[ad_1]
Through a statement published on the website of the Portuguese Football Federation, the Disciplinary Council came to clarify that the court decision allowing the use of PalhinhaThe Sporting midfielder, in the derby with Benfica this Monday, is not final and has not removed the 5th yellow from the lion player.
Likewise, the Disciplinary Board indicates in the same note that the measure was not “directed at the validity of the decision, but only at its effectiveness, which is temporarily suspended” and that there was not even a “hearing of the requested entity, the Portuguese Football Federation Regarding the criticism of Sporting and the resignation of the Disciplinary Council, the body has pointed out that “it would hardly be understood that any judicial decision, even more definitive, could serve to undermine the powers and exercise of functions of the Council of discipline “.
Read the full statement:
“1. The use by sports agents of the judicial system to challenge the decisions of the Disciplinary Council is of the utmost normality in the operation of sports justice and it would be difficult to understand that any judicial decision, even more definitive, could serve to Reduce the powers and exercise of functions of the Disciplinary Council.
2. In this case, the Court did not even rule (nor did the plaintiff raise it) on whether or not the Disciplinary Council should have annulled the automatic suspension of player João Palhinha resulting from the 5th yellow card shown by the referee. In the case of a strictly sports matter, the competence for its evaluation would fall solely on the FPF’s Council of Justice.
3. The decision of the Court refers to a precautionary measure, not aimed at the validity of the decision of the Disciplinary Council, but only at its effectiveness, which is temporarily suspended. This “intermediate” judicial decision does not in any way exclude a future and final decision whose content is unknown, and there has not yet been a hearing by the requested entity, the Portuguese Football Federation.
4. The claimant chose to base his request for precautionary action only on a generic claim about the unconstitutionality of the sanction in a summary process, supposedly for not guaranteeing the exercise of the right of defense, which is very strange because the player who employed the SAD participated in the approval of the Disciplinary Regulations that designed this form of process. Even more surprising is the claim when in the case there is already an appeal for the right of defense exercised by the sports agent. In other words: the applicant is reacting to a second-degree administrative decision, in which he was guaranteed full pronouncement on the facts and his legal qualification.
5. In the absence of doubts about the regulatory provision of the principle of authority of the referee, a consequence of the doctrine of the field of play, which prevents the CD from substituting the technical decision of the referee provided that he has received the play in its entirety, This Disciplinary Council of the Portuguese Football Federation will insist, as up to now, on the strict application of the Regulations that govern its performance, in an impartial and equidistant manner in relation to all sports agents ”.
[ad_2]
