Different cases, different merits…
When the Siya crew broke the news last week that Thidiela was facing a one-year ban and a R1 million fine to be paid by the club, football fans and several club officials were divided in their reaction to the punishment.
Was it fair?
Did the panel issue this heavy sanction to make an example out of one of the league’s senior member clubs?
Have other clubs suffered the same fate?
The answer, according to an insider, is not that simple. Being a repeat offender and not pleading guilty is always going to work against you, while the intent needs to be identified - the Siya crew was told.
When clubs are sanctioned for their fans’ behaviour, they are responsible for the fans’ actions, however the clubs would not have provoked the fans.
In the case with Thidiela, as a PSL club chairman, he acted out of his own will and his intent needs to be ascertained.
Taking two recent cases into consideration, in February of 2017 with Orlando Pirates and April 2018, with Kaizer Chiefs.
The sanctions deliberated seem minuscule - by some individuals - compared to the sanctions handed down to Black Leopards and Thidiela.
Mamelodi Sundowns v Orlando Pirates - February 2017
Nearly 14 months after the spectator misbehaviour incident at Loftus, where Orlando Pirates fans stormed the pitch with Mamelodi Sundowns leading 6-0 and ripped apart TV cables and assaulted opposition supporters, the Buccaneers were ordered to play one game behind closed doors, with the second one suspended for 24 months.
There was a much- publicised outcry regarding the time it took for the prosecutor to charge the Buccaneers.
However, the Siya crew has been informed that the Buccaneers did plead guilty and were prepared to accept the disciplinary committee’s final ruling.
It was a not a club official that was being brought in front of the DC, but rather the club responsible for the fans’ behaviour.
Kaizer Chiefs v Free State Stars - April 2018
Following mayhem at the Moses Mabhida Stadium in a Nedbank Cup semi-final fixture between Kaizer Chiefs and Free State Stars, where fans invaded the pitch, vandalised property and destroyed millions worth of TV equipment, the sanctions – two games behind closed doors – appeared to have been a slap on the wrist.
The Siya crew understands that there were deliberations between the disciplinary com- mittee to ask for a complete blackout – no crowds, no media and no live TV coverage of the games. But the broadcaster is said to have flexed their muscle and stopped any such discussion dead on its tracks.
The fact that Amakhosi also pleaded guilty opened the door to a far less harsh sentence. The Siya crew was told that Chiefs were prepared to play by the book when, in their submissions, the club accepted responsibility for the unruly behaviour of their supporters in a cup tie which led to the immediate resignation of then coach Steve Komphela.
Again, it was not a club official that faced the DC.
PSL on bias claims…
There have been insinuations that the disciplinary committee has shown prejudice towards Chiefs, Pirates and maybe even Sundowns when it comes to its rulings.
This is likely to be the case again given the sanctions that have been handed to Thidiela but have yet to be officially confirmed by the PSL.
Insiders who spoke to the Siya crew explained why it may seem as if the panel is unbiased, but the aggrieved parties hardly ever see it that way.
The examples above of previ- ous punishments by the committee have been explained – whether that is satisfactory to those who have accused the panel of lacking integrity – like Thidiela – is another story.
However, the League’s viewpoint is that the disciplinary panel, or any committee for that matter, remains independent and not swayed by which names are on the charge sheet.
In its response to Siya crew regarding insinuations that Chiefs, Pirates and Sundowns are treated with kid gloves, PSL spokesperson Luxolo September said the following, “By now I would have hoped there might be an assessment of what each tribunal does, how each is constituted, who the panellist are and how independent they are.
“The DC is an independent tribunal of the league – and we have never seen or heard anyone challenging this assertion. There is no basis to say or “suggest” that the panel is biased and the decisions they have handed down are ample proof of this.”
September told the crew that the league cannot decide or pick when matters are prosecuted or dealt with. “Being independent means the league cannot get involved,” he clarified.