could be overturned, and on the overall result, Future would progress to the final; and finally, a further match could be played to sort out the issue. With a further match as a possibility, both teams were advised to prepare for this match for Wednesday 17th April.

Following lengthy discussion and total consideration of the discrepancies involving both teams the Committee felt that a re-match would be the fairest solution to all parties. This recommendation was submitted to the CIFA Executive early on the morning of Tuesday April 16th. The Executive would review the recommendations and make decisions thereafter.

The CIFA Executive met at 5.30pm later that day (16.04.02) for its usual monthly meeting, but deferred all standing business in order to discuss this thorny issue and reach a sound conclusion. For the benefit of those Executive members who were not on the Competitions Committee, all the relevant details were presented.

We had conducted research in a variety of areas prior to this discussion:

(a) searching the FIFA website
(b) searching the CONCACAF website
(c) submitting a request for guidance to the CONCACAF office in New York
(d) submitting a request for comment to a former Executive member
(e) reviewing the Laws of the Game including the explanatory notes and the questions and answers section
(f) re-reviewing the Constitution
(g) re-reviewing the competition rules issued pre-season
(h) reviewing the competition rules amendment issued in November 2001
(i) reviewing press articles on the internet related to ineligible players, and the consequences

It was agreed that CIFA should take a proportion of the blame for this incident arising. If CIFA had a 4th official appointed, then the proposed substitution may have been stopped before it occurred, in which case no alleged "infringement" would have occurred. Or if the senior assistant referee (as referee's delegate) had checked sub forms against the team sheets, prior to the substitution being made, the problem would have been averted here too.

However, there is no 4th official, as CIFA does not have the personnel available to do this task. Neither is it customary for the senior assistant referee to check sub forms prior to announcing a substitution is to be made. It is incumbent upon team management to ensure they have consistent team sheets, and that substitutions are made only from those persons nominated. If a mistake is made, it is within the referee's scope then to deal with that inappropriate substitute, by ejecting him from the field of play if the referee is aware of this during the game; otherwise all the referee can do is to report the incident to the proper authorities - CIFA.

CIFA rules do not specifically address the use of un-nominated substitutes. The rules DO refer to sanctions to be imposed on teams for fielding un-registered players or suspended players, but neither of these descriptions fit David Arch. The rules comment upon how substitutes are identified (or nominated) on a team sheet in sections B4 and B5, but most teams list all their registered players and then tick the ones that are starting or nominated subs, leaving non-playing personnel still shown on the same team sheet.

CIFA's research on similar incidents elsewhere in the world did not reveal the exact same circumstances. In 4 separate issues of inappropriate players, the following decisions were made:

(a) the offending team was thrown out of the knockout competition, and their opponents awarded the tie (Valencia, Spain)
(b) the offending team was allowed to progress in the knockout competition, despite winning with an unauthorized player (Lazio, Italy)
(c) the offending team was fined heavily (£25,000) but no further sanctions were imposed (Carlisle, UK)
(d) the offending team had the result awarded to their opponents so that the teams were tied after 2 legs, and a re-match was ordered (Leeds, Stuttgart, UEFA Cup).

It is clear then that there was little guidance for CIFA to rely upon in reaching its decision. CIFA was bound to hold up the rules, no matter which teams have been disadvantaged by a deliberate or unintentional error. But where no specific rule applies, a reasonable decision needs to be taken.

CIFA EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION

(a) that the match in question be awarded to Future by a score of 2-0
[CIFA felt that awarding the playoff tie to Future, after them having been beaten by Scholars in both playoff matches (albeit with an inappropriate substitute in the 2nd game), would not be an equitable solution.]
(b) that being the case, the 2 teams are now tied at 2-2, and a further match to decide the winner shall be held, at West Bay on Wednesday 17th April, 7:30pm. That match will require a winner to be determined, and whichever team wins that rematch will progress to the final.
(c) all yellow cards received in the original 2nd leg match will be counted towards player disciplinary records
(d) arising from (3) above, Junior Fisher will be ineligible for Wednesday's re-match. Scholars team were advised before the original match that if Junior Fisher received a yellow card in that game, he would miss the Final (if Scholars qualified). Junior Fisher did indeed receive a yellow card, but as there is now a new match inserted before the final, he will be suspended from the re-match, but be eligible for the final (if Scholars qualify).
(e) Also arising from (3) above, if players gain a yellow card in the re-match, and if this then activates a 1-match suspension, then the suspension will be served in their next match (either the final, if they qualify, or the first match of next season).
(f) If either team feels further aggrieved, and takes action by not showing up at the match, then the other team will progress to the final, by default.