Our International Sports Arbitration Lawyers Explain the Field of Play Doctrine
Fair play encompasses respect for others as well as respect for the institution of sport. Ensuring fairness is a fundamental principle of sports, but the Field of Play Doctrine places strict limitations on when outside intervention or challenges beyond what the rules of the game provide is acceptable. Understanding when the Field of Play Doctrine applies is one of the first steps in determining whether you have sufficient grounds for a dispute to the governing body of your sport or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
About the Field of Play Doctrine
The application and interpretation of the rules governing on-field play is commonly referred to as field of play decisions. These decisions can include everything from whether a foul has been committed to whether a goal has been scored. Field of play decisions also include any appeals or challenges that are permitted during the game (i.e., referees reviewing a call after a coach throws a challenge flag).
Whether or not a field of play decision is reviewable (and to what extent) is typically determined by the specific provisions of the relevant rules and regulations governing the sport. Once all such appeals in the rules have been exhausted, there is generally no other recourse for teams or athletes, assuming the referee’s decision was made in a bona fide manner. As a result, sports tribunals such as the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) are reticent to intervene when called upon to overturn a decision. This deference is known as the Field of Play Doctrine.
The Field of Play Doctrine is based on the belief that the rules of the game, in the strict sense of the term, are not subject to judicial control. This is particularly so because arbitrators are not selected for their expertise in a particular sport, unlike on-field referees. Therefore, they are not in a position to second guess a referee’s decision made in the heat of the moment. An arbitrator’s concern is instead the proper application of the law.
This does not mean it is impossible to have a field of play decision overturned by a sports tribunal, but it is only possible if there is evidence of fraud or a similar circumstance.
Challenging a Field of Play Decision
A bedrock principle of sports law, the Field of Play Doctrine states that decisions made during competition are final unless there is evidence of:
- Bad faith
- Malicious intent
- Fraud
- Bias
- Prejudice
- Arbitrariness
- Corruption
Outside of these limited circumstances, field of play decisions have historically been left untouched by sports arbitrators because of the need to give officials the necessary authority in sporting events while providing finality in competition results. Allowing arbitrators to review field of play decisions without restriction would lead to an epidemic of Monday morning 'quarterbacking' and present significant difficulty in rewriting records after a competition has occurred.
An error identified after the competition, whether admitted or not, cannot be grounds for reversing the results of the sporting event. Umpires, referees, or other match officials must interpret and apply complex rules within a limited period of time, which will inevitably lead to errors in the application of rules or disagreements as to their interpretation. However, sports tribunals will let decisions stand as long as they were initially made in good faith. The stakes of the competition are irrelevant, as the Field of Play Doctrine applies to competitions at all levels of a sport.
How Does the Field of Play Doctrine Relate to the Paris 2024 Olympics?
The question of whether a field of play decision can be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division at the Paris 2024 Olympics is not a matter of procedural admissibility or jurisdictional authority. Instead, it pertains to the merits of the appeal itself and applicable sports law principles. CAS must evaluate the appeal based on its substantive content rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds.
While the Panel has the power to overturn field of play decisions, it can only do so if there is direct evidence that establishes the decision was not made in good faith. Since the arbitrators on the Panel are not chosen for their expertise in any particular sport, they cannot review determinations made on the playing field concerning the “rules of the game” unless there was a fundamental violation of the relevant rules.
For example, in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, there was a notable field of play decision related to the preliminary heats of the mixed 4x400m relay. The United States team committed a baton exchange infraction outside the designated zone. The Dominican Republic team improperly changed lanes from an outer to an inner position at the last moment.
These violations initially resulted in the disqualification of both teams. However, upon appeal to the World Athletics Jury of Appeal, the disqualifications were overturned. The Jury determined that the infractions were caused by incorrect instructions or positioning from event officials and both teams were reinstated. In the subsequent race, the Dominican Republic took home the silver medal and the United States earned bronze.
After the final, the National Olympic Committees of Belgium and the Netherlands submitted formal applications to the CAS Ad Hoc Division. These petitions sought to annul the reinstatement decisions and retroactively exclude the Dominican Republic and United States teams from the final competition. The applications were unsuccessful, as matters of positioning set out in the technical rules and the actions taken by athletes after receiving directions from officials were determined to be field of play decisions the Panel would not interfere with.