In a space of just a couple of days, what was heading for a relatively successful season from a very poor start hit an embarrassing snag when Ghana champions, Kumasi Asante Kotoko, lost out on the MTN sponsored FA cup with a defeat to Tarkwa’s Medeama SC at the Essipong last week, only as prelude to what many of its fans conclude on as a more painful ordeal of watching Hearts of Oak benefit from a successful protest against them for fielding an unqualified Obed Owusu in their matchday clash against the Phobians.
The outcome has seen the Porcupines’ accumulated points in the Ghana Premier league slashed by 6 points to not only rob them of a potential top 4 finish but also condemned to an unexpected battle for survival on the 15th slot of the 16 club league table.
The reactions have come in thick and fast since the verdict was released last Tuesday with a number of for and against arguments across Ghana’s football ecosystem and expectedly so.
Fast-forward to the 3 days later and Asante Kotoko handed in their Appeal to have the FA’s Disciplinary Committee’s ruling overturned but has the Oseikrom club a case to fight for? Maybe they do, maybe not but I have painstakingly read through the verdict and listened to differing commentary run on it, including those of Dr. Kwame Baah-Nuako, former Asante Kotoko Management member and Director of FA relations who like myself, believes there are some key issues needing clarification.
In plain language I think there is enough cause to think there are angles to the ruling from which Kotoko can fight back, hoping these were captured somewhere in their appeal.
First lines of the full ruling as published by www.Ghanafa.org read:
“The gravamen of the protest is that player No. 7, Obed Owusu who was fielded by Kumasi Asante Kotoko(hereinafter simply referred to as “Kotoko”) had received four (4) cautions in matches previously played by Kotoko, before the match in question and was therefore unqualified to play against Hearts of Oak in the 25th week Premier League match. The matches referred to were, (i) Match day 1 – Aduana vrs. Kotoko played on 17th January, 2015; (ii) Match day 7 – Ashantigold vrs. Kotoko played on 11th February, 2015; (iii) FA Cup Semi-Final match – Aduana Stars vrs. Kotoko played on 10th June, 2015; (iv) Match day 24 – Asante Kotoko vrs. Ashantigold played on 26th July, 2015.”
Note that Kotoko vs Aduana was on July 10th and not June 10th as carried in there. A minor error perhaps.
What does the rule really say? “Article 29 (1) (e) of the GFA General Regulations defines an unqualified player as: “A player who has received a caution in three separate official matches of the FA (i.e. the League and FA Cup Competition)”
This then begs the question of which particular game came next after Obed Owusu’s 3rd yellow card of the season which he received in the FA cup semis against Aduana in Sunyani on July 10th?
From the records, the answer is Berekum Chelsea on Matchday 22 – July 19th at the Baba Yara, making it the next official ame in which Obed should have sat out. Chelsea could have protested but they didn’t. Funny thing is, Kotoko rather did against them on another issue albeit shabbily.
After that was WAFA in Sogakope (Which the ruling even made no mention of or did i read wrong) before Ashantigold SC in Kumasi; a game where Obed received his first yellow card after the first 3 cited in the FA’s regulations. The DC kept referring to it as the 4th yellow card when nowhere in the FA’s own regulations makes mention of 4 yellow cards because really it’s a clean slate after a 3rd card is dealt with anyhow.
Well, Ashantigold then became first to file a protest against the player (who should have sat out of the previous game ie Next official game but didn’t because the opponent, Berekum Chelsea, waived the opportunity to or so it appeared).
Now, on what grounds could the miners have succeeded with their protest? Doesn’t the FA’s regulation make mention of a stipulated window of opportunity within which a club can file for a protest beyond which it becomes a dead case to pursue? From between the Chelsea game on Matchday 22 to the Ashgold game on matchday 24; had that window of opportunity not expired?
Does the automatic suspension for one match (Next official match) which in real context was that of B.Chelsea) has a carry on effect?
Again from where I sit, nowhere in the FA regulation does it say that if a player is suspended for a match and fails to sit out the next official match he remains suspended for other matches. Mr Nuako agrees by saying that “where the regulation wanted punishments to be rolled over until remedied, it states that clearly.” To buttress this point, he cites to examples ie
- When you fail to submit your audited accounts
- Where you fail to pay a fine duly imposed.
He argues that in both instances the regulation states that until the offense has been remedied, the club forfeits any matches they play in as Kotoko almost benefited from in their ill filed protest against Berekum Chelsea.
It is clear therefore that in the case of an unqualified players the regulation does not set such a rule. In both examples cited, the regulation does not give an expiration time frame after which the offending club is free with no protest brought against it. In the case of an unqualified player however, who is to serve suspension for receiving cautions or even expulsions the period for their suspension is definite which the “next official match.”
Which club owns the legitimacy to protest? The “next official opponent” (Berekum Chelsea) or the whole stretch of next official opponents (WAFA to Aduana an even Medeama in the FA cup final)?
Kwame Baah-Nuako believes the right to protest is not transferrable especially when even the next official opponent limited by a time period to file a case. “If the club with the right fails to protest, it is deemed to have waived that right and cannot protest even at a later date,” he said.
How then does an Accra Hearts of oak earn rights to protest against Kotoko, many matches after the next official game which had no one protesting on over a period, I wonder?
Why did the FA’s disciplinary body skip any reference to Berekum Chelsea or even WAFA to cite Ashgold and Hearts of oak when both were not Kotoko’s next opponents after Owusu’s 3 yellow card accumulation?
As if the verdict wasn’t absurd enough, Kwame opines that either the DC were not abreast with the records or perhaps they noticed how stating those facts would have pointed to the absurdity of the whole of Hearts suit against the player.
Upholding this verdict means Obed Owusu is yet to serve his suspension and thus remains unqualified till he sits out an official match when the regulation says the player is only unqualified for the club’s next official match. That makes no sense as it accords “next official match” a perpetual status but is that what that rule means?
On whether or not Kotoko could argue this line of thought at the appeals level if they did not in their earlier Kwame thinks it’s very much possible since the DC made the determination of what was the club’s next official match central to the decision and thus kotoko by arguing this would not be introducing new issues but only attacking the basis of the decision.
Nyfa Kotokovski 