In this article I intend to explain the Field of Play Doctrine, regarding its scope and exceptions. Furthermore the article includes practical cases of contemporary sports.
In this article I intend to explain the Field of Play Doctrine, regarding its scope and exceptions. Furthermore the article includes practical cases of contemporary sports.
In this article I intend to explain the Field of Play Doctrine, regarding its scope and exceptions. Furthermore the article includes practical cases of contemporary sports.
In this article I intend to explain the Field of Play Doctrine, regarding its scope and exceptions. Furthermore the article includes practical cases of contemporary sports.
“The field of play doctrine in international sports competitions –
background, legitimation, scope and consequences”
Sports law generally operates by a sequence of principles which are present
in every stage of the field: during de vivid practice and even more often a posteriori from the sport venue. One of those basic principles is The Field of Play Doctrine. In order to explain its legitimation, scope, and evaluating the consequences it might bring, it is relevant first of all to comprehend its meaning and background.
Meaning and background of the field of play doctrine?
The field of play doctrine is usually understood as the “laissez faire” from sports. This is because it is the case in which the sport law may not immerge in specific sport issues. The specific issues that I am referring to, regard mainly 2 aspects: 1. Rules from the sport per se. 2. The application of those rules by the referees or judges.
In other words, sport lawyers such as CAS arbitrators, are unable to judge the specific gaming rules from a sport, nor the decisions made by the referees in the sport venue.
Now, it is also known as the “Field of play Exception” since CAS arbitrators are competent to judge game decisions just in two scenarios according to the jurisprudence: Bad faith or corruption. Nevertheless, who is requesting the review, is demanded to present clear evidence of those two exceptions. One of the first traces of the doctrine, goes back to 1996 in the Atlanta Olympic Games. I refer as it as doctrine considering that it might have been used before, but its recognition as a solid precedent was established there. In that occasion, a boxer was disqualified due to an illegal punch below the belt; the affected athlete consistently argued that the punch was totally legal and that the decision of disqualifying him was a mistake. Regardless from his arguments, the decision remained, and he decided to take the verdict to CAS jurisdiction. The Ad Hoc refused to review the case defending his position by the doctrine in mention.
Legitimation of the Doctrine
Having already explained the origin and meaning of the doctrine, it is worthy to establish how does the CAS backs up the idea of not being competent to review sport decisions.
The first argument is that even if the arbitrators, that are well prepared sport lawyers, with deep legal knowledge, will not be as keen as a professional referee, umpire, or judge, who has trained his whole life to work in that specific discipline. In other words, the argument is based on the professionality and knowledge degree from who is taking the decision in situ.
The second argument which legitimates the doctrine is as the Premier
League would call it: “Play on, play on”. The doctrine prevents the retrospective review of the decisions, for the sake of making the normal flow of the game prevail. The word “retrospective” is crucial in this stage because it will enable us to understand the scope of the doctrine. The constant overruling of the referees’ decisions would affect the spirit and essence of the sport. That is the second reason why CAS forbids themselves of acknowledging any disputes regarding in game decisions (Besides de two exceptions already mentioned).
Both arguments could be summoned in a group called LEX LUDICA. Ken
Foster defined Lex Ludica: as the intrinsic and elemental rules from a sport. Those rules are the ones which give the essence to the game. Then, it would be appropriate to state that it is precisely the Lex Ludica which CAS is unable to rule or judge about.
Scope of the Doctrine
First of all, it is relevant to clarify that there is no such thing as mandatory
precedent in the CAS procedures. Nevertheless, the arbitrators are requested to follow a coherent line of verdicts considering previous decisions. Also, as in international law, sport law works mainly by the incorporation of Legal Principles, which Field of Play is part from. Being clear that Field of Play could be name as a doctrine/principle, the scope of its application expands to every sport that CAS is enabled to judge.
Notwithstanding, the doctrine is applied moreover in some sports than in
others. The sports which require the subjective appreciation of a referee or judge, tend to apply the doctrine more frequently.
For example, in football (soccer) the referee might make a mistaken decision by granting a penalty. The affected team naturally will argue about it, but is very unlikely for them request the overruling of the score. The influence of the referee in the sport is not as strong as it is in others. The VAR, for example, is NOT consider a violation of field of play doctrine because is not a retrospective review of the game, the time lapsus in which the action is reviewed, is still considered in situ of the sport venue. Now, let’s consider a sport such as Boxing. This discipline has very clear guidelines which reward points to the boxer for each landed punch. However, the overall grade for each boxer is given by a plurality of judges, which very often dissent from each other. It is clear then, that the winning decision might not be unanimous, bringing into the discussion the possibility of mistaken decisions. The difference between Football and Boxing is evident, it is not the same: wrongly granting a penalty, as awarding the fight to someone who had less landed punches.
In conclusion the field of play doctrine applies to every sport, nevertheless
it is applied in a more frequent level in sports with subjective awards or those who depend on referees to choose the winner. It is logic to say that the use of the doctrine is directly proportional to the subjectiveness of a sport.
Consequences of the field of play
Having already understood the background, legitimation, and scope of this doctrine, it is also important to explain which negative implication does the doctrine brings.
At plain sight you could think that this doctrine protects the essence of the game and makes prevail the will of the in situ referee; furthermore, that it still allows the affected team or player to review the decision under some special circumstances. Nevertheless, it is not that easy. As it was already explained, only under bad faith or corruption would the CAS consider a review to be admissible. However, collecting proves of corruption or bad faith is a very complicated task.
Let´s take a look at a very recent case in the Tokyo Olympics. Yuberjen Martínez, Colombian boxing athlete was competing against the local Ryomei Tanaka. Martínez lost the fight in a very controverted decision; many international lettered boxers gave the match to the Colombian, as opposed to the judge’s decision. The Japanese athlete even had to leave the ring in an ambulance due to the severity of the hooks he received. The international aversion towards the result, led the Colombian federation to consider bad faith from the judges, who were allegedly favoring the local athlete.
Consequently, the Federation requested the CAS to overrule the decision
due to bad faith. However, good faith is a presumption which is very difficult to detract. The Colombian team was unable to prove the bad faith, regardless of video evidence that the punches of Yuberjen were indeed more powerful and accurate. CAS did not undermine the facts that showed that Martinez rightly deserved to have more points, but that was not enough to uplift the field of play doctrine, precisely because they were unable to prove bad faith.
With this example, I intend to prove that even if the CAS is willing to look after the sport essence, in some occasions the merit of the athlete could be undermined by wrong decisions and the impossibility of accessing sport law jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, the field of play doctrine contributes more than
what it subtracts. Yes, in some scenarios it might be possible that the referee makes a wrong call, but that is part of the game; the referee is a human being which makes mistakes. Those wrong decisions are the ones which create controversies and spice up the sport; they make part of the sport´s nature.
To conclude, the field of play doctrine might be loved or hated; but it is here to stay. It will only be excepted when there is sufficient prove that the playing field was indeed indoctrinated… REFERENCES
1. CAS OG 20/15 Yuberjen Martínez & Colombian Olympic Committee
& Colombian Boxing Federation v. IOC Boxing Task Force 2. Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4208 Horse Sport Ireland (HSI) & Cian O’Connor v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI), award of 15 July 2016 (operative part of 4 January 2016)
3. Introducción al derecho deportivo y al derecho del deporte, Primera
