FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

INDEPENDENT REGULATORY COMMISSION

WRITTEN REASONS AND DECISION OF

THE INDEPENDENT REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF A

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL CLAIM BROUGHT BY TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR FC

ON BEHALF OF MR. HEUNG-MIN SON ON 24 DECEMBER 2019

Background

1. These are the Written Reasons for a decision made by an Independent Regulatory

Commission which convened by WebEx on 24 December 2019.

2. The Regulatory Commission members were Mr Bradley Pritchard, Independent

Football Panel Member and Chair, Mr Daniel Mole, Independent Football Panel

Member and Mr Paul Raven, Independent Football Panel Member.

3. The Regulatory Commission members were advised on the Laws of the Game by

Mr Paul Taylor of the Referee Advisory Panel. In particular, the Law relating to

‘Violent Conduct’ and the factors considered by a Match Official when determining

such an incident. Mr Taylor remained available to answer questions with regard to

the Laws of the Game, however, took no part in discussions concerning the actual

specifics of the case.

4. Mr Paddy McCormack, The FA Regulatory Commissions & Appeals Manager,

acted as Secretary to the Regulatory Commission.

5. In order for a claim of Wrongful Dismissal to be successful, the Player and his Club

must establish by the evidence it submits that the Referee made an ‘obvious error’

in dismissing the Player. This role is not to usurp the role of the Referee and re-

referee the incident.

6. The incident in question occurred in the Tottenham Hotspur FC (“The Club”) v

Chelsea FC Premier League fixture, which took place on Saturday 22 December

2019.
7. In his Official Report Form the Referee, Mr Anthony Taylor stated –

“I have to report that I, as the Referee sent off Heung-Min, Son of Tottenham Hotspur

Under Law 12 Section: S2 (Kicking)”.

8. The Club submitted one video clip of the incident that was supported by still

images of the match footage and a comprehensive submission from Jennifer

Urquhart, Football Secretary, the contents of which the Commission read and

noted.

9. 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.

10.The Regulatory Commission noted the distinction between the following different

offences involving contact, as referenced within the Laws of the Game:

• “Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a

challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed.

• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an

opponent and must be cautioned.

• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers

the safety of an opponent and must be sent off”.

11.The Regulatory Commission considered the relevant Laws of the Game in relation

to Violent Conduct. It is defined as follows;

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality

against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team

official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is

made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an

opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of

violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

12.Having comprehensively viewed the available footage of the incident on numerous

occasions and deliberated over the submissions in great detail, the Regulatory

Commission unanimously agreed that the Referee had not made an obvious error,

pursuant to the Laws of the Game.

13.Heung-Min Son (“HMS”) receives a pass from team-mate. He is then tackled by

Antonio Rudiger (“AR”) who clears the ball for a throw-in. The collision between

the two players causes HMS to fall to the ground. As HMS falls, he rolls onto the

ground, with his left leg facing upwards, and his left foot up against AR’s right hip.

At this point, there is a distinctive and unnatural motion from HMS, extending his
 left leg upwards, towards the chest of AR.

14.While the Regulatory Commission discussed and acknowledged the reaction of AR

subsequent to the leg motion made by HMS, the reaction was not a consideration

for the Commission. The Commission were tasked with the question of whether the

Referee had made an ‘obvious error’.

15.Therefore, the Regulatory Commission firstly considered from the Club’s

submission if the force was negligible. As stated in paragraph 13 HMS extends his

leg towards the chest or rib area of AR. The extension and nature of the movement

suggests a deliberate kick-out with level of force the Regulatory Commission

deemed to be greater than ‘negligible’.

16.Secondly, the Regulatory Commission considered if HMS attempted to use

brutality. From the position HMS rolls into (with his back on the ground and legs

up towards his opponent) the Regulatory Commission accepted that the action of

kicking upwards did in fact endanger his opponent, thus satisfying the threshold

of attempting to use brutality.

17.The Regulatory Commission acknowledged the importance of the Referee making

his decision at the exact time the offence was committed, his judgment at that point

and indeed the intervention of the Video Assistant Referee.

Standard Punishment Clearly Excessive

18.The Club further submitted that if the Panel did not accept their submissions that

the disciplinary consequences of the red card should be rescinded on the grounds

that the Referee made an ‘obvious error’ they would submit that there were ‘truly

exceptional’ circumstances that a three-game ban is clearly excessive. This

provision can be found in the FA Handbook 2019-2020, Fast Track 5: Clearly

Excessive which, inter alia, states:

“1 This Fast Track 5 sets out the process where a Player or their Club seeks to limit the

disciplinary consequences of the dismissal of the Player from the field of play by

demonstrating that the circumstances of the dismissal were truly exceptional such that

the standard punishment, set out in Part D: On-Field Regulations, would be clearly

excessive. It shall apply to Players of Clubs in Categories 1, 2 and 3.

2 The ability to claim under this Fast Track 5 is provided only so exceptional cases may

be rectified. It is not intended to lead to the systematic, regular review of standard

punishments. Regulatory Commissions should approach such cases with these

principles in mind and it is envisaged that, in the vast majority of dismissals, the

standard punishments will be appropriate and will be applied.

3 The Regulatory Commission that considers a claim of this type is concerned with only

the question of whether the standard punishment should not be imposed in view of the

truly exceptional facts of the case. This role is not to usurp the role of the Referee nor to

scrutinise the correctness of the dismissal from the field of play, which shall remain on

the record of the Club and the Player, will remain the subject of the administration fee
and will accrue the appropriate number of penalty points for a first team sending-off.

13.2 After considering the evidence, the Regulatory Commission will decide whether

the claim is rejected or is successful. A claim will only be successful where the

Regulatory Commission is satisfied so that it is sure that:

13.2.1 the circumstances of the dismissal under review are truly exceptional,

such that the standard punishment should not be applied; and

13.2.2 as a result of the truly exceptional circumstances the standard

punishment would be clearly excessive.

13.3 In considering the matters at paragraph 13.2 above, the Regulatory Commission

shall have regard to:

13.3.1 the applicable Law(s) of the Game and any relevant FIFA instructions

and / or guidelines;

13.3.2 the nature of the dismissal offence including the Player’s state of mind,

in particular any intent, recklessness or negligence;

13.3.3 where applicable, the level of force used;

13.3.4 any injury to an opponent caused by the dismissal offence;

13.3.5 any other impact on the game in which the incident occurred;

13.3.6 the prevalence of the type of incident in question in football generally;

13.3.7 the wider interests of football in applying consistent punishments for

dismissal offences.”
19.It would appear that this submission was based on the premise that ‘truly

exceptional’ circumstances existed in their interpretation of this incident. This was

not supported with further representations. Again, this was not accepted by the

Regulatory Commission.

Conclusion

20.The Regulatory Commission, having carefully considered all the relevant factors

and the submissions made by the Club, unanimously agreed that there were no

‘truly exceptional’ circumstances present.

21.As previously stated the Regulations state that the burden lies with the Club to

submit evidence that proves that the Referee made an ‘obvious error’ in sending

the player from the field of play and in this instance the Regulatory Commission,

by a unanimous decision, did not feel that they could say, based on all the evidence

before them, that he had made an ‘obvious error’. As such the claim failed.

22.Given the specific facts to this case, the Commission did not find that the claim had

no prospect of success and/or amounted to an abuse of process. Therefore, the

Commission did not exercise its discretion to increase the standard punishment in

this instance.

Mr Bradley Pritchard, Chair and Independent Football Panel Member

Mr Daniel Mole, Independent Football Panel Member

Mr Paul Raven, Independent Football Panel Member

31 January 2020