One year, 3 months and 30 days later: FPF CD presents Benfica’s complaint on “Pahinha case” – Sporting

One year, 3 months and 30 days later: FPF CD presents Benfica’s complaint on “Pahinha case” – Sporting

One year, three months and 30 days after Benfica’s involvement in the process, the FPF Disciplinary Board on Tuesday ruled on the so-called “Pahinha case” for last season. The investigation began on February 9 last year, a day after the relevant participation, on the 26th in Bessada, after the famous episode of the 5th yellow card (bad) shown to João Palhinha in the game with Boavista. . Referee Fabio Verissimo’s decision to admit the mistake would have normally ruled the Sporting midfielder out of the February 1 derby with Benfica. However, the appeal of the player to the Court of Arbitration for Sport was taken as a precautionary measure addressed to the Southern Central Administrative Court (TCAS) due to the impossibility of timely assessment of the player by TAD. Palhinha’s meeting with Benfica. As Ruben Amorim did not prepare for the match on this basis, the Portuguese international player was not in the starting lineup for the second half.

In January, there was a long court “war” between Sporting and the Federation, which had an epilogue, with the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision leaving the FPF alive but Palhinha unpunished. The situation is unusual, but the process on the FPF CD is just ending.

Critical and “disrespectful behavior” of the Committee of Instructors

In a statement issued early Tuesday night, the body, chaired by Claúdia Santos, described the work, which lasted more than a year, by leaving out and concluding the League of Instructors’ Commission’s open criticism. specifically, that there are “disrespectful” behaviors, but that they cannot be punished with disciplinary action, as appeals to civil courts can only be punished if they are made by the club, not by the player, as is the case with Palhinha. The impetus for the prosecution was “possible appeals to state courts and illegal participation / use of the player.”

“After the investigation of the case, the direction and closure of which was regulated by the League’s Coaches Commission, the latter sent the case to the Disciplinary Council on 23.05.2022 with a proposal to archive, taking into account the absence of any indications. Within a few days of the expiration of the statute of limitations, even without proposing the urgency of the case and the termination of the case for no reason, the Colendo STA’s final decision in the so-called court (02.10.2022) “Pahinha case”, continued FPF- “On 06.06.2022, the Disciplinary Council decided to close the investigation process because, although the conduct in question was disrespectful, it does not contain any regulatory provisions to the extent permitted by the regulation,” the statement said. sanction when a club appeals to the general courts. In this case, the appeal was lodged by the player, although the club benefited from both the application and the decision. it is therefore not possible for this Council to combine such a gap with an analogy, as this complicates the responsibility of the persons concerned, and only the competent authorities must approve the RD in order to decide on the fairness and fairness of existing regulations. solution ”, referring to the Disciplinary Council, leaving the final responsibility klub to the clubs that pass the Disciplinary Rules.

A new rule in summaries

To prevent a recurrence of the Pahinha case, the FPF, meanwhile, has introduced a new rule that allows defendants to defend themselves in a simplified process. Palhinha claimed that he had not been heard by the CD, which was a claim unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, and decided to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. From mid-February 2021, the clubs were able to challenge the reports of the referees and representatives of the League, even in the general process that determined the suspension of Palhinha.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.