One year, three months and 30 days after Benfica’s complaint, the FPF Disciplinary Council decided on Tuesday to file a lawsuit alleging “illegality in state court appeals and possible irregular participation / use of the player”. – It is called ‘first case’. The investigation was launched on February 9, 2021, one day after the (badly) famous part of the 5th yellow card was shown to Joao Palhinha in a game with Bovista at Besa on January 26, 2021. Under referee Fabio Verisimo’s decision to admit the mistake, under normal circumstances, the sporting midfielder would have been ruled out of the derby with Benfica on 1 February. Considered and approved by the Central Administrative Court of the South (in the absence of a timely decision by the TAD) as a precautionary measure, the player’s appeal to the Sports Arbitration Court, however, came to an end. Presence of palanquins The Portuguese were not an international starter, as Reuben Amorim did not build the game on that basis, but he would enter the second half.
The long-running ‘war’ between Sporting and the federation began, culminating in January, with a Supreme Administrative Court (STA) ruling confirming the FPF but not convicting Palhinha. The situation is unusual but the process that was going on on the FPF CD is now coming to an end.
Criticism of the coaching committee and “disrespectful behavior”
In a statement issued early Tuesday night, the board, chaired by Claudia Santos, described the process, which took more than a year to complete, explicitly criticized the League Instructors Commission and concluded the process. In particular, there are “disrespectful” behaviors but they cannot be disciplined, as recourse to civil court can only be granted as a rule if it is brought by the club and not by the player, as happened in the case of Palhinha.
“After completion of the notice, the direction and closure of which is controlled by the league’s coaching commission, they sent to the Procedure Disciplinary Board on 05.23.2022, noting that there were no indications of disciplinary offenses, a proposal to archive, a few days before the limitation law Without proposing the form and after the case was stopped without any reason from the final decision of the STA in the so-called ‘first case’ (02.10.2022) “, criticizes the FPF statement.
Which continues: “On 06.06.2022, the disciplinary board decided to close the investigation process, because the conduct under consideration, though disrespectful, has no regulatory provision, as the regulation only allows grants to be granted when appeals are made to the ordinary courts.” In this case, the player has filed an appeal, despite the fact that the club has benefited from both the filing and the decision, so the council cannot bridge such gaps equally, as it increases the liability of the parties concerned. It is up to the competent authorities to approve it, “the disciplinary council concluded.
New rules in summary
It may be recalled that, in order to prevent recurrence of ‘first case’, FPF has in the meantime enacted a new rule which allows defendants to defend themselves in summary proceedings. Palhinha pleaded not heard through the CD, and the Constitutional Court ruled that the player should appeal to a sports arbitration court on the charges, which were deemed unconstitutional. By mid-February 2021, the club was able to compete on reports from the league’s referees and representatives, even in summary proceedings, such as those confirming Palhinha’s suspension.