进行注册
登入Alam Shah - Latest News update...
22 post(s)
-
-
Appeals Committee reduces Alam Shah suspension to 7 months
Singapore and Tampines Rovers forward Noh Alam Shah has had his 12-month suspension reduced to 7 months by the FAS Appeals Committee (AC) chaired by lawyer Mr Michael Kuah.
FAS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE HEARING
Alam Shah had earlier pleaded guilty before the FAS Disciplinary Committee (DC) on 10 December 2007 to two disciplinary charges of violent conduct and aggressive behaviour and was suspended from playing in “all FAS-sanctioned tournaments and matches for a period of one (1) year and fined $2,000”. He did not appeal the decision then within the prescribed period of seven days as he was of the understanding that the suspension was a local one.
REJECTION OF REGISTRATION TO PLAY IN MALAYSIAN LEAGUE
Alam Shah then secured a contract to play in Malaysia for Polis Di-Raja Malaysia (PDRM). However, the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) subsequently refused his registration to play for PDRM once they became aware of the disciplinary sanction imposed on Alam Shah and after clarifying with FIFA.
FIFA’s clarification to FAM was on the basis that Article 12 of the Status & Transfer of Players Regulations (Transfer Regulations) where “any disciplinary suspension imposed on a player prior to transfer must be enforced by the new association at which the player is registered…”
BASIS OF FILING APPEAL OUT OF TIME
A global sanction on Alam Shah was not intended by the DC. As FIFA’s clarification came only after Alam Shah had secured a contract to play for PDRM, he was therefore not informed that if found guilty (at the DC hearing), there may be a global ban on him for the duration of the suspension because of Article 12 of the Transfer Regulations.
Alam Shah then filed for permission to appeal out of time against the 1 year suspension imposed on him but did not appeal against the fine of $2,000 imposed by the DC.
APPEALS COMMITTEE’S DECISION
AC noted that a global sanction on Alam Shah was not intended by the DC. AC also noted that FIFA’s clarification on Article 12 of the Transfer Regulations came only after Alam Shah had secured a contract to play for PDRM. He was therefore not informed that if found guilty, there may be a global ban on him for the duration of the suspension.
It is only fair that the concerned party should be aware of the extent of punishment that he faces upon being found guilty to guide him in deciding whether or not to appeal. The AC therefore allowed Alam Shah to appeal out of time.
In considering the appeal against sentence, the AC was mindful that they were an appellate tribunal deciding on the disciplinary punishment to be given for misconduct committed on the field of play.
In determining the disciplinary punishment, Rule 9.2 of the S.League rules states that the DC may be “guided by the list of disciplinary measures as specified in the FIFA Disciplinary Code”.
Article 48 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code deals with punishment for misconduct against players. The overall suspension imposed on any player receiving a direct red card in addition to the automatic suspension shall be for at least 2 matches for serious foul play (particularly in the case of excessive or brute force); at least 2 matches for unsporting conduct towards an opponent or a person other than a match official; at least 2 matches for assaulting (elbowing, punching, kicking, etc) an opponent other than a match official with the possibility of a fine being imposed in all cases. The punishment would still have to depend on the facts of each case.
There is no dispute in this case that Alam Shah was guilty of violent conduct and aggressive behaviour which are serious breaches. The issue that the AC had to address was the duration of the suspension to be imposed that is proportionate to the disciplinary guilt of Alam Shah.
The ground that the AC agreed merit consideration was Alam Shah’s plea that he had serious unresolved personal and family problems during the period leading up to and during the RHB Singapore Cup Final. The AC was satisfied that these problems weighed heavily on Alam Shah’s mind and impaired his judgement and frame of mind. The DC had not considered this factor. Alam Shah had not brought it to the DC’s attention as he had felt then that it was a private family matter and did not wish it to be made public.
The suspension of 1 year, which is now global – which was not the intention of the DC - will effectively debar him from earning his livelihood as a professional football player for the period in question. As a result, there is a difficulty in him meeting financial commitments and providing for his 5 children aged between 1 and 8 years of age.
He has also expressed remorse and apologised for his unwarranted violent conduct and aggressive behaviour. Having considered the above factors, the AC came to the decision to reduce the 1 year suspension to a suspension for a period of 7 months with effect from the date of the DC hearing on 10 December 2007. Alam Shah will now serve his suspension up to 9 July 2008.
He will effectively miss at least 16 S.League matches and 3 Singapore Cup matches for his club as well as the entire third round (6 matches) of our Lions’ FIFA World Cup Qualifying campaign during the period of his suspension.
Says Mr Kuah, “We are satisfied from the evidence given and tendered by Noh Alam Shah that those personal problems weighed heavily on his mind and impaired his judgement and frame of mind. It was also not the intention of the DC to impose a global sanction on Alam Shah and we have taken that into consideration.”
<!-- WYSIWYG MODE -->
-
-
-
freaking noobs.
imposed the ban but lack of knowledge on the rules and regulations from fifa. fas should wake up their idea.
this alam shah, father of 5, should also set a good example, having unresolved personal and family problems doesn't warrant the right to take it out on someone else, esp at national level and towards own teammates. absolute disgrace.
no income for the suspension period? can't work elsewhere? excuses may arises from reasons such as the necessity to maintain fitness and skill levels during suspension period, so can't work. all i can say it fck it. you blew, you own problem.
i feel they should have upheld the 1 year ban.
-
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1_zZ2ErAVE
This was why he got the ban in the first place... Saw how he elbow Bennett in the air then kneed him when he was getting up while Bennett was still on the ground... In between that he also took a swing at one of the opponent players... Even the referee seems scare of him man... It needed 4 to 5 men to restrain him... He even went for a photographer at the end...
-
-
-
Why Alam Shah's sentence was reducedI REFER to the article, 'FAS' about-turn in Alam Shah's case a let-down' last Thursday, and letter, 'FAS should not have gone soft on Alam Shah' last Friday, regarding Noh Alam Shah. The reduction of Alam Shah's period of suspension is not tantamount to FAS doing an 'about-turn' or going soft on Alam Shah.
FAS has established disciplinary procedures in place, involving a separate and independent disciplinary committee (DC) and appeals committee (AC). These are manned by committed volunteers, most legally trained. Under this process, a separate tribunal heard Alam Shah's appeal and assessed the case in light of points and fresh evidence he raised to decide whether the original punishment should stand and if not, appropriate punishment.
No two cases are exactly alike. While the AC took into account precedent cases, it also carefully considered the circumstances of the case before it. Alam Shah's sentence was not reduced because he is a talented player. Nor was he given preferential treatment.
In particular, the AC took into account the unintended effect of a global ban on the player as this was not the intention of the DC when it meted out punishment on Dec 10. In this regard, Alam Shah submitted fresh evidence to show the global ban caused him and his family considerable financial hardship, especially as he has five young children, aged between eight and one, to feed. This was particularly so as the costs of living has gone up.
Alam Shah also submitted fresh evidence to show he had serious unresolved personal and family problems that impaired his judgment and affected his frame of mind that night. The DC did not consider this factor as Alam Shah did not raise this argument then, hoping to keep it a private matter.
These factors were not before the DCs in the cases of Shariff Abdul Samat and Nicodeme Boucher, who did not appeal against their sentences. Indeed, while Boucher was suspended for one year from June 2000, he resumed his playing career after his association applied for and received the international transfer certificate a month after his suspension in Singapore.
<!-- show media links starting at 7th para -->Shariff's nine-month suspension caused him to miss the last four matches of the 2003 S-League season. He served the rest of his suspension while in full-time national service. On the other hand, Alam Shah's seven-month suspension will cause him to miss 16 S-League matches, three Singapore Cup matches and all six matches in the third round of Singapore's ongoing World Cup qualifying campaign.
The FAS Exco supports the decision of the AC to reduce Alam Shah's ban to seven months. It notes that the AC sought guidance from Article 48 of the Fifa Disciplinary Code, which came into effect on Sept 1 last year. On offences resulting from serious foul play through the use of excessive or brute force, including assaulting, elbowing, punching or kicking an opponent, Article 48's guideline is that automatic suspension as a result shall be for at least two matches, with the possibility of a fine.
There is no dispute that Alam Shah was guilty of violent conduct and aggressive behaviour. The AC took into consideration the fact that he has expressed remorse and apologised unreservedly for his actions.
Winston Lee
General Secretary, FAS
& S-League CEOStory from ST Forum May 5, 2008
Edited by zocoss 05 May `08, 6:04PM
-
-
-
clang123
At best, these so-called "fresh evidence" sounds more like mitigating circumstances or at worst, simply lame excuses. A serious offfence had been committed and the guilty party must bear the consequences. Shah should have thought of the consequences to himself and his family before he launched the vicious attack on his victim. If anybody's to blame for his family's suffering, it is Shah himself.<!-- / message -->
Edited by zocoss 05 May `08, 6:10PM
-
-
-
augustus_cesarFAS is implicitly admitting that the initial 1-year sentence was just to allow Alam to 'get away' by playing overseas, and that "personal problems" and a family to feed are acceptable reasons to get a reduced sentence, the gravity of the offence notwithstanding.
If that is not self-mockery on the part of FAS, I do not know what is.Edited by zocoss 05 May `08, 6:11PM
-
-
-
kacewangWhat a laugh. Didn't the FAS know what kind of punishment to give and what the consequences of the punishments would be when they gave it in the first place? How incompetent then to now say "oh we didn't know it would cause hardship!!!!" Can we really trust such "judges" to run the FAS? When they don't even know what the rules are? What recompense did the victim get? Does 5 kids make the offence less troublesome for ethical decisions? Who's fault was it? It was not his first time showing aggression. Did he learn? FAS, I don't see the end of the tunnel............we should put our moey in some other more refined sports...Refined from the way the association is run, and the way players are taught to be "sporting", not reward aggressive louts like kampong gangsters! Shameful.Edited by zocoss 05 May `08, 6:12PM
-
-
-
clang123FAS should learn from the singapore gaming committee where Singapore key player Wilson Chia was sacked from the team for punching his team manager, "Within an hour, the chief executive of the CGS Andy Reif had sacked Chia and banned him from the CGS for life, effectively ending the gaming career of Singapore's top pro-gamer. Chia was sent packing yesterday."
FAS has demonstrated itself to be indecisive and wishy-washy in meting out displinary action. The punishment should fit the crime and not the family or financial circumstances of the perpetrator. It is up to the would-be perpetrator to think of the consequences and not the disciplinary committee. At best, these are just mitigating factors and not the yardstick for the type of punishment.
FAS has simply copped out on this one. Is it any wonder the state of soccer is in such a pathetic state today?
-
-
-
Eagle2004
clang123 #9
{The punishment should fit the crime and not the family or financial circumstances of the perpetrator.}
Well said! Let me expound on the seriousness of trauma injuries to the skull, brain & scalp (head injuries). What Daniel Bennett received from Noh Alam Shah, was a closed head injury i.e. he got a hard blow to the head from the aggressor's knee-cap, that did not open a gaping wound.
Daniel Bennett most probably suffered a concussion, but could have easily received a contusion i.e. a bruise in the brain.
Do you know what is the problem with head injuries? It is, at times, serious enough to affect the spine as well.
A physical assault, during a soccer game, or rather, 3 separate blows, inflicted at close quarters, using the knee & foot, are enough to maime or kill the victim. Alam Shah was most definitely guilty of that!
Bleeding on the inside of the brain, or direct damage to the brain is a likely result of such an assault, that can end in non-reversible brain damage. Daniel Bennett experienced the following, after the assault: Deterioration in mental ability (disorientation), speech & vision. It was prudent of Dr Tho Kam San (the attending doctor who is also an orthopaedic surgeon at Gleneagles Hospital) to ward Bennett for observation, because the player was confused & drowsy.
Has the FAS forgotten the gravity of Alam Shah's actions?
-
-
-
kacewang
<!-- message -->
Thanks eagle2004 for drawing out the seriousness of the medical problem.
I don't buy the nonsense about Shah not being able to find another job. Does he think he will be playing footkick all the rest of his life? Go get a life and learn a proper skill...else be the road sweeper, or dustcart attendant....they earn an honest living too! If the only "skill" you have is to maim others, then like in all professional bodies......you get the kick too. Except, the FAS seems to lack any professionalism going by this case.
Anyway, having 5 kids is also not a responsible thing if you do not have an alternative plan for them should something untoward happens to you. Do such people think they are superman and will go on living and earning "big" bucks and stay healthy all the rest of their life? Has he saved up for the rainy day? Having an iffy skill like footkick, does he think he will be in it for long enough to see his kids thru school and any health or emergency issues? What was he thinking.............or not thinking at all, like the kick he gave Bennet!!!! All part of the same personality flaw?
-
-
-
Alam Shah: S'poreans, not FAS, scored own goal
I REFER to the reports, 'FAS' about-turn in Alam Shah's case a let-down' last Thursday and 'Fined $1,000 for hitting taxi driver' last Wednesday as well as the letters on Friday, 'FAS should not have gone soft on Alam Shah' and 'Question the timing'.
The first violent act, on a football pitch, was committed by a Singaporean footballer, Noh Alam Shah. The second violent act, unlike the first, is a criminal offence. It was committed by a foreigner, Briton Andrew Bevan Jones.
I am perplexed by the strong negative reaction to the reduction of Alam Shah's sentence and the lack of similar reaction in Jones' case.
We have a Singaporean footballer whose livelihood was put in jeopardy by a technicality which, I believe, had been ignored by some foreign football governing bodies in the past.
Remember Abbas Saad, Singapore's former Malaysia Cup player, and Lutz Pfannenstiel, Geylang United's former S-League player? Both were banned from playing football in Singapore for life, but still managed to resume their football careers elsewhere.
However, Alam Shah's attempt to play in Malaysia was blocked by the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM). The FAM, unlike foreign football associations in the cases of Abbas and Pfannenstiel, decided to activate a regulation which effectively turned his sentence into a worldwide ban.
So it is only right that the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) reduce Alam Shah's sentence, since its original intention was not to restrict his livelihood.
There is also no indication that Alam Shah's talent played a part in FAS' decision to reduce his sentence. He won't be eligible to play in any of Singapore's crucial remaining World Cup third- round qualifying matches.
In Jones' case, he resorted to violence during a financial dispute with a taxi driver. I believe Jones will be allowed to remain in Singapore with his rice bowl intact, even though he has committed a criminal offence in our own backyard.
Comparing these two cases, the 'disastrous own goal' Sports reporter Wang Meng Meng alluded to last Thursday ('FAS' about-turn in Alam Shah's case a let-down''), was scored not by FAS but by Singaporeans, judging by their different reactions to the two violent acts.
As for Alam Shah, I look forward to him donning the Lions jersey again and doing Singapore proud. If we can be so forgiving of Jones, surely we can do the same for Alam Shah.
Michael Ang
<!-- end of foreach --><!-- story content : end --><!-- Current Ratings : start --><!-- Current Ratings : end --><!-- vbbintegration : start -->
Edited by zocoss 07 May `08, 12:37AM
-
