– Advertisement –

The Ghana Football Association’s Match Review Panel decided that referee Joseph Kenny Padi erred in giving Asante Kotoko a penalty in their Ghana Premier League match in week 24 versus Hearts of Oak.

Below are decisions announced by the Match review panel:

ASANTE KOTOKO VS. HEARTS OF OAK (MATCH DAY 24)

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

– Advertisement –

In the 14 minute of play, Referee Kenny Padi awarded a dubious penalty to Asante Kotoko when Hearts of Oak player, Nurudeen Abdul-Aziz won a 50 ball in their 18-yard box from Fabio Gama (No. 10) of Asante Kotoko.

Referees Response

The referee insisted that the Hearts player stepped on the foot of the Kotoko player which he later agreed that there was no stepping of foot after watching the video. He then defended that there was a push and pull at a point, which the video clearly showed that it was not the case.

OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION

– Advertisement –

Per the video watched in relation to the 14 minutes incident, player number 24 of Hearts of Oak challenged player number 10 of Asante Kotoko fairly.

There was no foul committed which warranted any penalty. The hand on the back of the attacker had no impact on the attacker.

More so the attacker should not have to fail backwards if the fall was because of the hand of the defender, obviously, it was not a push so falling backwards suggests a premeditated attempt to fake a foul.

We also considered some factors:

If there was pushing as claimed by the referee, we did not see any movement of the arm from the back to forward. Means no HAND MOVEMENT Neither pulling movement from front to back.

The attacker was already throwing himself down in a completely strange way.

If there was pulling or pushing as claimed by the referee, the attacker should have fallen on his face and not with his back as seen in the video. (FOOTBALL UNDERSTANDING)

The video also showed quite a number of inconsistencies in his decisions during his officiating of the match, especially after the penalty incident. The referee lost concentration.

DECISION(S)

The Panel concluded that per the video watched, the referee’s defence is in contrast.

Per the video watched the Panel holds the view that the referee erred in awarding the penalty. This error changed the outcome of the match.

– Advertisement –

Source link

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.