Papers reveal City legal battle with FA over McLean ban

Norwich City took the FA to arbitration over their reasoning for handing Kenny McLean a retrospective four-match ban for violent conduct after their 3-0 defeat to QPR in December.

Documents published by the FA on Wednesday morning reveal City were left unsatisfied by the written reasons given for McLean’s ban, and disputed the governing body acting retrospectively after communications given by referee Anthony Backhouse in the moments after the incident.

In order for a retrospective ban to be brought by the FA, they must first establish from the match officials whether the incident was ‘not seen’ and ‘not dealt with’.

City argued that Mr Backhouse communicated to the players on the pitch moments after the contact between McLean and QPR midfielder Kieran Morgan that the incident was of minimal contact.

In an official communication after the event included in the documents, Mr Backhouse wrote an email that said: “I can confirm that this incident was not witnessed by myself or any of my colleagues on the day.

“The communication from myself to the players following the incident was my assumption after reading the reaction of both players and looking to calm the situation.

“Although I state I believe there was minimal contact over the comms, I can confirm that I did not witness the incident.

Therefore, City believe this negated the possibility of retrospective punishment under the FA’s own definition as Mr Backhouse admitted to ‘dealing with’ it during the game. The FA argued it wasn’t suitable evidence to prevent the charge from being brought against McLean.

This was raised as evidence for the Independent Commission, made up of Gareth Farrelly, Faye White and ex-Fulham boss Lawrie Sanchez – but the club felt it wasn’t properly considered in their final decision to hand McLean a four-game ban.

With no right to appeal, City decided to take the FA to arbitration over the matter – which Phillip Sycamore CBE headed up on the morning of their clash with Burnley on December 15.

The first issue that was dealt with was whether, as the hearing continued, the punishment could be paused via an ‘interim relief’ to enable the Scot to play for City in that 2-1 defeat to Burnley.

That was waved away by the arbitrator, who felt it would be unfair to Burnley – despite City being made to wait three games for a charge to be brought against Borja Sainz in a separate case.

After considering the evidence from both parties, City were unsuccessful with their claim as the arbitrator felt that point nine of the FA’s written reasons were enough to show it had been a consideration in the case to hand McLean a suspension despite Mr Backhouse admitting he had communicated to players that there was minimal contact on the day.

Therefore, McLean’s ban was upheld, and he went on to serve the full four matches – determining that Mr Backhouse’s confirmation of not seeing the issue was enough to bring retrospective punishment.

It is argued by the FA, which the arbitration upheld, that if the incident was ‘dealt with’ in the way City argued, McLean would have been dismissed in real-time.

It is believed this arbitration case is the first of its kind, with City arguing against the process that led to McLean’s charge being brought retrospectively rather than the eventual judgement of violent conduct.

In terms of the written reasons, City submitted a lengthy document that argued that McLean had ‘put his arm out in the normal manner that you would expect from a defender when attempting to block a player’. Their defence added that ‘his arm was straight rather than bent, it was not clenched or taut with a view to making contact with the QPR player or hitting him in any way’, therefore making it an accidental collision.

Get more related news on https://sportviewers.com

Papers reveal City legal battle with FA over McLean ban

Papers reveal City legal battle with FA over McLean ban

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply