Unprecedented!. . .Zifa come down heavy on Tongogara FC

By Sikhumbuzo Moyo

The Zifa Central Region disciplinary committee last week handed Tongogara one of the most unprecedented punishments in the history of Zimbabwean football when they fined the army outfit $10 000 and banned them for two seasons.

Tongogara, coached by Calvin Maphosa, were slapped with the sanctions following violent skirmishes after their championship decider match against TelOne under Joel Luphahla, which they lost 0-1 at Ascot Stadium in October.

The three men disciplinary committee of chairman Jethro Nyarota, Joseph Mususa and Passmore Mabukwa found the army side guilty of the post match violence which resulted in damages to property and serious injuries to some spectators including an on duty member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police.

According to the judgement, Tongogara must pay the $10 000 within 30 days but $2 500 was suspended for a season of which failure to pay the difference will see them being banned for another season.

“Additionally, the team is banned for two seasons of which one is suspended for three seasons on condition that during that time the defendant is not found guilty of an offence of which violence is an element.

“The remaining one season is suspended on condition that the defendant replaces the sponsor’s property or pays compensation of $3 350 through the association (Zifa’s) offices within 14 days,” reads the verdict.

In arriving at the appropriate penalty, the committee took into account what was said by the defendant’s counsel in mitigation and by the complainant (Zifa Central Region) in aggravation, reads the committee’s papers.

“The defendant is a first offender and has not had any brushes with the rules and regulations of the association for the several years it has been in the league. It cannot be overlooked that at such a match where both teams had a chance to be promoted, emotions were naturally high such that decisions by match officials were subjected to criticism by those who perceived them to be unfavourable to their teams.

“From the record, defendant was obviously upset by the goal scored by Telone FC and the denial of two alleged penalties naturally exacerbated the already volatile situation. While we are not in a position to adjudge whether the referee’s decision was justified or not, we shall not lose sight of the fact that the defendant’s supporters genuinely (but maybe mistakenly) believed that the match officials were biased in their officiating,” notes the disciplinary committee.

It however said with the assistance of the military police who were present, the situation could have easily been brought under control had the defendant taken steps to control the fans.

“We have difficulties in accepting that the defendant was not solely to blame for the violence and disturbances. If defendant was not solely responsible then at least the club would have mitigated the disturbances by controlling those supporters who were fighting its cause.

“While the match official’s conduct angered the defendant’s supporters, we are not convinced that Telone Football Club’s supporters behaved in a manner that was intended to provoke defendant’s supporters, though they invaded the pitch in celebration, unless of course if defendant is saying they were not supposed to celebrate their team’s victory,” said the committee.

It said the committee asked the defendant’s counsel on what he perceived to be an appropriate penalty and he suggested that a replay be ordered and both teams be fined.

“The committee has difficulties with that proposition essentially because the match in question was not abandoned and the skirmishes only occurred after the final whistle. Secondly as we pointed out in our judgement, the issues of whether the goal scored by TelOne FC or the manner the match officials handled the match were not before us. At any rate, we are not qualified to preside over such issues,” noted the disciplinary committee. The Chronicle