Unanimous decision
https://twitter.com/FAspokesperson/stat ... 8179190784 "The above was not accepted by the Commission who determined that the video evidence clearly showed there to be no contact between Mr Lavelle and the goalkeeper before Mr Lavelle began to go to ground in an exaggerated manner. Mr Lavelle anticipated that there was going to be contact from the goalkeeper and started to go to ground in an exaggerated manner after his first touch. Any contact from the goalkeeper after Mr Lavelle had already exaggerated his movement to ground was minimal and would not have resulted in a penalty kick. Both of his feet are off the ground at that stage in a clear attempt to persuade the referee that the goalkeeper had made contact with him. "Background
1. These are the written reasons for a decision made by an Independent Regulatory Commission which sat on 30 November 2017.
2. The Regulatory Commission members were Mr Tom Finn (Chairman), Independent Football Panel Member, Mr Mick Kearns, Independent Football Panel Member, and Mr Ken Monkou, Independent Football Panel Member.
3. Mr Paddy McCormack of the FA Judicial Services Department acted as Secretary to the Regulatory Commission. Mr Mark Ives, Head of Judicial Services, was also in attendance.
4. By letter dated 28 November 2017, The Football Association (“The FA”) charged Mr Lavelle, of Morecambe Football Club, with Misconduct for a breach of FA Rule E3 in respect of the English Football League Two fixture between Carlisle United Football Club and Morecambe Football Club played on Saturday 25 November 2017.
5. It was alleged that Mr Lavelle’s behaviour in or around the 83rd minute of the fixture, in committing a clear act of simulation which led to a penalty being awarded, amounted to improper conduct.
6. The FA included the following evidence it intended to rely on in support of the charge:
(i) Email correspondence between Mr N Dutton, of The FA’s Regulation Department, and the three Simulation Panel Members, dated 28 November 2017;
(ii) The Guidance for Panel Members; and
(iii) A video clip showing the 83rd minute of the fixture.
7. Mr Lavelle denied the charge by way of The FA’s Disciplinary Proceedings Reply Form dated 29th November 2017. A Player does not have the right to be present or represented at a hearing of a Regulatory Commission in respect of incidents covered by this Schedule D Standard Direction. The matter is dealt with on video and written evidence only.
8. Morecambe Football Club re-submitted The FA video footage of the incident from two different angles and at both full speed and slow motion. This was supported by a detailed written submission from the Club Secretary, Mr M Horton, and a detailed account from Mr Lavelle himself; the contents of which the Commission read and noted.
The Regulatory Framework
9. The hearing took place by WebEx on Thursday 30 November 2017.
10. The applicable FA Regulation can be found at Schedule D and states –
Successful Deception of a Match Official
Standard Directions for incidents relating to the successful deception of a Match Official. For Players of Clubs of The FA Premier League, EFL, National League and The FA WSL competing in First Team Competitive Matches (FTCM).
a. General Principles
These Standard Directions will apply where The Association charges a Player with Misconduct under the Rules of The Association for incidents relating to the successful deception of a Match Official by way of a clear act of simulation which leads either to a penalty being awarded or the dismissal of an opposing Player.
11. The following Guidance is given to Panel Members –
For a panel member to conclude that simulation has occurred they must conclude that there is clear and overwhelming evidence.
In judging these incidents, there are five key questions that should be considered in the decision-making process.
To identify whether an act of simulation has occurred, the following should be considered:
1. Is there contact between the players involved? Simulation is more likely in cases where a player attempts to deceive the referee when no contact occurred between the players.
2. Is there fair/normal contact between the players, resulting in no offence being committed?
3. Is a player legitimately avoiding contact with the opponent to prevent injury?
4. Has the player initiated the contact between his opponent and himself in order to deceive the referee?
5. Does the player exaggerate the effect of a normal contact challenge in order to deceive the referee?
12. In cases of this nature, before the case is put before a Regulatory Commission, three members of a specialist Panel must have independently reviewed the incident and unanimously agreed that an incident has occurred which successfully deceived a Match Official.
13. The following is a summary of the principal submissions provided to the Commission. It does not purport to contain reference to all the points made, however the absence of a point, or submission,
in these reasons should not imply that the Commission did not take such point, or submission, into consideration when the members determined the matter. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission has carefully considered all written and video evidence in respect of this case.
14. The Commission viewed the footage of the incident provided on numerous occasions and in great detail and having considered the Player’s and the Club’s submissions, the Regulatory Commission agreed unanimously that the Charge was found proven.
15. Mr Lavelle stated that ”As the ball came over I pushed it past the goalkeeper, and as I went round him felt a nudge from his knee as he slid towards me. I was starting to lose my balance as I went past him and felt further contact from his hand causing me to fall to the ground. Whilst the contact was not excessive but because of my running speed it was sufficient for me to be knocked off balance causing me to fall over as I was going for the ball. The video clip shows my fall to be consistent following contact from the goalkeeper and not an exaggerated fall, by me diving. It clearly shows me losing balance following the initial contact with the goalkeeper.”
16. The above was not accepted by the Commission who determined that the video evidence clearly showed there to be no contact between Mr Lavelle and the goalkeeper before Mr Lavelle began to go to ground in an exaggerated manner. Mr Lavelle anticipated that there was going to be contact from the goalkeeper and started to go to ground in an exaggerated manner after his first touch. Any contact from the goalkeeper after Mr Lavelle had already exaggerated his movement to ground was minimal and would not have resulted in a penalty kick. Both of his feet are off the ground at that stage in a clear attempt to persuade the referee that the goalkeeper had made contact with him.
17. With reference to the five key questions to be considered in the decision making process, the Commission found that there was no contact between the players involved before Mr Lavelle began to go to ground in an exaggerated manner and that Mr Lavelle could not be said to be legitimately avoiding contact with the opponent to prevent injury. Mr Lavelle initiated the alleged contact between his opponent and himself and exaggerated the effect of a normal contact challenge in order to deceive the referee. Mr Lavelle deceived the referee and this led to a penalty being awarded by the referee.
18. For completeness, it is not the role of the Regulatory Commission to examine the decision of the Referee.
Conclusion
19. The Regulatory Commission having carefully considered all the evidence presented in connection with this case unanimously found the Charge against Mr Lavelle proven in that he did commit a clear act of simulation which led to a penalty being awarded.
20. The standard punishment in this case is a two game suspension which will commence forthwith.
21. There is no right of appeal under this Regulation.
Mr Tom Finn, Chairman
Mr Mick Kearns
Mr Ken Monkou
1 December 2017
