[ad_1]
Another example of the ambiguous interpretation of the provisions of the Regulation. In the history of the canceled match against Shakhtar, the Ingulets leadership drew attention to the regulation, according to which the decision on the fate of the match must be made no later than 60 minutes before the start of the match. And he asked that his verdict be issued at 1:00 p.m. (the start of the match was scheduled for 2:00 p.m.). But “no later than 60 minutes” is at 1:00 PM and 10:00 AM.
Probably, in this story it is necessary to rely on a different rule of the Regulation. Clause 5 of article 30 establishes:
“On the day of the match at the stadium where the match will take place, at 9:30 a.m. to inspect the football field, equipment and at 10:00 a.m. to hold an organizational meeting“This was done. And after this meeting, it was decided to cancel the game.” Ingulets “officially announced this decision at 10:56. There would be a problem if it were before ten, but everything is clear.
There is no reason to accuse the organizers of the competition of violating the rules and regulations in the context of the decision to cancel the match. There are doubts about the final interpretation of the situation. After all, “Ingulets” urged to recognize the situation as force majeure and give the opportunity to hold the fight at another time. But the FTC UAF did not accept it. Although four years ago, in the same situation, the FFU Control and Discipline Committee made an absolutely opposite decision.
Then the match of the 17th day of the UPL between “Olímpico” and “Karpaty” did not take place either due to the unsuitable field of the “Olímpico” stadium in Sumy. The host team was Olympian, but the technical defeat was not counted. That’s what he said Delegate of that fight Sergey Shebek especially for UA-Football:
“Arriving a day early and meeting with the stadium manager, I asked him,” Why didn’t they turn on the heat when we found out that the game would take place at your stadium? “The answer was short:” Olympic did not transfer money for electricity, so no … At that time, a heating day cost 50,000 hryvnia. It seemed that the culprit was looming. And the Competition Rules clearly state: if the host team did not provide the football field preparation or the necessary conditions for the match, by decision of the UAF FTC, the host club receives a loss (0: 3). But our “brave” FTC, as always, played undercover games and deemed it force majeure, which means there are no culprits. They referred to letters and actions from Olimpik about their supposed desire to host the match, but the weather conditions prevented it “…
The question arises, why did the FTC make drastically opposite decisions in the same situations? Why were Olimpik’s arguments stronger than Ingulets’? Does the host team’s rival team name (four years ago – Karpaty, and today – Shakhtar) have any influence on the FTC’s decision?
For clarification, UA-Football turned to the CDC. Without the same explanations, there is nothing left but to affirm the existence of double standards in the work of the highest body of justice of the UAF.
