Malta Sport can reveal that the Malta Football Referees Association will not change its position on referees attending appeals hearings, despite fresh concern after Gżira United official Sharlon Pace saw a 10-match suspension reduced to just one by the MFA Appeals Board.
Malta Sport requested the referee’s report and the Appeals Board decision from the Senior MFA Vice President, Matthew Paris and the Communications Department. The documents were provided, allowing Malta Sport to analyse the case fully before contacting MFRA President Ishmael Barbara.
The documents show a sharp contrast. The allegations were serious enough to lead to a 10-match ban, yet the appeal ended with the punishment reduced to one game. That has shifted attention not only onto the Sharlon Pace case itself, but also onto the wider system, how referees write reports, how those reports are challenged and how disciplinary bodies assess them.
The incident followed the YoHealth Malta Premier League match between Naxxar Lions and Gżira United on 17 February. In his report, the referee alleged that Pace made remarks “referring to bribery”, called him “corrupt”, suggested he was linked with Naxxar Lions, questioned his integrity and sarcastically clapped at him in front of others. 
On that basis, the Disciplinary Commissioner handed Pace a 10-match suspension. But on appeal, police bodycam footage was produced, and Inspector Darryl Farr stated he never heard the word “corrupt”, although he did physically protect the referee.
The Appeals Board was critical of the report, describing it as “wieħed kemmxejn xott”, and stressed that serious accusations require clear and detailed proof. It said it could not be satisfied to the required standard that the allegations regarding the referee’s integrity had been proven, especially in light of conflicting evidence and the lack of substance in the report itself.
The Board upheld the appeal, cleared Pace of the first two charges and reduced the sanction to one match. It also remarked that this was not the first case in which a referee had submitted a report of this kind, and said the Association’s attention had already been drawn to the point. 
After reviewing the documents, Malta Sport contacted MFRA President Ishmael Barbara, who confirmed that the Association had taken note of the decision and that its Executive Committee would meet early next week to discuss its position.
Barbara said it would be premature to comment in detail before that meeting, but admitted that “decisions of this nature naturally raise serious concerns within the refereeing community, particularly when sanctions initially considered serious are significantly reduced on appeal.”
He also made the MFRA’s stance clear. Referees, he said, file reports based on what they observe and those reports remain official match documents. However, the Association does not intend to return to the previous system where referees attended appeals hearings in person.
Barbara explained that past experience showed referees’ presence at such hearings did not materially affect outcomes and instead placed them in an uncomfortable role within disputes between other parties. Following discussions with the Malta FA, it was agreed that referees would no longer be required to attend appeals hearings from this season, and the MFRA believes that remains the correct approach.
The wider issue is now clear. This is no longer just about whether Sharlon Pace should have served 10 matches or one. It is also about whether reports involving the most serious accusations are being written with enough detail and precision to stand up on appeal.
For the MFRA, the concern is obvious. But for now, its position remains unchanged. Referees will not be returning to the appeals room, even as this case raises new questions about how much weight their reports ultimately carry in Maltese football.
