Committee left to ponder course of action

On Soccer: Almost a week on from Thursday's memorable cup replay at Tolka Park where referee Dave McKeon booked Gareth Gorman twice but failed to send the Sligo Rovers player off, it remains hard to disagree with Don O'Riordan's comments immediately after the final whistle, that punishing his team would be an unjust way to resolve a situation that was not of their making.

The FAI's Domestic Committee is expected to consider the matter for the first time tomorrow and while it seems neither club has actually proposed a course of action for the committee members to follow, it is fairly clear that in the Dublin camp there is a desire either for the game to be replayed or, one suspects, for the association to recognise by way of a financial "gesture" that they too have been wronged.

Clearly there is a belief at Shelbourne that when it comes to the possibility of a replay being ordered they have precedent on their side and the case that has been repeatedly mentioned over the past few days is UEFA's decision to have a Champions League qualifier between FC Tirol Innsbruck and Lokomotiv Moscow replayed two years ago.

The circumstances are indeed similar to the present situation with Dutch referee Mario van der Ende mistakenly showing a yellow card to Vladimir Maminov in the 72nd minute when television replays left no doubt he should have been handing a second booking to Ruslan Pimenov.

Lokomotiv led 3-1 from the first leg of the tie and were actually a goal up in the second game at the time of the error so Tirol would have needed to score three times in those remaining 18 minutes in order to force the contest into extra time - more unlikely, one would have to say, than Shelbourne grabbing a solitary late goal last week.

Nevertheless UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Committee decided the time during which Pimenov was mistakenly allowed to stay on the pitch was "irregular" and ordered that the whole match be played again. The federation's appeals body subsequently upheld the decision.

There are other cases too, one in Bulgaria two years ago and one earlier this year in Jamaica, in which errors of precisely the same nature, although the specific circumstances differed, led to the governing bodies involved deciding the game should be replayed.

Crucially, though, not all of the precedents have gone Shelbourne's way. Only last month another example of a referee making precisely the error in question here came to light in a Major League Soccer game between DC United and Dallas Burn.

In this instance referee Jair Marrufo failed to send off United's Brandon Prideaux but after considering the case the MLS opted, a few weeks ago, to allow the result to stand.

The league first of all made clear it felt it was entitled to consider that the issue at stake was the eligibility of the player to be involved in the remaining period of the game.

This, it argued (and here its stand was similar to UEFA's) was entirely different to a situation is which a referee made a decision "regarding the facts connected with play".

Such matters would cover the awarding of penalties, the question of whether a player should have received a red rather than a first yellow card, and even, though this was famously the subject of a dispute in Germany a few years back, whether the ball has crossed the line for a goal.

The official's decisions in all of these areas are deemed to be final under law five of the game. The league said it had contacted FIFA regarding the situation and suggested the world body did not express a view other than, in the event that the game was replayed, it should be replayed in its entirety.

It then went on to explain its decision. "It is clear that an injustice was done to the Dallas Burn by the referee error," said the league in its official declaration on the matter, and the Committee had great sympathy with that.

In the final analysis, however, the Committee decided that this referee error, although it might be grave, clear and obvious, and although it might have a different technical character than a decision regarding facts connected with the play, did not create a greater injustice than, for example, an incorrectly disallowed goal, which would not result in the replay of a game.

"In the circumstances," the committee concluded, "the error did not rise to the level that would result in an order to replay the game."

League officials acknowledged that as part of their research they had come across the UEFA case, amongst others, but appeared to feel that the international organisation was only ruling on that dispute because it actually ran the competition involved and there was no particular reason for their decision to set a precedent for others to follow.

It also cited two cases from recent seasons in England. In one instance Sunderland sent on a substitute for a player being sent off so that they still had 11 players on the pitch.

In the other, a Fulham player played on for three minutes (almost exactly the same time as Gorman did last week) after he should have been dismissed.

In both cases the errors were quickly rectified but in neither did the other club - Tranmere and Barnsley respectively - lodge a protest. In the absence of such an action the English FA decided to leave well enough alone.

That, perhaps, is the precedent that should be followed here.

If there is nothing that obliges the association to take action off its own bat then Shelbourne should at least be left to press the case that, having failed to beat Sligo over 210 minutes of play, Gorman's presence for four too many means they should get another go.

They would be perfectly entitled to do so but what is certain is that it will win them few admirers.

emalone@irish-times.ie