Reference is made to the article, published on your portal on Friday 1st August.
The author of the unsigned article, whilst carrying the views of my colleagues, Daniel Aquilina and Michael Gatt, presidents of San Giljan and Sliema respectively, both in agreement that Neptunes have been favored by the ASA's handling of their protests regarding the Molnar suspension, did not apparently deem it necessary ,to contact a Neptunes official for our version of events.
Anybody reading the article, and not fully aware of events in the past few weeks, both in the pool, and behind the scenes, could be excused for thinking that Neptunes have received some preferential treatment of sorts, when in fact, the opposite is true. My colleagues would have been better advised to keep in mind the old adage regarding glass houses and stones, rather than forming a joint venture to try and imply Neptunes have been the recipients of any preferential treatment.
The first controversies of the season erupted during the Sliema-San Giljan match,played on the 5th June. At the end of it, a number of San Giljan players and officials, incensed at some refereeing decisions, visibly and audibly, in their own unique style, harshly protested in no uncertain terms with the referees, table officials and the ASA President, Mr.Joe Caruana Curran in person. In his report, circulated to clubs , incidentally, a full 9 days after the match, the President referred to the incidents as "disgraceful". A glance at circular 31/2014 issued on the 22nd July is publicly accessible on the disciplinary pages link of the Waterpolo section on the ASA website ,www.asaofmalta.org. (http://www.asaofmalta.org/asa/circulars/2014/Water%20Polo%20Circular%2031_2014%20Disciplinary%20Measures.pdf)
On the day, though there was clearly cause for it, not one single San Giljan player was reported or disciplined for the incidents, even if the behaviour of one or two players in particular, would have clearly warranted such a report. For good measure, when disciplinary measures were eventually announced on the 22nd July,the only action taken was that Dr.Aquilina and a San Giljan supporter were suspended for the period from the 10-16th July. How's that for a "bizarre" decision? Being advised on the 22nd July, that you were suspended for the period from the 10th-16th! To add insult to injury, the same circular referred to above , also refers to the ASA President withdrawing accusations of incitement he made previously against Dr.Aquilina. The question begs itself, at which stage was the error committed, when the ASA president filed the report, or when he withdrew it? Why were accusations of such a serious nature withdrawn? As yet, neither Mr. Caruana Curran, nor Dr. Aquilina have offered any credible explanation. Whatever the case, Dr.Aquilina would seem to be in no position to make statements and pontificate about "bizarre and unorthodox" decisions.
The protest that Sliema attempted to lodge, on the grounds that Molnar was ineligible to play on the 25th July, would be a great April fool's joke, where it not for the fact that we have just started August. Getting to the crux of the matter, and to use the words of the ASA president , the "disgrace" is that while no reports at all , have been filed against a number of misbehaving players in the past weeks, our player Tamas Molnar was the chosen one , and was reported and suspended for 2 weeks, for the mildest and most civilized of protests with the referees after the Sliema-Neptunes match of the 25th.July. To add insult to injury, my counterparts at San Giljan and Sliema , in what is clearly a concerted and joint effort, were not content, and wanted more. Incidentally, for anybody inclined to believe the theories of Neptunes being given any preferential treatment by the ASA, they might like to know, that with the score level, and about 90 seconds to go in the said match, the referee first convalidated, and subsequently annulled a goal scored by Neptunes, after an indication from the time- keepers that our player Stellini shot at goal and scored , just after the 30 second possession period had elapsed . A film of the match would seem to indicate otherwise, but a referee's decision is rarely if ever overruled in this way, especially after a goal has been given. Yet the referee, chose to go back on his decision in this instance. One can only imagine, what hell would have broken loose, had Neptunes benefitted from such a decision, rather than suffering it.
As far as the date from which Molnar's suspension should be effective, which is the main bone of contention ,a glance at the ASA's decisions in the recent past , brings up a number of inconsistencies, as to the date from when suspensions are applied. Indeed, as already referred to previously, disciplinary measures or the lack of them, never fail to create controversy.
In the final analysis, Neptunes feel that the suspension of Tamas Molnar was unfair and excessive in the first place. Not content,both Sliema and San Giljan, our direct challengers for the championship, both sensed the opportunity to take advantage of the fixture list, and try and get the already harsh and uncalled for , two week suspension ,extended from the 8th August to the 9th August when Neptunes play San Giljan.
The seemingly separate initiatives taken by Sliema and San Giljan, are clearly not seperate at all, unlike what the anonymous author of the article, would have us believe. These are nothing but desperate attempts by our competitors , to win on the table what in recent years ,has eluded them in the water.
Matthew Bonello
President
Neptunes WPSC.