COMMENT
Among other things, a successful former manager of several Czech clubs and the national team spoke to efotbal.cz about the case of “Peter Olayinka” and his four-match ban for headbutting Liberec player Gigli Ndefe in the league match of the 24th round Slovan Liberec-Slavia Prague (2:2) team and Czech under-21 team Jaromír Šeterle. He thinks that the Slavist offensive player should appeal, also because “the disciplinary officer describes the events inaccurately and even untruthfully.”
We therefore present Šeterle’s statement in full:
“I basically have nothing to do with it and I probably shouldn’t even comment on it, but my ancient experience as a functionary won’t let me.
In my humble opinion, Olayinka’s four-match suspension is the result of Slavia’s weak defense and a very superficial review of the incriminating moment and general and even populist justification of the punishment by the LFA Disciplinary Committee itself.
I can only surmise or infer something about Slavia’s defense method from a vague statement in the press without the slightest defense of the player himself or at least in an attempt to find extenuating circumstances. If there was no change of attitude later, they sent players to DK in the style of “Cif you overdid it, eat that too” a bit like “for execution”.
But if I wrong Slavia, then I apologize for my deductions.
In dubio pro reo was not considered
However, the justification of the punishment by the LFA Disciplinary Committee is certainly general and definitely did not take into account all the circumstances, especially in favor of the player Olayinka (in the spirit of In dubio pro reo, i.e. V doubt in favor of the accused). Nsome details of the description of the events are even mildly inaccurate or rather untrue.
First of all: DK did not take into account the fact that Peter Olayinka was provoked to his act by Liberec footballer Gigli Ndef, who was not even a direct participant in Olayinka’s fight with Varfolomejev.
The Ndefe player rushed to the lying Olayinka, we can argue about the physical contact with the lying Slavia footballer, but he accompanied his hysterical reaction verbally. About the content of his short, but certainly striking, monologue towards Olayinka we can only assume. But according to the reaction of the Slavist, who was not suspended for almost 150 matches and he never reacted in such an irritated manner in similar situations, it was certainly not a friendly conversation. And here we are at the root of the matter. We know examples when a provoking football player also ends up with a disciplinary penalty (and at the same time his reaction towards the disabled player is taken into account). After all, the most famous cases are presented by Pavel Procházka in his article ‘What did Ndefe say to Olayink?’ (efootball, March 23, 2023).
The originator of the conflict was Ndefe
What would have happened if the deranged Ndefe had not run to Olayinka and tried to pull him to his feet with a verbal uproar? Referee Zelinka would probably have the Olayinka vs. Varfolomejev clash examined by VAR and either order a penalty kick, or give Olayinka a yellow card for simulating, or do nothing at all. The originator of the situation and conflict Olayinka vs. So Ndefe was definitely a Liberec player. We can only surmise what the more attractive Ndefe said to the lying Olayinka, but it could have been a verbal insult, which made the lying slavist to that insane reaction. And it would not be unusual if this provoking player was disciplined (see the cases mentioned on eFootball).
And that:‘On the other hand, the disciplinary committee also took into account the behavior of the player after his expulsion, when he was visibly reluctant to leave the playing area and caused further conflict situations with the opposing players?’ That was not even possible, because on the contrary, the Liberec players gathered around Olayinka in such a way that it was not far from insulting him and his peaceful departure from the field was essentially impossible.
So, to sum it up, it is clear beyond any doubt that the player of Slavia Olayinka was provoked to his act by the player of Liberec Ndef, without whose provocative actions the subsequent incident between the two footballers would not have happened at all. The fact that Peter Olayinka was provoked to his act is not taken as a mitigating circumstance in the DK communique, as stated in §17 point h) of the Disciplinary Rules.
How was Olayink’s departure?
On the other hand, the circumstances of Olayinka’s departure from the field should not be taken into account in determining the amount of the penalty, as the behavior of the opposing players did not even allow him to leave the field. On the contrary, the Slavia footballer was at least verbally contacted, possibly insulted or attacked. Moreover, the Disciplinary Code does not consider such a departure from the field as an aggravating circumstance in any of its provisions § 18, as is indirectly pointed out by DK in its communique.
One could argue about Olayinka’s intervention itself, at least its intensity, because the injured Ndefe was not even treated, let alone injured. I would dare to say that even his fall on the playing field was not entirely in cooperation with the attack of the Olayinka player. Earthly appeal and theatricality played a greater or lesser role in this.
Conclusion? An appeal, the calling of Gigli Ndefe as a witness and a thorough investigation into the whole incident including the possibility of Peter Olayinka leaving the field after the red card.
Jaromír Šeterle, former manager of the Czech national team and several leading Czech clubs.”
What did Ndefe say to Olayink? For more than 3 duels, it was not the case with the famous player. They don’t know Příhoda et al. rules or Czech?
Photo: SK Slavia Prague
