04N. NAC report

[Fred McKim]

CFC Executive Director, Bob Gillanders, and I tried to interpret the NAC Regulations from the CFC Handbook with respect to the fact they were written years ago when correspondence was by mail as opposed to e-mail. We both felt that the NAC should contact the parties they wanted to, so we supplied them with e-mail addresses for the players and arbiters that were present.

While I told Nikolay Noritsyn to hold off in presenting any more information until he was asked to, I failed to convey that same message to the NAC. I could make all of the excuses in the world for that, but there
are none that excuse this omission to them.

When the NAC decision came back, I realized what had happened. The ruling was posted and Nikolay complained that he was not allowed to present his entire argument. This led to CFC President, Vlad Drkulec allowing Nikolay to present his additional information to the CFC Directors (Executive) for examination and a determination. Vlad has subsequently said that in normal circumstances an appeal of a NAC decision would not be allowed to the Directors, as it would be final. Vlad has referred to a decision from 2004, where the Executive overruled the NAC, but that was not the result of an Appeal of the NAC Decision.

I was the one who advised Nikolay he could have two weeks to file his "appeal" to the Board (this is similar to the amount of time to file an appeal to the NAC). In my mind, the spot in the World Cup was determined, even if his appeal had been successful, and as such thought he should be given a reasonable amount of time to prepare a proper argument (time not being of such an essence).


Fred