ISL regulatory commission to pronounce final verdict on FC Goa-Elano scuffle

New Delhi: The regulatory commission of the Indian Super League will meet on Tuesday in Mumbai to pronounce its final verdict on the controversy relating to the scuffle between Chennaiyin FC’s Brazillian marquee player Elano Blumer and FC Goa officials after the summit clash of the ISL second season in December 2015. FC Goa, who lost to Chennaiyin FC in the final, did not appear before the ISL regulatory commission on 11 and 12 April despite a notice being sent to them. “The ISL Regulatory Commission will meet on 3 and 4 May on the issue in Mumbai,” a source privy to the development said. [caption id=“attachment_2760870” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Elano Blumer of Chennaiyin FC. ISL[/caption] “There will be a hearing tomorrow and on 4 May hopefully the final verdict will come,” the source added. On 20 December last, after Chennaiyin FC defeated FC Goa 3-2 in the ISL final in Goa, a scuffle broke out. Chennaiyin FC’s marquee player Elano was accused by FC Goa co-owner Dattaraj Salgaocar of physically assaulting him in an altercation that occurred at the home team’s dugout after the final whistle. Dattaraj filed an FIR in a local police station. Elano was arrested and subsequently released but only after spending a night in police custody. The ISL regulatory commission then issued notices to the parties involved and also asked FC Goa why action should not be taken for boycotting the post-match prize distribution. Meanwhile, video footages emerged on Monday which purportedly showed that Elano did not resort to any aggressive conduct during that scuffle. In the footages, FC Goa officials were seen pushing and shoving Elano with one of them laying his hand on the face of the Barazillian World Cupper who tried to free himself from the scuffle. FC Goa, who have already been punished by the All India Football Federation’s disciplinary committee with a fine of Rs 50 lakh, have maintained that issuance of notices by both AIFF and ISL Regulatory Commission for the same alleged breaches violates their fundamental rights and amounts to double jeopardy.