Palhinha case: Disciplinary Board considers coaching commission’s action “incomprehensible” – Sporting

Palhinha case: Disciplinary Board considers coaching commission’s action “incomprehensible” – Sporting

The decision by the FPF disciplinary board to file the so-called ‘first case’, after Benfica filed a complaint to appeal to state courts, was recognized a week ago by a statement sharply criticizing the League Instructors Commission. A regulatory vacuum. This Tuesday, the CD shared the decision of the investigation process on the FPF website and learned the details of the decision from the outset regarding the above-mentioned differences in disciplinary regulation (RA). Danger is, remember, the investigation began on February 9, 2021, after Joao Palhinha was shown the 5th yellow card (badly) in a sporting game with Bovista at Besa on January 26 last. 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. The player’s appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport was dismissed, however, allowing Palhinha to attend the match. The long court battle between Sporting and the federation began, culminating in January, with a Supreme Administrative Court (STA) ruling confirming the FPF but not convicting Palhinha. “In the RD, in terms of factual (2021) or current (2022), when the latter person improperly, however, cannot hold the club or player liable. State courts should take advantage of the prohibition order allowing him to play and use the club This is to the advantage of the club), although such a court does not have the capacity to do so, the STA later confirmed.

The Disciplinary Council, in this document, criticizes the performance of the CI. “Regardless, it is incomprehensible that the body, which is the competent body for the investigation phase, proposed to archive the matter on 05.23.2022, sent to this CD by email at 5:53 pm on the same day. Considering (…) there is an opportunity to consider, propose, justify and approve the decision to agree to the shelving proposal or to refer to that Commission for further steps. There has been no movement between the decision of the STA () and the presentation of the final report of the CI (23.05.2022). ., Dated 26 May.

“In other words, it is strange that the CI rarely releases this CD for 3 or 8 days so that the records can still be delivered (which only takes 2 to 3 days) and a decision can be made on the evidence of infringement. The disciplinary board condemns when the rules of all limitations are practically terminated without any progress in the proceedings for reasons that did not cause the defendants, also noting that “they were completely removed from any activity during the internal instruction phase. CI’s responsibilities from 15.04.2021 (…) to 23.02.2022. ”

.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.