Referee banned for misconduct in Thai League game between Ratchaburi and Port Authority
On September 10, the Disciplinary and Etiquette Committee held its 5th meeting for the 2024/25 season chaired by Mr. Watcharin Phanurat. The meeting considered complaints about the incident. Considered complaints about the performance of the match officials, and unusual incidents in the football match, as follows:
The Thai League 1 professional football match between Ratchaburi FC and Port FC on September 1, 2024.
In the 90+2 minute, the referee decided to give a penalty (yellow card) to goalkeeper number 99, Mr. Kampol Pathom-arkhakul, Ratchaburi FC, for the incident. Where he clashed with player number 14, Mr. Theerasak Poeiphimai, Port FC kicked the ball out of the penalty area of Ratchaburi FC. Later, VAR checked and called the referee (On-field review) because it was seen that it might be a DOGSO case. After the referee checked. The referee decided to cancel the penalty (yellow card) and changed to sending off (red card) goalkeeper number 99 Mr. Kampol Pathom-arkhakul Ratchaburi FC instead.
Because during the time of the scramble for the โปรโมชั่น ufabet ball. The offending player was player number 15, Mr. Adisorn Promrak, Ratchaburi FC used both hands to push player number 14, Mr. Thirasak Phoeiphimai, Port FC. Until he fell down. It was not the offense of goalkeeper number 99, Mr. Kampol Pathom-arkhakul, Ratchaburi FC, in any way.
The offense committed was only to stop. The opposing team’s attacking opportunity (yellow card) not to clearly prevent the opposing team’s goal-scoring opportunity (red card). Because after player number 14, Mr. Thirasak Phoeiphimai, Port FC kicked the ball out. There was still player number 4, Mr. Jonathan Khemdee, Ratchaburi FC was nearby was able to snatch the ball. Therefore, it did not fall under the DOGSO elements.
Punish Mr. Anusorn Nukaew, the referee, for negligence in his duties according to the regulations regarding the performance of duties of competition officials. According to penalty section 9, penalty type 57 (2), reprimand for not giving a warning (yellow card) to player number 15, Mr. Adisorn Promrak, Ratchaburi FC was the player who committed the offense in the aforementioned incident. And punish Mr. Anusorn Nukaew. The referee, for negligence in his duties according to the regulations regarding the performance of duties of competition officials.
Punish Mr. Winat Phothiphat, the video referee (VAR). For performing his duties incorrectly according to the regulations regarding the performance of duties of match officials. According to penalty section 9, penalty description, item 57 (8). Suspending him from duty for 2 weeks due to providing incorrect information about the DOGSO case. Causing the intervention of VAR not to comply with the VAR Protocol. Which may affect the competition in the event of an unusual event in a football match.
The football match of the League Cup between Pattani FC and Nara United on 8 September 2024.
1) At minute 87, Pattani FC fans sitting in the stands on the torch side. Which is the seating provided for Pattani FC fans according to the stadium plan. Were dissatisfied with the opposing players and threw a water bottle onto the ground near the running track, 1 bottle. Later, at minute 88, Pattani FC fans were dissatisfied with the opposing players and threw a water bottle onto the competition field. Both incidents were continuous. Throwing any material onto the competition field. The clip clearly shows the incident.
2) In this match, there were 7,500 spectators, 10 police officers and 40 security officers. Which did not comply with the regulations on competition management, Appendix 4, Section 2.1.2. Which states: “For the security of the competition. If the number of spectators does not exceed 500, at least 2 police officers and at least 5 security officers must be provided. If the number exceeds this number. The number must be increased in proportion to the increase of 100 spectators to 1 security officer…”
In such case, the member organization that is the home team did not provide security officers. As specified in the regulations on competition management, Appendix 4, Section 2.1.2. Which has a deficiency in the security system.
1) Punish the Pattani FC fans for throwing any materials onto the competition field. It is an offense according to the regulations on punishment, Chapter 3, Category 2, Section 4.4, with a fine of 10,000 baht.
2) Punish Pattani FC for failing to maintain security in measures to prohibit and check the carrying or bringing of materials. That may be transformed into objects that can cause harm or cause danger. Such as water bottles, into the competition venue or the stands.
3) Punish Pattani FC for not providing security guards. As specified in the competition management regulations, violating the regulations on punishment, Chapter 3, Category 2, Section 5.3.18 (3), fine of 10,000 baht.
The football match of the League Cup between Ubon Kruanaphas FC and Udon United FC on 8 September 2024.
In the 46th minute, Ubon Kruanapat FC substituted player number 15, Mr. Phiraphol Thongluen, to replace player number 9, Mr. Jibril Antala Abubker. Until the 48th minute. The referee and the competition controller objected that player number 15, Mr. Phiraphol Thongluen, was not on the list of reserve football players. Therefore, the correction was made in the 49th minute by substituting player number 19, Mr. Wisanu Chetchu, to replace him. Player number 15, Mr. Phiraphol Thongluen, was not on the list of reserve football players or the main players according to the list submitted before the competition. Therefore, Ubon Kruanapat FC was considered to have brought in a football player who was not eligible to compete in that match to the field.
The football match of the League Cup between the Royal Navy Football Club and Chachoengsao Hi-Tech FC on 8 September 2024.
In the 83rd minute (19:40) of the second half, there was a power outage in the stadium. The match controller informed both teams according to the competition regulations that the lighting for lighting the stadium was out of order and could not continue the match. According to the competition regulations, the electricity had been out of order for a total of more than 60 minutes. So the timing was performed. The home team, the Royal Thai Navy Football Club. Immediately fixed the problem and the match controller coordinated with the Match Center to inform them.
In the 27th minute of the timing (20:07), the lighting came back on but the match could not be played because it was not bright enough. The referee could not make a decision. After that, all the lights went out for the second time. The match controller continued timing until the timing exceeded 60 minutes (67 minutes). They still could not fix the problem and play the match. Therefore, it was necessary to stop the match. The referee informed the captains of both teams and the managers of both teams.
The referee then stopped the match. He asked the stadium staff about the reason for the power outage. They said that it was due to a power surge. Which caused the power supply system to be incomplete in all three phases due to a power outage. In order to fix it by switching to power supply from the standby generator. It was found that the generator’s power cable was cut. So it could not supply power instead of normal power. Therefore, it could not be fixed until more than 60 minutes had passed.
The Disciplinary and Etiquette Committee considered the report of the competition controller and found. That in the case of the stadium’s lighting failure that could not be fixed in time for a total period of more than 60 minutes. The case of the backup generator’s power cord being cut. The interpretation of the reason being force majeure must be any event that occurred or resulted in disaster. Which could not be prevented.
However, in both cases, it is the responsibility of the home team to inspect and be careful to prevent incidents that may occur. Before the competition and must prepare to have skilled technical personnel to supervise. Both cases are therefore not considered force majeure.
1) Punish the Royal Navy Football Club for violating the regulations on punishment, Chapter 3, Category 2, Section 5.1.10 (2), by ordering the Royal Navy Football Club to lose to Chachoengsao Hi-Tech FC. In conjunction with Chapter 3 of the regulations. Which states “The penalty for losing is to punish that team for losing, with goals actually lost counted. If less than 3 goals are lost, the goals lost will be counted. As 3 goals, and the goals scored will be counted as 0 goals.”
2) Punish the Royal Navy Football Club for the failure of the backup generator to function due to no force majeure. Which is an offense under the regulations on punishment Chapter 3, Category 2, Section 5.1.9, with a fine of 16,666 baht.