JOVITO LOPES
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
PANJIM: There is no question of upholding Cavelossim’s protest against Vasco Club on the question of fielding the alleged ineligible player in their Goa Professional League match in November last, since the protest was not lodged as per the official rules of the competition, divulged a Vasco club official, here, Friday.
The GFA’s Executive Committee had relied on Articles 18, 19 and 20 in deciding that the player fielded by Vasco was not eligible to play for them. However, Vasco pointed out that Article 18 itself states: “Protest against the eligibility of any player(s) shall be lodged according to Articles 40 and 41 by the protesting team with the zonal secretary/match commissioner or his duly appointed representative or the GFA office at Panjim accompanied by a protest fee of Rs 1000.”
Vasco stressed that Cavelossim had contravened Article 40 and had instead lodged the protest one day after the match. Article 40 – signing match report from by teams – reads: “After the conclusion of every match in the official competitions, the captains of both the teams or the managers of both the teams shall sign on the referee’s match report form, indicating therein whether they intend to protest the result of the match. If the team expresses the desire to protest the manager shall also briefly specify the reasons for lodging the protest. When intention to protest has been expressed by a team captain/manager/official as detailed in this Article, the referee of the match shall take immediate steps to ensure that his match report is received by the zonal secretary/organizing secretary/match commissioner with 24 hours from the time of conclusion of the concerned match. Failure to do so will make the referee liable to suspension of upto three years.”
Then, Article 41 talks about lodging of protest – “Intention to protest having been expressed under the stipulation of Article 40, the concerned team must compulsorily follow up by submitting the protest in resume to the general secretary, GFA/zonal secretary/organizing secretary before the closure of the GFA office on the next day of the match. The resume shall further be confirmed with a formal protest lodged in writing, accompanied by a protest fee of Rs 1000 and hand delivered to GFA secretariat in Panjim not later than 24 hours after the conclusion of the concerned match.
The Vasco Club official emphasized also on Article 42 – protest null and void. “Intention to protest not having been indicated on the referee’s match report form, or resume of protest not having been lodged within the specified time limit, shall each jointly or severally render the protest null and void, and it shall be rejected outright by the Executive Committee.”
Since Cavelossim did not show their intention to protest in the first place, there is no question of the protest even being entertained, argued the Vasco Club official.
Having also indicated that one had also to go by previous judgements and well-established precedents, the Vasco official remarked that under Article 3 – spirit and principle – “The official competitions are governed in spirit and principle by the laws of the game and Statutes and Rules and regulations of FIFA, AIFF and GFA.”
Doubts have also been expressed as to why the protest was referred to the Players Status Committee as Article 19 – decision on ineligible players – states: “Protest under Article 18 shall be decided finally by the Executive Committee or by a sub-committee which has been appointed by the GFA under provisions of GFA Constitution. The Players Status Committee is a duly formed sub-committee and as such, it was asked to take up the matter. But yesterday, it was the Executive Committee that decided on the matter at the extraordinary meeting as the Players Status Committee decided that it was an administrative matter.
Obviously, the matter involves legalities and one can now understand better why every club needs to have a legal division as part of the professional administrative set-up. Even matters concerning the contract with the players demand a legal outlook, as it is now being pointed out that there cannot be five-month contracts with the players.
In any case, like what the AFC has been demanding from I-League clubs, all our local clubs will also have ultimately to follow some licencing criteria at the State level, at least for Pro League, in as much as there cannot be a football club without a minimum football ground/stadia with an administrative set-up at least. That’s the way for introducing professionalism in a gradual manner.
