Members Present:Lula Bauer, Director, Committee Members: Chuck Keefer, Hap Kwiatkowski, Karen York, Clarence Jones
Match Protest:Game #793 CHAN Electrics vs. DAV Shooting Stars
CHAN Electric's protest -Alleged Referee's violation and misapplication of the WAGS and FIFA Laws of the game WAGS Rule 0.2
The committee heard testimony from the CHAN Electric and written testimony from the assigned Referee of game
It was the testimony of the CHAN coach that during the first half of the game, a DAV player slide tackled a CHAN player, at which time the referee issued a yellow card to the DAV player.The CHAN Coach felt the foul warranted a red card and not giving a red card affected the out come of the game.Shortly after the DAV player was given a yellow card, DAV scored.It was reported that the DAV player that received the yellow card made the assist that lead to the goal.
At half time, the referee reportedly went to the spectator’s sidelines and stated,“ technically that should have been a red card but I don’t card at this age.” (U-11).The CHAN coach was asked to provide a detailed description of the slide tackle in question.The CHAN coach complied.
A CHAN parent that was present at the hearing testified that as she and the ref crossed paths after the game he stated; “technically, I should of red carded that player but I don’t red card at this age group.”
A second parent that was present at the hearing testified that the ref walked over to talk to a group of parents and made the same statement.
The CHAN Electric coach produced 9 written letters from CHAN parents who said they heard the statement made by the referee a number of times (3) at half time and after the game.The coach feels that with so many witnesses hearing the referee’s statement and the referee using the word “technically” and initiating conversations with parents that he was biased.The Coach testified, “Sliding from behind is an automatic red card.The CHAN Coach also stated the player that committed the foul, committed at least two more fouls that were not carded.
The Referee sent in written testimony.In summary, he stated “I never stated technically by rule the player should of (sic) received a red card.This is not the case and I never use the word rule when discussing the Laws of the Game - they are Laws. Further, coaches, players, and parents alike often misunderstand this application of the Laws of the Game. I did state that I would not issue a red card for this foul to an 11-year-old. I stated this for several reasons. Player number 37 did not endanger the safety of her opponent at any time during the match or during the commitment of the foul in question. By me stating that I was not going to issue an ejection to an 11-year-old for this foul was correct per the Advice to Referees and misunderstood (unfortunately) by the coach and the parents that I would not issue a red card to an 11-year-old. If an ejection (red card) was warranted at any time to anyone during the match, I would not have hesitated to issue it.”
Furthermore the referee stated in his written report; “ I did repeat the statement (that I would not issue a red card for this foul to an 11-year-old) at the end of the match to the parents on the sidelines as I walked off the field. My reason for stating this again was that the coach of the CHAN Electrics yelled across the field at the beginning of the 2nd half that the caution I issued should have been a red card. I wanted to make sure that the parents understood that the coach was incorrect in his statement. (I have always tried to educate players and parents about the Laws of the Game when I can, on and off the field).
The R & D Committee unanimously voted that no misapplication of FIFA or WAGS rules were violated.The R & D Committee directs the following;
The outcome of game #973 will remain as played on 4/5/03.The committee unanimously felt the referee did not misapply the FIFA Laws of the Game.According to FIFA LAW 12.29; the following is included among the specific actions considered cautionable as unsporting behaviors,“commits a penal foul while tackling for the ball from behind (i.e. outside the opponent’s peripheral vision).
The committee felt the referee’s unsolicited explanation of the Laws of the Game was not warrant.If the referee had not attempted to explain his actions, this situation could have been avoided.
Prior to hearing testimony, the CHAN Electric was informed they have the right to appeal the decision of the WAGSL R & D Committee according to WAGS Rule O, "Protests and Appeals Procedures".
Violation of WAGS rule K-10 by the CSC Arsenal Head Coach.
Rule K-10: Failure of a coach/team official to remain out of sight, out of sound after being sent off or receiving a Red Card may result in a forfeit.
Match played on April 5, 2003 Game #3183 PWSI Premier vs. CSC Arsenal
At the onset of this hearing, the CSC Arsenal coach wanted to address the reason for his ejection.His request was denied.The CSC coach insisted that he be allowed to present facts that lead up to his ejection.His request was again denied based on non-compliance with WAGS rule O. 1.a. and b.;
1.Players, Coaches and Team Officials
a.The referee’s judgment in issuing a card is not grounds for protest and may not be appealed.The only basis for protest shall be whether a card was issued in accordance with the FIFA Laws of the Game, as modified by the WAGS Rules, or that the point award, assessment, or suspensionwas not in accordance withthese rules.
b.A card may be protested and point awards, assessments and suspensions may be appealed to the R&D Committee.The written protest/appeal must be accompanied by a $100.00 fee (cash, money order or certified check) for each card appealed, not to exceed $300.00, and delivered to the R&D Director by the second day following the issuing of the card(s)
The Center Referee testified that he instructed the CSC Coach to leave the field.He did not display a red card but verbally told the coach to leave.The coach walked off the field and into the parking lot. The parking lot at this particular field is directly behind the goal.When the AR told the center ref that the coach was directly behind the goal, the center ref instructed a CSC official to ask the CSC Coach to move 100 yards away, which he did.
When the game was over, the referees as a team departed towards the corner of the field near the parking lot in order to collect their belongings. During this time they witnessed the CSC Coach who was previously ejected from game # 3183, walking onto the field.The center referee of game # 3183 informed the CSC Coach that he should not come onto the field.It was reported by the center ref and corroborated by the two AR’s that the CSC Coach at that time shouted, “shut up, just shut up” and preceded to walk towards his players.
The Coach testified that when he was sent off, he went to the parking lot as instructed.He stood in the parking lot and talked to a parent of the PWSI team.When he was instructed to move down another 100 yards, he did so. The coach spoke with other PWSI parents who were there.When the game was over, the coach testified that his players looked upset, and he wanted to go over to talk to them and calm them down.As he walked over to the team, the ref began to say something, and he did admit to saying, “shut up.”
The CSC Arsenal’s Manager stated he would like an explanation of the rule. It was stated that the rule allowed thegame to be played without further distractions and considering the safety for all involved, both during and after the game.The Manager stated the CSC Coach followed the referee’s instruction and went down the parking lot 100 yards and only came back to the field because the CSC Coach was concerned for the girls who appeared upset after the game.
The Coach asked if one of the referee’s was a PWSI parent.There was some discussion as to the relevancy of his question to this hearing.A committee member felt it was relevant to the hearing, and therefore the referees were instructed to answer the CSC Coach’s question.The center referee stated he did not have any affiliation with any PWSI team. One of the two AR’s stated that he was a parent of a PWSI player in game #3183.The Coach was reminded that he had agreed to allow a PWSI relative to be an assistant referee when no assigned AR appeared for the game.It was noted that the CSC Arsenal coach also coaches a PWSI team.
In conclusion, the R & D Committee members felt there is no excuse for not knowing the rules.On page 1, Section A2 of the WAGS rules: “Lack of knowledge of these WAGS Rules will not relieve any Coach, Team Official, Parent, or Player of a team. …from the responsibilities and possible penalties herein.”
From the testimony given, the members of this R & D Committee felt the CSC coach exhibited a tremendous lack of respect towards the referees after the game was played.The R & D Committee took into consideration that the CSC Coach did indeed follow the instructions of the referee by going 100 yards away from the playing surface when asked.However this committee will not over look the fact that the CSC Arsenal coach showed a glaring lack of respect by returning to the field, by shouting“shut up, shut up” as well as his noncompliance of the WAGS Rule K-10 and N.2-a.
This committee accordingly directs that:
·Game # 3183 PWSI Premier vs CSC Arsenal will be recorded as a forfeit 3-0 according to WAGS rule K-10.
·The CSC Arsenal Coach has the right to appeal the decision of the WAGSL R & D Committee according to WAGS Rule O, "Protests and Appeals Procedures".