The rules are not archaic, even in the ancient times, they would have been out of place. How then some of the rules are still in place today baffles the mind. A number of local case studies have provided sufficient evidence to nudge authorities into action, but alas, it is business as usual. The 2016 Ofentse Nato case, which dragged on for months, provided the first glimpses that there is something wrong within the local set-up.
The player's registration was contested and the case dragged on for eternity with those tasked with making a ruling, failing to decisively deal with the matter. Last season, the case in which Rollers were deemed to have violated rules following the illegal registration of Onkarabile Ratanang highlighted the immediate need to tweak the regulations. After all was said and done, Rollers escaped with a fine of only P15,000 and those adjudicating could not be blamed as they stuck to the interpretation of the laid down rules. Rollers had used Ratanang in the majority of matches but there had been no official complaint, a major requirement to consider the case a legitimate protest.
The rules should be changed such that if there is a discovery, whichever way, that a team used a defaulter, an official protest should be considered. It should not matter who lodged the protest; the case must be treated on its merit and not based on who brought the matter before a judicial body. The period within which the protest is lodged should also be considered. The 30-day is too short and a case should not be prescribed too early. This season, Security System violated the substitution rule when instead of three times, the team made changes on four occasions. Nothing was done. Then came the Gaborone United case where they used foreign players in the Orange FA Cup against CRACKiT City Polar. The FA Cup rules and regulations are also a massive joke; just imagine, they don’t have room for a protest. The powers rest with the competition’s Local Organising Committee (LOC), which is diabolical.
The committee decides what to do if there is a complaint (note, not a protest). It is a system subject to abuse and can be interpreted to be a partisan process as decisions are taken by individuals, some who are deemed to be conflicted. There are no set parameters and the judgement, in the case of the GU-City Polar, did not reflect the gravity of the case. It is a haphazard system that will not fit even into a boozers league and calls for an immediate redress. But football authorities appear to be comfortable with the ambiguous set-up, which has bred all sorts of conspiracy theories. At least the authorities should be commended, although it took eternity, to do away with the mad notion of ‘soft’ points.
Teams that benefit from the forfeiture of points, were deemed to have gained what the rules termed soft points.
