Revealed! What happened in the Jamshedpur FC - FC Goa tunnel fight!
Six players were sent off amid ugly scenes in the Super Cup quarterfinal between the two sides. What really happened there?
One of the most talked about matches in the recently concluded Super Cup was the quarter-final fixture between FC Goa and Jamshedpur FC which finished 5-1 in favour of the Gaurs.
However, the match attracted a lot of attention. Not for the number of goals scored but for the ugly incident during half-time which saw six players sent off, three from each team.
The incident occurred after the referee wrongly used TV replays to rule out Brandon Fernandes' goal at the stroke of half-time. The ball had already crossed the line and went out of play before the Indian winger blasted it into the roof of the net and wheeled away in celebration. After initially giving the goal, the referee reversed his decision after getting input from somebody who had access to the TV replays and even indicated so with a hand gesture.
Subsequently, players from both teams got into a scuffle during the break and the referee sent off six players.
From Jamshedpur’s side, goalkeeper Subrata Paul, defender Anas Edathodika and attacker Kervens Belfort along with goalkeeping coach Robert Andrew, were suspended for two consecutive matches.
FC Goa’s Bruno Pinheiro, Sergio Juste and Brandon Fernandes were also suspended. Officials from both teams have criticised the decision and there was a lot of hue and cry over the incident. So what really happened in the tunnel?
Indian football ails in the backdrop of absurd, grand claims, constantly shifting goalposts and shielding the uncertain present by projecting a glitzy future.
TW3 age verification: Clubs dealt difficult hand by AIFF
The AIFF's attempt to restructure the youth leagues has the clubs in a spot of bother...
In July, 2018, the All India Football Federation's (AIFF) Executive Committee met in Mumbai and one of the decisions taken at the meeting was the implementation of Tanner Whitehouse 3 (TW3) method for all age-group competitions in India.
The TW3 method uses X-Rays of the left hand and wrist to examine the skeletal maturity of a person and thereby determine their bone age. The bone age obtained from the result of this test would then be the sole criterion to determine players' eligibility in age-group tournaments, as opposed to chronological age which was the yardstick until the 2017-18 season.
From using age-proof documents to verify a player's age to using the TW3 method, the intention to make the change was to curb age fraud in Indian football. While the intent is appreciable, the method chosen and its implementation leaves a lot to be desired.
The qualification for U-13 and U-15 Youth League, which is now rechristened as Junior and Sub-Junior league, has given rise to several questions. According to the latest guidelines by the AIFF, the bone age of a player should not exceed 14 for Sub-Junior League and 16 for Junior Leagues.
One of the reasons why the AIFF rechristened the tournaments is because they wanted to save themselves from being taken to court. If someone whose birth certificate says he/she is 12 years old and the AIFF says they can't play in the U13 tournament, they are liable to be sued. Hence, they have conveniently renamed the age groups as such.
Most importantly, both FIFA and the AFC (Asian Football Confederation) do not follow the TW3 method and accepts only MRI scan results for age verification. This means that a player, who is eligible to take part in age-group tournaments for the Indian national team, may be denied participation in the Indian age-group leagues.
Several players who have played and selected for the national team have now been disqualified after going through the AIFF-nominated TW3 tests to take part in the U-15 and U-13 league at the club level. In fact, two Bengaluru FC players who had passed the TW3 test conducted by the AIFF and the Government of India to be a part of the Indian national team at the 2018 SAFF U-15 Championship, have now been ruled out of the U-15 I-League due to AIFF's insistence to conduct the TW3 tests for the youth leagues in their own way.
The football season in India begins on June 1 and ends on May 30. The implementation process started in August and the tests were completed only in November. The tests were done in centres nominated by AIFF and the cost for it was INR 1500/- per player. For a club taking part in both the Junior and Sub Junior leagues with a squad of 30 players, the total cost just for the TW3 tests amounts to INR 90,000/-.
A player who is physically gifted will register a higher bone age and will be considered ineligible for the age-group that he is recruited for. Where does that leave the club and the player, since the new guidelines were introduced months after football season had already started? It has been learnt that a large majority of the players are now ineligible to take part in the youth leagues under the current system and several clubs have already let the AIFF know of their concerns.
Several clubs in Mumbai have already come together to deliberate on the issue and are set to meet with the state association and appeal to the apex body.
Taking bone age as the sole criteria also brings us to question the psychological impact it can have on the young player. Skeletal maturity is not the same as mental maturity and a 13-year-old kid with a bone age higher than 14 will have to consider playing in what will be essentially an U-15 League.
Another issue is the 'Date of Birth' cut-off set for these two leagues. The players for Junior League must be born on or after January 1, 2003 and for Sub-Junior League, the cut-off date is January 1, 2005. The AIFF has accepted that the TW3 test has a standard deviation of +/- 6 months. A player born in January, 2003 who undergoes the test in November 2018 is likely to get a bone age of 15.9. With a deviation of six months, the player would be deemed over-age.
Such a nation-wide restructuring requires deliberation and if TW3 is the way to go, it would have been better to integrate it into the system steadily instead of implementing in a hurry.
One thing that makes football a global sport is that the rules are uniform throughout the world. If the AFC and FIFA do not use TW3 for age verification, why would the AIFF be in a hurry to use TW3 for the same? It makes absolutely no sense to implement a whole new process which is not foolproof at all.
Now, what happens in school-level tournaments where insisting on TW3 verification for young kids is not viable. Even if so, would you make a kid in seventh grade play with somebody in ninth grade?
A 13-year-old kid was recently adjudged to be 8 years old by the TW3 method while a kid of German ethnicity was deemed Indian by the same method. It has given rise to such confusion that now you are not sure which age group of players you are playing against.
Even the AIFF's communication regarding the method seems haphazard and confusing. In their first communication, it was spelt out that the TW3 test needs to be taken every year. Then they revised it and said it needs to be taken every two years. The Indian FA themselves are not sure about how to implement this.
Just because the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is doing the same, why would AIFF feel the need to do so, especially when the AFC and FIFA (it's governing bodies) do not follow the practice?
In case the AIFF wanted to use TW3 so badly, why not use it in conjunction with the MRI system adopted by FIFA and AFC. Why stick to an entirely different method?
Maybe no new info--but it touches upon/stress certain aspects which should be taken into account while the stakeholders grapple with this fiasco
1. But what's the reason behind this sudden swing from these I-League clubs? It's not like the top division league hasn't had its fair share of dark games before. In the DD Sports era no one knew if the game would be on TV until the feed kicked in, and even when Zee Sports / Ten Action were in charge of the broadcast, only about 75 matches per season were telecast. Last season with 88 matches televised the league had its highest number of matches live on TV ever. And this season, with 80 games, it would have the second highest number of games on TV.
The answer is - lack of transparency. A senior official in one of the I-League clubs who have been vocal on social media about this issue told TFG on the condition of anonymity,
"We were never told that so many of the matches will not be telecast. Not having matches on TV means our sponsors don't get any value out of it and our players are also devalued. If one of our players scores a brilliant goal and no one sees it, he will be robbed of the extra value in the market that he would otherwise get."
So here is the bottom line of the issue - clubs were under the impression that all their games would be televised and now that ladder has been pulled out from under them.
2. But the something that makes the situation worse: multiple high ranking officials from I-League clubs confirmed to TFG that they had, indeed, been told all matches would be televised. One official said,
"We were categorically told all matches will be telecast. It was not in writing but verbally like the last season."
But while this alleged promise was true for last season, it's definitely not so this time.
The fallout from this development has seen an already tense relationship between the independent clubs of I-League and AIFF get much worse, with lack of trust becoming even more apparent. The rhetoric has taken a turn for the worse, with Minerva Punjab owner Ranjit Bajaj even accusing FSDL people of "threatening" I-League clubs.
None of the representatives of other clubs that TFG contacted corroborated that claim.
3. It probably also doesn't help that Chennai City FC, Minerva Punjab FC and Gokulam Kerala FC - the only three clubs whose representatives spoke at the inaugural press conference of the clubs' alliance IPCA - are all clubs who entered the I-League through direct corporate entry, not through promotion by winning the 2nd Division League, and have signed contracts which specifically says that in the event of a restructuring of leagues they will have no claim for a place in the new top flight league (ISL). So AIFF have a legal basis to brush these clubs' demands off, saying they themselves agreed to get relegated in the first place.
4. So, can this turn out less bad than it seems? Maybe. Back in 2016, when I-League matches were still on Ten Action, a similar list of upcoming televised matches came out. That list, too, gave priority to big clubs like East Bengal, Mohun Bagan and Bengaluru FC while others got less matches. One club in particular, namely Mumbai FC, did not have even a single game featured on TV.
What followed was a late night flurry of phone calls, heated conversations, a prompt outcry from fans as well as a number of media articles highlighting this uneven treatment of clubs. And FSDL stepped in to rectify the situation; a good few matches of Mumbai FC were added to the list of televised matches.
Maybe something like this will happen this season as well. Or maybe it won't. But even if it does, will the mutual trust between the Federation, the clubs and the commercial partners ever recover? And what message does this send to potential investors who are considering starting new independent clubs? How will the new league structure sustain if most of its stakeholders who make up the base of the pyramid think that the Federation can go back on their word in the middle of the season in a way that will turn their revenue structure for that year upside down?
If AIFF and FSDL don't act to control the damage now, the long term fallout may be worse than they have bargained for.
"It probably also doesn't help that Chennai City FC, Minerva Punjab FC and Gokulam Kerala FC - the only three clubs whose representatives spoke at the inaugural press conference of the clubs' alliance IPCA - are all clubs who entered the I-League through direct corporate entry, not through promotion by winning the 2nd Division League,"
Haven't Minerva Punjab came through second division, correct me if I wrong.
@deepak dedha: You are partially correct. They were runners up in the I-League second division in the 2015-16 season, finishing behind Dempo who later withdrew from the I-League. In such a scenario, Minerva Punjab were to have automatically qualified for the I-league first division but their claim was denied by the AIFF after which they took the corporate entry route to qualify for I-league first division
Comments
Revealed! What happened in the Jamshedpur FC - FC Goa tunnel fight!
One of the most talked about matches in the recently concluded Super Cup was the quarter-final fixture between FC Goa and Jamshedpur FC which finished 5-1 in favour of the Gaurs.
However, the match attracted a lot of attention. Not for the number of goals scored but for the ugly incident during half-time which saw six players sent off, three from each team.
The incident occurred after the referee wrongly used TV replays to rule out Brandon Fernandes' goal at the stroke of half-time. The ball had already crossed the line and went out of play before the Indian winger blasted it into the roof of the net and wheeled away in celebration. After initially giving the goal, the referee reversed his decision after getting input from somebody who had access to the TV replays and even indicated so with a hand gesture.
Subsequently, players from both teams got into a scuffle during the break and the referee sent off six players.
From Jamshedpur’s side, goalkeeper Subrata Paul, defender Anas Edathodika and attacker Kervens Belfort along with goalkeeping coach Robert Andrew, were suspended for two consecutive matches.
FC Goa’s Bruno Pinheiro, Sergio Juste and Brandon Fernandes were also suspended. Officials from both teams have criticised the decision and there was a lot of hue and cry over the incident. So what really happened in the tunnel?
https://www.goal.com/en-in/news/super-cup-2018-jamshedpur-fc-goa-tunnel-fight/knhd5sh4w3qf102nyq906jao3
India football’s freefall
Indian football ails in the backdrop of absurd, grand claims, constantly shifting goalposts and shielding the uncertain present by projecting a glitzy future.
TW3 age verification: Clubs dealt difficult hand by AIFF
In July, 2018, the All India Football Federation's (AIFF) Executive Committee met in Mumbai and one of the decisions taken at the meeting was the implementation of Tanner Whitehouse 3 (TW3) method for all age-group competitions in India.
The TW3 method uses X-Rays of the left hand and wrist to examine the skeletal maturity of a person and thereby determine their bone age. The bone age obtained from the result of this test would then be the sole criterion to determine players' eligibility in age-group tournaments, as opposed to chronological age which was the yardstick until the 2017-18 season.
From using age-proof documents to verify a player's age to using the TW3 method, the intention to make the change was to curb age fraud in Indian football. While the intent is appreciable, the method chosen and its implementation leaves a lot to be desired.
The qualification for U-13 and U-15 Youth League, which is now rechristened as Junior and Sub-Junior league, has given rise to several questions. According to the latest guidelines by the AIFF, the bone age of a player should not exceed 14 for Sub-Junior League and 16 for Junior Leagues.
One of the reasons why the AIFF rechristened the tournaments is because they wanted to save themselves from being taken to court. If someone whose birth certificate says he/she is 12 years old and the AIFF says they can't play in the U13 tournament, they are liable to be sued. Hence, they have conveniently renamed the age groups as such.
Most importantly, both FIFA and the AFC (Asian Football Confederation) do not follow the TW3 method and accepts only MRI scan results for age verification. This means that a player, who is eligible to take part in age-group tournaments for the Indian national team, may be denied participation in the Indian age-group leagues.
Several players who have played and selected for the national team have now been disqualified after going through the AIFF-nominated TW3 tests to take part in the U-15 and U-13 league at the club level. In fact, two Bengaluru FC players who had passed the TW3 test conducted by the AIFF and the Government of India to be a part of the Indian national team at the 2018 SAFF U-15 Championship, have now been ruled out of the U-15 I-League due to AIFF's insistence to conduct the TW3 tests for the youth leagues in their own way.
The football season in India begins on June 1 and ends on May 30. The implementation process started in August and the tests were completed only in November. The tests were done in centres nominated by AIFF and the cost for it was INR 1500/- per player. For a club taking part in both the Junior and Sub Junior leagues with a squad of 30 players, the total cost just for the TW3 tests amounts to INR 90,000/-.
A player who is physically gifted will register a higher bone age and will be considered ineligible for the age-group that he is recruited for. Where does that leave the club and the player, since the new guidelines were introduced months after football season had already started? It has been learnt that a large majority of the players are now ineligible to take part in the youth leagues under the current system and several clubs have already let the AIFF know of their concerns.
Several clubs in Mumbai have already come together to deliberate on the issue and are set to meet with the state association and appeal to the apex body.
Taking bone age as the sole criteria also brings us to question the psychological impact it can have on the young player. Skeletal maturity is not the same as mental maturity and a 13-year-old kid with a bone age higher than 14 will have to consider playing in what will be essentially an U-15 League.
Another issue is the 'Date of Birth' cut-off set for these two leagues. The players for Junior League must be born on or after January 1, 2003 and for Sub-Junior League, the cut-off date is January 1, 2005. The AIFF has accepted that the TW3 test has a standard deviation of +/- 6 months. A player born in January, 2003 who undergoes the test in November 2018 is likely to get a bone age of 15.9. With a deviation of six months, the player would be deemed over-age.
Such a nation-wide restructuring requires deliberation and if TW3 is the way to go, it would have been better to integrate it into the system steadily instead of implementing in a hurry.
One thing that makes football a global sport is that the rules are uniform throughout the world. If the AFC and FIFA do not use TW3 for age verification, why would the AIFF be in a hurry to use TW3 for the same? It makes absolutely no sense to implement a whole new process which is not foolproof at all.
Now, what happens in school-level tournaments where insisting on TW3 verification for young kids is not viable. Even if so, would you make a kid in seventh grade play with somebody in ninth grade?
A 13-year-old kid was recently adjudged to be 8 years old by the TW3 method while a kid of German ethnicity was deemed Indian by the same method. It has given rise to such confusion that now you are not sure which age group of players you are playing against.
Even the AIFF's communication regarding the method seems haphazard and confusing. In their first communication, it was spelt out that the TW3 test needs to be taken every year. Then they revised it and said it needs to be taken every two years. The Indian FA themselves are not sure about how to implement this.
Just because the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is doing the same, why would AIFF feel the need to do so, especially when the AFC and FIFA (it's governing bodies) do not follow the practice?
In case the AIFF wanted to use TW3 so badly, why not use it in conjunction with the MRI system adopted by FIFA and AFC. Why stick to an entirely different method?
A lot of questions for the Indian FA to ponder.
SUNBURNT TERRACE -- Connecting the dots: I-League telecast controversy and Indian football's distrust issue
1. But what's the reason behind this sudden swing from these I-League clubs? It's not like the top division league hasn't had its fair share of dark games before. In the DD Sports era no one knew if the game would be on TV until the feed kicked in, and even when Zee Sports / Ten Action were in charge of the broadcast, only about 75 matches per season were telecast. Last season with 88 matches televised the league had its highest number of matches live on TV ever. And this season, with 80 games, it would have the second highest number of games on TV.
The answer is - lack of transparency. A senior official in one of the I-League clubs who have been vocal on social media about this issue told TFG on the condition of anonymity,
So here is the bottom line of the issue - clubs were under the impression that all their games would be televised and now that ladder has been pulled out from under them.
2. But the something that makes the situation worse: multiple high ranking officials from I-League clubs confirmed to TFG that they had, indeed, been told all matches would be televised. One official said,
But while this alleged promise was true for last season, it's definitely not so this time.
The fallout from this development has seen an already tense relationship between the independent clubs of I-League and AIFF get much worse, with lack of trust becoming even more apparent. The rhetoric has taken a turn for the worse, with Minerva Punjab owner Ranjit Bajaj even accusing FSDL people of "threatening" I-League clubs.
None of the representatives of other clubs that TFG contacted corroborated that claim.
3. It probably also doesn't help that Chennai City FC, Minerva Punjab FC and Gokulam Kerala FC - the only three clubs whose representatives spoke at the inaugural press conference of the clubs' alliance IPCA - are all clubs who entered the I-League through direct corporate entry, not through promotion by winning the 2nd Division League, and have signed contracts which specifically says that in the event of a restructuring of leagues they will have no claim for a place in the new top flight league (ISL). So AIFF have a legal basis to brush these clubs' demands off, saying they themselves agreed to get relegated in the first place.
4. So, can this turn out less bad than it seems? Maybe. Back in 2016, when I-League matches were still on Ten Action, a similar list of upcoming televised matches came out. That list, too, gave priority to big clubs like East Bengal, Mohun Bagan and Bengaluru FC while others got less matches. One club in particular, namely Mumbai FC, did not have even a single game featured on TV.
What followed was a late night flurry of phone calls, heated conversations, a prompt outcry from fans as well as a number of media articles highlighting this uneven treatment of clubs. And FSDL stepped in to rectify the situation; a good few matches of Mumbai FC were added to the list of televised matches.
Maybe something like this will happen this season as well. Or maybe it won't. But even if it does, will the mutual trust between the Federation, the clubs and the commercial partners ever recover? And what message does this send to potential investors who are considering starting new independent clubs? How will the new league structure sustain if most of its stakeholders who make up the base of the pyramid think that the Federation can go back on their word in the middle of the season in a way that will turn their revenue structure for that year upside down?
If AIFF and FSDL don't act to control the damage now, the long term fallout may be worse than they have bargained for.
Haven't Minerva Punjab came through second division, correct me if I wrong.