Red missed: Gordon Smith's interpretation of Fifa rules has been challenged by the SPL's chief executive. Pic: ©SNS Group
As the Scottish Premier League chief executive Neil Doncaster outlined in his blog on Wednesday, Gordon Smith’s claim that to change the disciplinary appeals process in Scottish football would contravene Fifa rules has been found to be inaccurate.
In a game in which there are a number of different governing bodies for different competitions, the Scottish Football Association binds all clubs on the matter of how disciplinary matters are handled. Their current system sees any appeal by a club against a player’s red card reviewed in the first instance by the referee who made the original decision.
Only if the referee concedes he may have made an error in his judgement can the appeal then be passed on to be heard by an independent review panel, a procedure seen by various clubs, PFA Scotland and now Doncaster as a process which is unfair on all parties, including the referee.
Smith was steadfast in his judgement that the SFA would be unable to make sweeping changes to the system in place. “With no input from the match official in charge, this would, in fact, contravene one of Fifa's fundamental laws of the game, namely ‘the decision of the referee is final’.”
But the English FA do things differently and all appeals are heard by an independent panel, bypassing the referee. "Suspensions for sendings-off come into effect immediately in line with Fifa guidelines," reads the English FA's disciplinary handbook. "Claims for wrongful dismissal are permitted for straight red cards (offences such as denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity, serious foul play, violent conduct).
"Claims are heard by Disciplinary Commissions before the player’s next match wherever possible, and on the basis of video and written submissions only. The onus rests of the player concerned to prove the dismissal was wrongful or that it was a case of mistaken identity."
The aforementioned guidlines lie within Fifa’s disciplinary code, article 77. Fifa’s own disciplinary committee can bypass referees on four points including, crucially, “rectifying obvious errors in the referee’s disciplinary decisions”.
Article 77, Specific jurisdiction:
The Disciplinary Committee is responsible for:a) sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials’ attention;
b) rectifying obvious errors in the referee’s disciplinary decisions;
c) extending the duration of a match suspension incurred automatically by an expulsion;
d) pronouncing additional sanctions, such as a fine.
As Doncaster points out, Fifa’s ability to make certain decisions above the heads of match officials means that national football associations can apply the same code of conduct. The English FA already have, the Scottish FA should and, in the wake of continued pressure, will follow suit.
- SPL chief tells SFA to stop hiding behind Fifa rule misinterpretation
- Gordon Smith says referee decisions will remain final
- SFA urged to follow English appeal example by SPL
“There is a mood for change in Scottish football just now,” said Doncaster in his blog on the SPL’s website. “With some co-operation between ourselves, the Scottish FA and our clubs, and a little perseverance, we can make a step in the right direction.
“We need to overhaul our current appeals system. We need to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done, by creating an independent appeals body. And we need to do so now.”
Doncaster’s will to enforce change by applying pressure is relatively unheard of but the make-up of Scottish football, which is widely criticised by fans, may just have helped on this occasion. The bodies responsible for Scottish football may be fractured amongst the SPL, SFA and SFL to name but a few and there have been continued calls to unify them all.
But perhaps keeping each other at an arm’s length can serve as a vehicle for good. The very fact that the chief executive of the SPL can come out and publicly embarrass his SFA counterpart for his interpretation of the rules only emphasises that claim.
