Should Chinese cross-country skier Wang Qiang be deemed to have "blocked fouls" and cancelled his results?

Create Date: 2022-02-11 14:34 Friday

Source: Rule of Law Network WeChat public account

On February 8, in the quarterfinals of the men's individual sprint (free technique) of cross-country skiing at the Beijing Winter Olympics, Wang Qiang, an athlete of the Chinese national cross-country skiing team, finished second in this group with a time of 2:49.64, but unfortunately lost his qualification for the semi-finals due to being judged to be a "block foul" and was cancelled. The Chinese National Cross-Country Skiing Team (hereinafter referred to as the "China Team") appealed on the spot about the decision of the Referee Committee to determine that Wang Qiang had fouled and disqualified him from qualifying for the semi-finals, but the semi-finals continued and the finals ended on the evening of February 8. At present, the Chinese Ski Association has appealed to the International Ski Federation over Wang Qiang's determination to "block fouls".

This article will evaluate whether Wang Qiang should be identified as a "blocked foul" and cancelled from a legal perspective.

1. Should Wang Qiang be identified as a "blocking foul"?

In the men's individual sprint (free technical) quarterfinals of cross-country skiing at the Beijing Winter Olympics, Wang Qiang was found by the referee committee to have caused the Norwegian athlete to fall down by causing the Norwegian athlete to fall, thus constituting a "blocking foul" (obstructing, blocking, bumping or shoving any participant), which is a violation of Article 343.9 of the International Ski Competition Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Competition Rules") As a general rule applicable to all competitions, entrants may not block other entrants".

According to Article 223.1.3 of the Competition Rules, "in determining whether an act constitutes a violation, consideration shall be taken of whether the act was intentional or unintentional, and whether the act was caused by an emergency". Therefore, the following conditions should be met to constitute a blocking foul: 1) there is an act of obstructing, blocking, bumping or shoving a participant, and 2) the act is subjective and intentional and is not caused by an emergency.

According to the Rules of Competition, whether Wang Qiang constitutes a "blocking" foul depends on whether Wang Qiang deliberately obstructed, blocked, impacted or shoved the Norwegian athlete behind him and caused the athlete to fall. The referee committee determined that Wang Qiang "blocked" the Norwegian athlete in the rear and caused the athlete to fall, based on the video replay of the game, but the video was not shot at a full 360-degree angle, the camera angle was not directly in front of Wang Qiang, and wang Qiang could not clearly see from the game video that Wang Qiang had "obstructed, blocked, charged or pushed" the Norwegian athletes behind him. According to the opinions we consulted with technical experts, Wang Qiang's overtaking behavior was completed before the Norwegian athlete in the rear fell, at the moment when the Norwegian athlete fell, Wang Qiang ran in a straight line, the body tilted to the right, only the standard technical action when the center of gravity was converted from the left foot to the right foot, and its amplitude was not large, and did not block the Norwegian athletes behind him; and the Norwegian athletes changed lanes to the left when Wang Qiang had completed the overtaking, and the snowboard was inserted into the bottom of Wang Qiang's snowboard, and the Norwegian athletes used their upper limbs to push wang Qiang twice. Causes it to lose its balance and falls. Therefore, according to the above technical judgment, Wang Qiang actually did not deliberately obstruct, block, impact or push the Norwegian athlete in the rear and cause the athlete to fall. According to this, Wang Qiang should not be identified as a "blocking foul".

2. Should Wang Qiang be disqualified from the competition?

According to Article 352.2.1 of the Competition Rules, "a result of a competition may only be cancelled if there is a material irregularity or if the violation has a clear impact on the final result of the competition." "And Article 352.1.1.1 provides that the following chart must be used when making a penalty decision:

First of all, according to the opinion of technical experts, Wang Qiang did not block the Norwegian athletes in the rear, the Norwegian athletes changed lanes to the left when Wang Qiang had completed the overtaking, and his snowboard was inserted into the bottom of Wang Qiang's snowboard, resulting in a fall, so the referee committee should not find Wang Qiang to constitute a blocking foul.

In addition, even if the referee committee found that Wang Qiang "blocked" the Norwegian athletes in the rear, from the video replay of the game, Wang Qiang slid normally in front of the Norwegian athletes, and the Norwegian athletes inserted the snowboard into the bottom of Wang Qiang's snowboard during the sliding process, resulting in his loss of balance and falling. It can be seen that Wang Qiang does not have the intention to block norwegian athletes, that is, The Norwegian athletes inserted the snowboard into the bottom of Wang Qiang's snowboard as the direct cause of his fall, that is, they did not meet the second condition that constituted a blocking foul "intentional".

According to the green column on the far right of the above table, the fall of the Norwegian athlete behind Wang Qiang should be regarded as a "competition event" caused by non-violations, and according to Article 352.2.1 of the Competition Rules, Wang Qiang did not meet the criteria for violation of the cancelled competition results, so Wang Qiang's competition results should not be cancelled.

In addition, the fall of the Norwegian athlete did not gain any competition advantage for Wang Qiang, but instead he used his upper limbs to push Wang Qiang twice before falling, which interfered with Wang Qiang's game, so the referee committee canceled Wang Qiang's competition results without basis.

III. Remedies for Dissatisfaction with the Decision to Block Fouls

1. Lodge a protest

According to Article 325.6.2 of the Competition Rules, "Due to the time pressure of the consecutive group stages, it is not possible to allow protests during the quarter-finals and semi-finals. Protests can only be held after the end of the final", according to which a protest against the decision to punish "block fouls" cannot be protested during the quarter-finals and semi-finals, but only after the finals. Therefore, although the Chinese team appealed on the spot against the decision of the referee committee to find Wang Qiang foul and disqualify him from qualifying for the semi-finals, the semi-finals and finals continued as usual. This has created obstacles to the Chinese team's timely exercise of the right to remedy against the "block foul" penalty decision, resulting in the Chinese team losing the time point of the best remedy.

The Rules of Competition, for reasons of "time pressure for consecutive group stages", are debatable about the prohibition of protests during the quarter-finals and semi-finals. We note that many international associations allow the decision of the referee to be appealed on the spot of the competition, for example: Article 123 of the ISU General Rules, which stipulates that the referee can be immediately protested on the spot; and the 2022 edition of the International Gymnastics Federation Technical Regulations (2022 Technical Regulations). Regulations) article 8.5 stipulates that an appeal may be made on the spot about the difficulty score, which shall be made orally immediately after the score is published, and at the latest before the score of the next player or group of players is announced; article 8.2 of the WA Technical Rules stipulates that the result or process of the competition may be protested, and the protest shall be made within 30 minutes of the official announcement of the result of the competition.

It is precisely because the technical rules of the World Athletics Federation (formerly the IAAF) allow the decision to protest on the spot, the U.S. team was able to protest successfully and obtain the opportunity to re-run or resume the qualification in the following two games: 1) In the 2016 Rio Olympic Games Athletics Women's 4 by 100 Meters Preliminary Round, due to a major mistake in the handover, the U.S. team did not qualify for the final, but after the U.S. team protested in time on the spot, the referee committee played back through slow motion and finally determined that the Brazilian team interfered with the U.S. team members in the game. As a result, the U.S. team was given a chance to re-run, while the Brazilian team was canceled; 2) at the Tokyo Olympic Athletics 4✕400m Mixed Relay Preliminary Round held on July 30, 2021, the U.S. team was cancelled because it did not complete the handover baton in the designated area, the U.S. team filed a complaint with the IAAF on the spot, after watching the game video and discussing with the event officials, the IAAF Appeal Board found that due to an error by the event official, the American team players were not placed in the correct handover area, It was therefore decided to support the protest of team USA and restore its eligibility for the final.

However, the "Competition Rules" of the International Snow Federation do not allow protests against the penalty decision during the quarter-finals and semi-finals, but can only protest after the end of the final, which causes the Chinese team to be unable to exercise the right of relief in time after the "block foul" penalty decision is made, which objectively leads to the Chinese team losing the best opportunity to obtain relief. Such provisions of the FIFA's Rules of Competition actually render the "protest" system ineffective and do not play a role in remedying the arena.

2. Appeals

According to Article 362.1.1 of the Contest Rules, "an appeal may be made against ... All decisions of the Referee Committee"; Article 362.1.2 stipulates that "the complaint must be submitted by the National Ski Association to the Fidescher International) and Article 362.1.3.1. stipulates that "the appeal against the decision of the Referee Committee shall be filed within 48 hours of the publication of the official results table." Article 362.1.4 provides that "the decision to appeal shall be made by the following organizations: the Appeals Board, the Tribunal of the International Snow Federation".

Therefore, the China Ski Association has the right to appeal to the IRF Appeal Committee or the INTERNATIONAL SNOW FEDERATION Tribunal within 48 hours after the official results are announced, regarding the referee committee's decision to punish Wang Qiang for "blocking fouls".

3. Appeal to CAS

In accordance with Article 61, paragraph 2, of the Olympic Charter, any dispute during or relating to the Olympic Games shall be submitted exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. However, article 1 of the Arbitration Rules of the Olympic Games of the Court of Arbitration for Sport provides that "if a claim is made for arbitration of a decision announced by the International Olympic Committee, the National Olympic Committee, the International Federation of Individual Sports or the Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games, the applicant must, before making the request, exhaust the internal remedies in accordance with the statutes or provisions of the relevant sports institution, unless the time required for the exhaustion of the internal remedies will invalidate the appeal to the Provisional Arbitral Tribunal of the Court of Arbitration for Sport". Therefore, if the Chinese Ski Association is dissatisfied with the decision of the International Snow Federation to appeal, it has the right to appeal to CAS.

However, based on the CAS's relevant jurisprudence on "on-field decisions" that we have examined, cas generally adopts the principle of "non-interference in the decisions of the competition officer as a technical expert" in such cases, which is usually based on the following grounds: (1) CAS arbitrators have not been specifically trained in any or all of the rules of sport and have not watched the event on site; (2) each sport may use the mechanisms of modern technology to ensure that the correct decision is made first, or to review the disputed decision immediately ;(3) To avoid any dissatisfied entrant, cas will not overturn a "venue" decision unless there is direct evidence that the application of the rules is arbitrary or malicious, by seeking relief from CAS or CAS AHD to review the decision on the field; (4) to prevent the constant suspension of the game due to appeal to a judge or arbitrator, etc., unless there is direct evidence that the application of the rules is arbitrary or in bad faith. Therefore, although the Chinese Ski Association is not satisfied with the decision of the International Snow Federation and has the right to appeal to the CAS, the possibility of overturning the decision of the referee committee is extremely small, which highlights the importance of protesting or appealing to the referee committee or appeal committee immediately before the end of the game after the decision to decide on the field.

In summary, we believe that Wang Qiang should not be identified as a "blocking foul" and should not be cancelled, and hope that the International Snow Federation can make a fair and reasonable decision on the complaint of the Chinese Ski Association. In addition, the system of the Competition Rules, which does not allow protests during the quarter-finals and semi-finals, is flawed, resulting in the teams being unable to exercise their right to remedy the decisions of the venue in a timely manner, and it is hoped that the International Snow Federation can amend them so that the participating teams can exercise their right of relief in a timely manner in response to the dissatisfaction of the decisions of the venue and thus safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.

Editor-in-Charge: Huo Yue