Decision Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body

Sent to BSC Young Boys Papiermühlestrasse 77 3000 Bern 22 Switzerland Decision --- of the --- Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body on --- 19 January 2021 Chairman: Partl Thomas (AUT) Vice-Chairman: Berzi Sándor (HUN) Members: García Caba Miguel María (ESP) Šašić Celia (GER) Doncaster Neil (ENG) Becker Julius Y. (GER) Power Áine (IRL) Disciplinary Case: 34215 - UEL - 2020/21 Incidents: Rough play (Mr. Nsame Jean-Pierre Junior), Art. 15(1)(a)(ii) DR Competition: 2020/21 UEFA Europa League Match: BSC Young Boys vs. CFR 1907 Cluj, 10.12.2020 Referee: Benoît Bastien (FRA) 2 | Page I. Facts of the case 1. The elements set out below are a summary of the main relevant facts as established by the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) on the basis of the official reports, the written submissions, the exhibits filed and the statements produced by BSC Young Boys (the “club”) in the course of the CEDB proceedings. While the CEDB has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the club in these proceedings, it refers in the present decision only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning. 2. The facts of this case, as reported by the referee officiating at the 2020/21 UEFA Europa League match between the club and CFR 1907 Cluj played on 10 December 2020 (the “match”), are as follows: Referee’s report. “Red card nr 18 Young Boys: in the minute 90 + 5, when not challenging for the ball, player nr 18 of Young Boys deliberately strikes with his knee the leg of his opponent. The contact was made with excessive force.” II. The club’s statements 3. The club in its statements on behalf of Mr. Jean-Pierre Nsame (the “player”) dated 15 December 2020, essentially stated the following: - Emotions ran high in the closing stages of this decisive game. Just before the final whistle, the player sprinted to press in the opponent's half of the pitch. In the duel with the player number 3 of Cluj, he was one step too late. He visibly slowed down and tried to hold back the opposing player with his right hand. The eyes of the player were clearly focused on the action with the right hand. It was solely a matter of a "tactical foul". But at the same time, there was a collision of the right thigh of the player and the right thigh of the number 3 of Cluj, which happened unintentionally. - The club stressed that the player did not want to hurt his opponent. This is clearly visible on the television pictures. And that was also the reaction of those involved: everyone expected a yellow card, which would have been proportionate, but no one expected a sending off. - It is important to emphasize that it was the player’s first foul in this match. In general, the player always behaves extremely correctly and dutifully. He is considered to be a very fair sportsman who has made a name for himself as a model professional. 4. The more detailed arguments made by the club in support of its written submissions are set out below in as far as they are relevant. 3 | Page III. Merits of the case A. UEFA´s competence and relevant provisions applicable to the case 5. Pursuant to Articles 33(3), 52 and 57 of the UEFA Statutes, as well as Article 29(3) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (DR), the CEDB is competent to deal with the case. 6. Pursuant to Article 5(a) DR, the UEFA Statutes, rules and regulations, in particular the DR, are applicable to these proceedings. 7. The following relevant provisions apply to the case at hand. Pursuant to Article 15(1) DR, “[t]he following suspensions apply for competition matches: (a) suspension for one competition match or a specified period for: […] (ii) rough play.” 9. According to Article 45 DR, “[f]acts contained in official UEFA reports are presumed to be accurate. Proof of their inaccuracy may, however, be provided.” 10. Pursuant to Article 23 DR, “1 [t]he competent disciplinary body determines the type and extent of the disciplinary measures to be imposed in accordance with the objective and subjective elements of the offence, taking account of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. […] 3 Disciplinary measures can be reduced or increased by the competent disciplinary body on the basis of the circumstances of the specific case […]”. B. The responsibility of the player for the rough play In the case at hand, it was reported by the referee that, in the 95th minute of the match, the player was sent off for performing a deliberate strike with his knee against the knee of his opponent with excessive force. In this sense, the UEFA disciplinary bodies have decided a number of times that tackling with high intensity, as described by the referee, is a particularly rough play and thus a serious threat for the integrity and safety of the opponent. The CEDB recalls the argument of the club, stating that the player only had the intention to stop the play by committing a tactical foul with the use of his hand, whereas the contact with the opponent’s leg was merely unintentional. However, after having thoroughly analysed the official report of the referee (which is presumed to be accurate pursuant to Article 45 DR) and the relevant video evidence, the CEDB on the one hand agrees with the argument provided by the club that it was the player’s intention to stop the play by committing a so-called “tactical foul”. On the other hand, contrary to what the club had alleged, the CEDB is convinced that the player wanted to achieve this goal by any means necessary, i.e. not only by using his arm, but by making intense physical contact in order to stop the opponent player from pushing the ball towards the enemy half in an attempt to score a late goal. 4 | Page The CEDB wishes to emphasise that the act committed by the player was reckless, performed with high intensity, clearly putting the safety of his opponent in danger, and could potentially be qualified as an assault within the meaning of Article 15(1)(e) DR, due to its severity. However, having reviewed the video footage, the CEDB finally came to the conclusion that the act of the player under scrutiny constituted a rough play under the terms of Article 15(1)(a)(ii) DR. Therefore, the violation of Article 15(1)(a)(ii) DR has been established and the player needs to be punished accordingly. IV. The determination of the appropriate disciplinary measure 16. The CEDB acknowledges the arguments of the club regarding the clean previous record of the player, his lack of intention to hit the opponent player with his knee as well as the fact that this was allegedly the player’s first foul during the match. 17. Likewise, the CEDB recalls that the player performed a very dangerous tackle, putting the safety of his opponent in danger in a very serious manner. The CEDB also stresses that, as admitted by the club, the intention of the player was to commit a foul against his opponent, and it was his choice to engage with such high intensity and speed, accepting the risk of possibly injuring his opponent. Moreover, the CEDB stresses that the fact that the player might have only committed this one foul during the entire match is irrelevant since it is only the incident under scrutiny, i.e. the foul play committed by the player in the 95th minute of the match, which needs to be assessed by the CEDB. 18. Considering the above and in compliance with the constant practice of the CEDB (as published on the UEFA website) to increase the standard punishment of one match in case of particularly severe rough plays as it is the case here, which counts as an aggravating circumstance (as per Article 23(1) DR), the CEDB comes to the conclusion that a two-match suspension shall be considered the appropriate sanction to be imposed on the player in the case at hand, in application of Article 15(1)(a)(ii) DR. 19. Consequently, the CEDB decides 1. To suspend BSC Young Boys player, Mr. Nsame Jean-Pierre Junior, for a total of two (2) UEFA club competition matches for which he would be otherwise eligible, for rough play. 2. BSC Young Boys ensures its player is personally informed of this decision. Thomas Partl Chairman Bank details Union Bank of Switzerland CH-3001 Acc. n° 235-90 186444.6 Bank code 235 Swift: UBS WCH ZH 80A cc Swiss Football Association IBAN CH30 00235235901864446 Detail address of UBS AG (Union Bank of Switzerland) - CH – 3001 BERNE VAT Number in Switzerland: CHE-116.317.087 Fiscal number in Switzerland / canton de Vaud: 21 652 5 | Page Advice as to rights of appeal This decision is open to appeal (Article 60 DR). A declaration of the intention to appeal against a decision by the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body must be lodged with the UEFA administration, in writing, for the attention of the Appeals Body, within three days of notification of the relevant decision with grounds (Article 60(2) DR). Within five days of the expiry of the time limit for the declaration of the intention to appeal, the appellant must file, in writing, the grounds for appeal, which must contain a legal request, an account of the facts, evidence and the appellant’s conclusions (Article 60(3) DR). The appeal fee is €1,000, payable on submission of the grounds for appeal at the latest (Article 60(4) DR).

Load more