Capital Football Disputes and Discipline Process - Part 1

Broadcast on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 on 2xxfm (98.3mz) through the Australian Community Radio Network

This program examines the current Discipline and Disputes process used by Capital Football and the documents that govern all who play, coach, administer or spectate at Football in competitions or fixtures sanctioned by Capital Football. It’s a big subject, complex at times and too often misunderstood.
In this interview, Alasdair Grocock, the CF mens League manager talks about the CF D&D procedure and he knows it better than most because he has to administer it for the men’s league. Alasdair is a pragmatic individual, very experienced in football administration, he’s a referee, takes the time to think about the player’s perspective and I suspect, very hard to fool. The CF D&D processes are under review.



Download the Podcast here:


Its usually referees who are the forefront of decisions which initiate a Disciplinary matter against a player, coach, Club official or spectator at a game. Referee’s and the authority they exercise in order to ensure the game is played according to the Laws of the Game is central to quality football. But referees, as we have mentioned numerous times at the NPL are under constant verbal attack from the sidelines. Its often threatening and intimidating and drives too many good young referees out of the game.

Players breach the laws of the game at their peril. If they go too far they get a Red Card and dismissed from the field of play. Referees report and CF begins the formal Disciplinary procedure. Some players take it a step further, as do some Club officials and spectators. If the player then abuses the referee after the award of the Red Card, pushes or punches the referee or indeed spits at a referee – the player is liable for further disciplinary action. The Referee will make a report of this behaviour. Nothing to do with the Red Card, its a separate and new matter. Its trap for stupid players. He or she was "upset" is not an excuse for inapprrpriate conduct, it simply demonstrates a unwillingness to take responsibility for poor conduct. Players with "anger management problems" often get caught in the "secondary offence" scenario. These secondary offences as they are called, lead the player into very serious territory very quickly and often well beyond the Red Card offence award during the game. There is now the very real prospect of lengthy suspensions from the game. The wise and experienced Club officials and there are plenty of them, do all they can to quickly to remove the player before the situation escalates. Most players are smart enough to simply leave the field of play with some vestige of decorum. But some, too many some might say, do not. Then the full force of the CF D&D process reveals itself.

These tribunals are not courts of law. The level of proof required is not as one empassioned club official declared – "beyond reasonable doubt". He’d been watching too much legal drama on television. At best its on the balance of probablities, but tempered with the need to supoort the referee The closer you get o the finals or critical games at the end of the season, the more interested everyone becomes in a process they cared to know little about before that time – then everyone becomes a barrack room lawyer. One particularly obnoxious spectator , having been cited for some positively foul conduct on the sideline toward a referee thought he would flex his ignorance – “I’ll bring my legal team”. Yeah right, carry on!

And I should repeat one thing - Capital Football cannot abandon the referees. If it's a "he said", "I said" situation the Referee's report stands. Simple as that. How can it be any other way?

Clubs can appeal the initial decision by CF or a CF tribunal. The Appeal process is simple enough but common sense would lead you to conclude that it should involve the player / Club providing new evidence. You would also think that the Appeal Tribunal might apply the same test. But alas this is "more honor'd in the breach than in the observance". Clearly some Clubs think its just another occasion to plead innocence, the equivalent of shouting loudly through a megaphone into the ear imagining it will bring hitherto unrealised clarity and understanding to the Appeal Tribunal members, leading to the player being exonerated. Bit harsh perhaps, but Yes it can get the dumb!

Appeals cost the Club about $330 a time.

If Club and player still feel aggrieved after the Appeal, because it has not exonerated the player (or indeed the Appeal Tribunal may have increased the penalty – a risk not often contemplated by player or Club), they can seek to move the matter to a higher Appeal process. Now what's that exactly?

You would anticipate this might be some sort of "Standing Committe" or perhaps its worshipfulness the CF Board itself. Hmmm! However, the current custom and practice at Capital Football would seem to be that a new Appeal tribunal, looking for all the world like the one that has already heard the matter (though the people on it are changed of course), is appointed to hear the matter again. That is to say, for intents and purposes the same level of Appeal twice. Where is the sense in that? And absolutely nuts if the second Appeal tribunal didn't start the hearing with words to the effect - "Do you have any new evidence that was not presented and considered at the first Appeal", or something like that. If the answer is "No", or if the answer is "Yes" but it becomes evident that the real answer is "No", then its Appeal concluded and penalty stands. But it doesn't always seem to work that way.

We now enter that one place Capital Football should wish to aviod at all costs, the province of “solution shopping”; getting the result you are looking for from a new group of people. You could get lucky and sometimes Clubs do. You could get reall lucky if the "second Appeal", in the absence of no new evidence, listen to the Club make its case again (with the advanatge of a test run at the first Appeal) but not  manage to speak to all the parties who gave evidence at the first hearing. Very tricky. And then arrive at a more favourable outcome for the CLub and player. Its one quaint piece of the Capital Football D&D process that seems to undermine all that went before it. And what about the referees? Again! No good at all.

The escalation process is one thing that the current review has got to sort out real fast. Get it codified and stick with it. No "solution shopping". Perhaps an Initial hearing then to Appeal (new evidence only basis) then to a final higher level Appeal at CF (and then only if their are signficant issues of process / policy in question or new evidence), then its finished at Capial Football. The penalty should stand while the Appeal process is underway. Lets see what comes out of the review.