???????????????LégendeLégende LégeLégendeLégende LégeLégendeLégende LégeLégendeThe cameracan help toensure thatunsport<strong>in</strong>gbehaviouris punished.EMPICSUnacceptablebehaviourbut no red cardDURING A <strong>UEFA</strong> COMPETITION MATCH BETWEENTEAMS B AND R, PLAYER C RETALIATED AFTER A FOUL BY SLAPPINGTHE OFFENDING OPPONENT IN THE FACE.The referee did not notice the<strong>in</strong>cident. Therefore, from a discipl<strong>in</strong>arypo<strong>in</strong>t of view, one of the questions thatarose was that of decid<strong>in</strong>g under whatconditions unacceptable behaviour by aplayer could be punished if not reportedby the referee.In the 59th m<strong>in</strong>ute of the <strong>UEFA</strong>competition match between teams B andR on 24 February 2004, players C andD challenged each other for the ball.Player D was only able to take the balloff player C by foul<strong>in</strong>g him and <strong>in</strong> theprocess both players ended up on theground. Player C then slapped player D<strong>in</strong> the face with his left hand. Thereferee gave player D a yellow card forthe foul and awarded a free-kick aga<strong>in</strong>stIt is difficultfor the refereeto seeeveryth<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> situationslike this.EMPICSEMPICS12 uefadirect 6.04
Article 10 (3)Discipl<strong>in</strong>ary action may be takeneven if the referee was not ableto see gross unsport<strong>in</strong>g conductand was therefore unable to takeany factual decision.his team. The referee was not able tosee player C slap his challenger becauseanother two players were <strong>in</strong> the way.The Control and Discipl<strong>in</strong>aryBody suspended player C for two <strong>UEFA</strong>competition matches for assault. Club Rand the player concerned appealedaga<strong>in</strong>st this decision, call<strong>in</strong>g for theban to be lifted or reduced to onematch, claim<strong>in</strong>g that the referee musthave been able to see the <strong>in</strong>cident fromwhere he was stand<strong>in</strong>g. Moreover, theappellant ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed that player C’sbehaviour was not an act of assaultbut a defence reaction <strong>in</strong> responseto a dangerous tackle. In his plead<strong>in</strong>g,<strong>UEFA</strong>’s representative (discipl<strong>in</strong>ary<strong>in</strong>spector) concluded that the appealshould be rejected.On 8 March, the Appeals Bodyrejected the appeal on the follow<strong>in</strong>ggrounds.A delicate matterThe purpose of article 10 (3)of the <strong>UEFA</strong> Discipl<strong>in</strong>ary Regulationsis to ensure that a player does notescape discipl<strong>in</strong>e because the refereewas unable to see his grossly unsport<strong>in</strong>gbehaviour. The retroactive punishmentof an offence that was notreported by the referee is a delicatematter and requires careful exam<strong>in</strong>ationof three conditions, all of whichmust be met:– The referee did not see theoffence for a concrete reason. Lack ofconcentration on the part of the refereebecause he was distracted or whateverdoes not count.– The offence must be of agrossly unsport<strong>in</strong>g nature. In otherwords, not every foul that is punishablewith a red card counts <strong>in</strong> this context.The offence must be serious and fail<strong>in</strong>gto punish it would be contrary to thegeneral sense of justice. Assault wouldtherefore fall <strong>in</strong>to this category.BONGARTS– F<strong>in</strong>ally, the fact that thereferee was unable to see the <strong>in</strong>cidentmust be the reason why he did nottake action. In other words, the factthat it was objectively impossible forhim to see the <strong>in</strong>cident prevented himfrom recognis<strong>in</strong>g and act<strong>in</strong>g on thegrossly unsport<strong>in</strong>g offence <strong>in</strong> question.Blatant assaultOn the basis of the videorecord<strong>in</strong>g of the <strong>in</strong>cident, there isno doubt that the referee was unableto see player C slap his challengerbecause another two players were<strong>in</strong> the way. Therefore, the referee wasobjectively not <strong>in</strong> a position to seewhat player C did and to take appropriateaction. From a legal po<strong>in</strong>t of view,player C’s behaviour constituted an actof assault <strong>in</strong> the sense of article 10 (1c)of the <strong>UEFA</strong> Discipl<strong>in</strong>ary Regulations.Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the established case-lawof the <strong>UEFA</strong> discipl<strong>in</strong>ary bodies, assaultencompasses any action which deliberatelydisturbs someone else’s wellbe<strong>in</strong>g.Such acts <strong>in</strong>clude punch<strong>in</strong>g,head-butt<strong>in</strong>g, slapp<strong>in</strong>g, tread<strong>in</strong>g on,kick<strong>in</strong>g, p<strong>in</strong>ch<strong>in</strong>g etc. Assault is alwaysa grossly unsport<strong>in</strong>g act. Consequently,the third condition laid down<strong>in</strong> article 10 (3) of the <strong>UEFA</strong> Discipl<strong>in</strong>aryRegulations is also met. The Controland Discipl<strong>in</strong>ary Body was thereforeright to judge the case.This leaves the question ofwhether the two-match suspensionimposed was proportionate or – as theappellant ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s – arbitrary. Accord<strong>in</strong>gto article 17 of the Discipl<strong>in</strong>aryRegulations, “the discipl<strong>in</strong>ary bodiesdeterm<strong>in</strong>e the type and extent of thediscipl<strong>in</strong>ary measures to be imposed,accord<strong>in</strong>g to the objective and subjectiveelements, under consideration of<strong>in</strong>crim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g and exonerat<strong>in</strong>g factors”.And article 10 (1c) lays down a threematchban for assault. As a mitigat<strong>in</strong>gcircumstance, the fact that player Chad been grossly fouled by his victim,player D beforehand and that player Dwas punished with a yellow card mustbe taken <strong>in</strong>to account. The decisiontaken by the Control and Discipl<strong>in</strong>aryBody was therefore commensurateand the appeal consequently rejected.Reportfrom BrusselsThe EuropeanCommission is look<strong>in</strong>g atways to reform EU broadcast<strong>in</strong>glaw, and its conclusionscould have a big impact onthe way sport is shown ontelevision and new media.The so-called ‘TV without frontiers’directive came <strong>in</strong>to be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>1989. It is part of the EU’s efforts tocreate a s<strong>in</strong>gle European market <strong>in</strong>services. One of the ma<strong>in</strong> effects ofthe directive is to “lay down them<strong>in</strong>imum rules needed to guaranteefreedom of transmission <strong>in</strong> broadcast<strong>in</strong>g”.For the world of sport, oneof the directive’s most importantarticles is 3a, which protects theright of each member state to“ensure that broadcasters…do notbroadcast on an exclusive basisevents which are… of major importancefor society.” S<strong>in</strong>ce the directivecame <strong>in</strong>to force, EU countries havedrawn up their own national lists ofevents, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g major sports competitions,which should be madeavailable to all television viewers.Whilst <strong>UEFA</strong> has always been sympatheticto the aims of article 3a, ittakes the view that sports bodiesshould be responsible for the manner<strong>in</strong> which they sell their rights. Inthis context, <strong>UEFA</strong> considers that itis for sports bodies themselves tof<strong>in</strong>d the right balance between ‘free’and pay-television.The pace of technologicalchange means that the EuropeanCommission must now review thedirective and identify those provisionsto be updated. Last year, theCommission launched a consultationexercise, to which <strong>UEFA</strong>responded with a written submis-➜13
Change language