One year, three months and thirty days later: FPF CD records Benfica complaint in ‘Pahinha case’ – Sporting

One year, three months and thirty days later: FPF CD records Benfica complaint in ‘Pahinha case’ – Sporting

One year, three months and 30 days after Benfica’s complaint sparked the proceedings, the FPF Disciplinary Committee decided on Tuesday to file the proceedings – known as the “Pahinha case”. The investigation process began on February 9, 2021, one day after their respective participations, after the match between Bessa and Boavista on January 26, when João Palhinha showed The famous incident of the 5th yellow card (serious). The decision by referee Fabio Velissimo to admit the error would, under normal circumstances, see the Sporting midfielder removed from the derby against Benfica on February 1. However, the player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and a precautionary measure was considered and approved by the Central Administrative Court of the South (in the event that TAD was unable to make a decision in time), culminating in Palhinha’s existence on the date. The Portugal international was not a starter as Ruben Amorim did not prepare for the game on that basis, but he would go into the second half.

What followed was a lengthy judicial “war” between Sporting and the FA, which ended in January with a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (STA) that affirmed the FPF but left Parinha with impunity. This is an unusual situation, but the ongoing process on the FPF CD is only now coming to an end.

Criticism and ‘disrespectful behaviour’ of the instructors committee

In a statement released late Tuesday, the agency, chaired by Claudia Santos, described its handling of the case, which took more than a year to complete, with clear criticism of the league’s coaching committee. , and came to the conclusion on the process that there were acts of “disrespect”, but those acts were not subject to disciplinary action, as recourse to a civil court could only be regulated under the rules if the club, not the player, brought it up sanction, as in fact happened to Parshinha.

“Following the completion of the directive, whose direction and closure are overseen by the league’s coaching committee, it sent the procedure to the Disciplinary Committee on May 23, 2022, with filing recommendations, considering that there were no signs of disciplinary violations for several days before the statute of limitations, not even Raising the urgent nature of the case and following the STA’s final decision (October 2, 2022) in the so-called “Pahinha case” to stop the case without any reason”, criticized the FPF’s statement.

Continuing: “On June 6, 2022, the Disciplinary Committee decided to close the investigative proceedings because the conduct in question, while disrespectful, was not subject to regulation, as this provision only allows for sanctions on appeal to the ordinary courts in this case , although clubs benefit from applications and decisions, it is still up to the players to appeal, which is why the club cannot integrate this gap in a similar way, as it aggravates the responsibility of the parties, only the competent authority approves the RD to judge the current norm Fairness and justice of the solution”, the Disciplinary Committee concluded.

New rules in abstract

It was recalled that in order to avoid a repeat of the “Pahinha case”, the FPF also introduced a new rule allowing defendants to defend themselves in summary proceedings. Palhinha cites CD’s failure to hear and it is on this charge that the Constitutional Court found it unconstitutional and the players decided to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. As of mid-February 2021, clubs have been able to challenge reports from league referees and representatives, even in summary proceedings, such as the one that decided Palhinha’s suspension.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.