HE Royal Spanish Football Federation Competition Committee met this wednesday roses to negotiate and resolve all incidents of disputed arbitration Galician college Iglesias Villanuevaon the field and from Madrid From Cerro Grande in VAR at the meeting Last Friday between Elche CF and Betis.
judges They showed no mercy to the Elche club, not responding to appeals submitted by the Franjiverde entity. and imposed severe sanctions on players and managers of Franjiverdes. In the case of the latter, as expected, with an economic fine.
Predictably, the worst part was filmed by Pape Cheikh.. Iglesias Villanueva reflected in the minutes that he was penalized for calling the fourth referee and saying “You are a son of a bitch”. The Elche midfielder was fined four matches and €2,400..
Competition has also been revealed Red card for Lisandro Magallán. In addition, the Argentine defender was given a penalty. 350 and 600 euros, like Chilean Enzo Rojo, who was dismissed with a double yellow card.
on his behalf Helibelton Palacios did not receive the yellow card in the 91st minute., although it is clear in the television footage that he did not hit the actress Betis Miranda and that his action was not reckless. The Colombian received 180 penalties, which is usual for yellow cards. Coach Pablo Machín and midfielder Gerard Gumbau also received the same financial amount, who also received a card..
Elche submitted allegations on the cardboard of Helibelton Palacios and the deportation of Magallán. In addition, according to the referee, from the owner of the club, Elche, in the incidents that took place at the locker room door, Christian Bragarnik said “you will not leave here”; sports director, Sergio Mantecon“you are the servant” and the Director of Operations, Peter SchinoccaHe recorded them on his cell phone while describing them as “sons of bitches”.
According to the minutes and negotiations of the Competition Board, all these cases were dismissed on the following grounds: 90+3 by ELCHE CLUB DE FÚTBOL SAD. i meet the actor Mr. Helibelton Palacios Zapata; Send off player D. Lisandro Magallán at the 57th minute; and the events reflected in the Minutes regarding the actions of Mr. Sergio Martínez Mantecón, Mr. Pedro Schinocca and Mr. Christian Bragarnik, This Competition Committee considers the following: First.- The claiming Club points out in its letter that there is an obvious error of fact in terms of the videographic evidence provided in all cases in its arbitration record. It will be concluded, respectively, that the action described in the minutes did not exist because: (i) D. Helibelton Palacios Zapata player 90+3 of the match. In the reprimand given at the 1st minute, the reprimanded player does not take any action. The act of hitting an opponent, let alone an act that is lightly touching and reckless, cannot in any way be classified as a violation. It therefore requests that the reprimand be lifted; (ii) In the 57th minute expulsion applied to player D. Lisandro Magallán, the expelled player touches the ball with his arm, but it is unintentionally discussed whether there is at least a clear chance of scoring, the effect is debatable. a player would say his opponent would not be red during the match. Therefore, it requests the annulment of the said expulsion decision;
and (iii) in cases reflected in the law Concerning the actions of Mr Sergio Martínez Mantecón, Mr Pedro Schinocca and Mr Christian Bragarnik, the statements contained in the minutes in relation to the video were denied as correct in the initial statement of allegation and in a supplementary statement. provided, expressions presented are not heard would not make sense to each one in turn, nor did he have to be restrained by the police in the first case, and eventually “The only available evidence of the facts are statements made by the members themselves”, by invoking the presumption of innocence of those affected. For this reason, they demand the repeal of the statements in the Minute.
Second.- This is a recurring criterion of the Competition Board. Appreciation of a blatant error of fact in an arbitration act requires, beyond any reasonable doubt, to provide evidence that clearly demonstrates either the fact reflected in the act did not exist or was manifest arbitrarily.. This repeated criterion is based on the following points: (i) First, Article 260 of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) General Regulations. “The referee is the only and indisputable sporting authority who rules the matches in technical order”. The same provision adds that among its obligations is “to reprimand or dismiss the player who observes misconduct or inappropriate behavior, as well as coaches, assistants and other persons regulated by regulation, according to the gravity of the offense” (article). 261 , point 2, part e)); and also “Authorized institutions and organizations, by preparing the meeting minutes and additional reports that it deems appropriate, in an original, concise, clear, objective and complete manner, with the fastest and fastest procedure” (article 261.3, section b). Regarding the evidential value of these minutes, Article 27 of the RFEF Disciplinary Code states that they “constitute the necessary documenting tools in proving violations of sports rules and regulations” (paragraph 1).
And he adds: “In the assessment of sports discipline violations, the referee’s decisions regarding the facts of the game are final, assuming correct except for an obvious error of fact” (paragraph 3). Like this, Arbitration records have an iuris tamtum presumption of accuracy that can ultimately be refuted when a manifest error of fact is proven.. (ii) Secondly, the doctrine of the disciplinary bodies of this RFEF and the Sports Administrative Court (TAD) support the above statements. All of them clearly resolved the need for evidence provided to definitively show the referee’s apparent error in the different Decisions. In this sense, reference may be made to the TAD Decision of 29 September 2017 (File 302/2017). The RFEF Code of Discipline states that arbitral awards on game facts “assumes final, correct, except for obvious material error”. allowing the principle of immutability (“certainty”) that the arbitral award has in favor of legal certainty, in which case the Laws of the Game may be mitigated as long as there is modality, when nevertheless there is a “clear error of fact”. or a subtype of “material error”, that is, as the Constitutional Court puts it when referring to this term in procedural laws (Vid. Article 214.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 267.3 of the Organization Law). judicial body), manifest or manifest error, regardless of any opinion, assessment, interpretation or legal characterization” (iii) Finally, it follows from all of the above: In order to attack the accuracy of the decisions recorded in the arbitration document, the complainant must provide the disciplinary body with sufficient and sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a “clear material error”. It is in this sense that the recurring TAD doctrine asserts the full validity of videographic evidence as a suitable evidentiary tool to distort the content of the arbitration act. For its part, it is the Competition Committee’s responsibility to view and evaluate the content of the record to verify whether it corresponds to the appellant’s claims.
In short, only the proof of a blatant factual error will break the presumption of truth that the arbitration document has and make it possible to neutralize the reprimand. Third. In the opinion of this Committee, none of these assumptions apply in the present case, since: (i) clearly, in the cases of reprimands given to Mr Helibelton Palacios Zapa at the 90 plus 3rd minute of the match and the dismissal applied to player D. Lisandro Magallán at the 57th minute, each provided that in either case the existence of physical contact between the players in the respective game can be seen and therefore the Committee cannot consider it distorted. In both cases, the presumption of the correctness of the recordingThe technical College criteria cannot be replaced by criteria held by the claiming club or which the Committee itself may hold, in any event assessing whether a criminal act has taken place or was reckless, whether the hand is involuntary or if there is an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. It is therefore appropriate to reject the allegations made; (ii) Mr. Sergio Martínez Mantecón, Mr. Pedro Schinocca and Mr. In the events reflected in the Proceedings of Christian Bragarnik’s actions, the allegations made, in a sense, forget the basic principle of the assumption that the arbitration document is genuine. It is not interpretations, indications or assumptions disclosed in the second section above that those involved in such events should provide conclusive evidence that they did not happen.
Like this, facts are considered fully validated and inclusive Considering this Board appropriate, depending on the seriousness of the expressions used in the type of offense stipulated in Article 105 of the RFEF Disciplinary Regulation, to impose a fine of 1,000 euros in each case on the three persons concerned”.