Here is an abridged version.
Thomas Horton of
Football Law, speaking to
Football.London, says if there is proof the lost points have a direct impact on whether the Blades qualify for Europe or miss out entirely, there is a case.
That situation could not be evaluated until the end of the current campaign - there are still over 18 points to play for in the Premier League - and even if that was the case, Horton warns that such a claim would be fraught with difficulties.
“It all boils down to what the position is at the end of the season. It’s a bit of a wait and see in any event,” said Horton.
“In order for it to even be considered, it would have to come to a point where Sheffield United have missed out on a UEFA club competition position in the league, or even that they have not finished as high up the league as they could have done because of the two points they’ve missed out on had they won 1-0 against Aston Villa.
“The factors to consider are that Sheffield United would earn more revenue from qualifying for a UEFA club competition, and secondly, because the higher up the league you finish, the more revenue you get from the Premier League as well.
“It’s similar to when Sheffield United brought a claim against West Ham United for the whole Carlos Tevez situation, that winning goal from Tevez being the whole reason why Sheffield United got relegated.
So, that factual scenario would have to come around first for this even to be considered, in my opinion.
“You’d have to wait for that to happen but then the league will test on whether or not that could be satisfied.
“My opinion is if any type of claim was brought by Sheffield United, or a team that’s affected in the relegation scenario, the claim would be in negligence, either against the Premier League or Hawk-Eye.
“But then when you look at the tests applicable for whether there has been negligence to give rise to a claim, I think there are going to be difficulties in Sheffield United, or anyone else, having a successful claim.”
How would a club pursue such a case?
“This wouldn’t go to a court of law, it would go to arbitration, either pursuant to the Premier League’s own rules, or pursuant to the FA’s rules,” Horton explained.
“Both of them provide for dispute between clubs and participants, and in some situations, it would go to arbitration. If it was to be in a court of law, it would be very much a confidential process. Nonetheless, English law would be the applicable law.
“The Case Law from the Court of Arbitration for Sport would be something considered in the whole process as well. Going back to the test of negligence, it’s a test to have a successful claim, the first one being whether or not there is a duty of care.
“So could Sheffield United or another club establish that the Premier League or Hawk-Eye owes Sheffield United, or one of those other clubs, a duty of care?
“What that looks at is whether or not the damage that occurred is foreseeable, whether there’s a particularly proximate relationship between those parties and whether it’s fair to impose a duty of care.
“For me, personally, I don’t think there will be that much difficulty in establishing whether or not there’s a duty of care. There’s quite a clear proximate relationship between both the clubs, or club, the Premier League and Hawk-Eye.
“If not, it’s just down to the rules and the regulations they all work with. For example, the benefit of what Hawk-Eye seeks to provide to the clubs by the use of goal-line technology.
I appreciate that there’s probably some more points to make about whether or not there’s a duty of care, but looking at it a bit holistically, I don’t think there’s going to be too much difficulty in establishing a duty of care.
“The real difficulty would arise in establishing whether or not the Premier League or Hawk-Eye breached that duty of care, and to establish whether there has been a breach of duty.”
Horton added the focus of any claim - which he would expect to be processed by clubs should the result prove to be decisive in terms of European places or at the foot of the table - would be against the Hawk-Eye system and the reasons for its failing.
There is the added question of why referee Michael Oliver did not choose to consult the VAR system to check the incident himself.
This was an unprecedented event but due to the strengths of the appeals and that replays instantly showed the decision was not correct, it would be expected that VAR would be consulted in order to check for mistakes.
Such a claim based on an officiating error, however, appears to be a non-starter as following protocol on an officiating basis is separate from a technological fault directly influencing a result.
Blades fans will be hopeful their side can qualify for Europe - and will have been greatly encouraged by this week’s convincing triumph over Tottenham - but will be wary that this race could go to the wire, and the result at Villa Park will have proved influential.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/sheffield-united-hawkeye-aston-villa-18541456
