Appeal sees specious argument some Real Madrid Dura Appeal Committees response to Real Madrid. Ensures that the white club pays more attention to the minutes that the sanction itself jugador.Expediente No. 252 - 2013 / 14 Meeting the Appeals Committee , which form D. José Mateo Díaz , D. Arturo Manrique Marin and D. Carlos González Torres, to resolve the complaint filed by Real Madrid Club de Fútbol , against Competition Committee resolution dated February 5, 2014 , the following apply . background First - . Scoresheet The arbitration of the National League Championship First Division , playing on 2 current between Athletic Club and Real Madrid CF players in the section under the heading of expulsions, transcribed literally says Real Madrid CF : 75 minutes the player ( 7) Dos Santos Aveiro , Cristiano Ronaldo was sent off for the following reason: striking with the hand in the face of an opponent, while the game stopped . Similarly, in the chapter of other incidents includes the following: After being expelled number 7 of Real Madrid CF , Cristiano Ronaldo Dos Santos Aveiro, and as he left the field , was struck several times with the palm of hand on face , heading to the fourth official . . Segundo - having the minutes and other documents for the said event , the Competition Committee , based on the fundamentals contained in its resolution dated February 5, 2014 , adopted the following resolutions : 1 ) Suspend D. A PARTY CRISTIANO RONALDO DOS SANTOS Aveiro , Real Madrid CF , under Article 123, with accessory fine of 350 euros to 600 euros club and footballer (Article 52.3 and 4); and 2) Pause for the repeated TWO MATCHES player of Real Madrid CF , D. CRISTIANO RONALDO DOS SANTOS Aveiro , under Article 117, with accessory fine of 700 euros to 600 euros club and footballer (Article 52.3 and 4). Third - . Stands against such agreements and timely action for Real Madrid Club de Fútbol. Legal foundations First - . Recurrent club, Real Madrid CF , challenges the decision of the Competition Committee with a list of reasons that start with the statement that the procedure is void for violation of the basic rules governing the legally established procedure , infringement finding for the appellant in support of the request that the Committee sought clarification of minutes to referee outside the limitation period established by law to do so. Considered insufficient coverage provided for that purpose in Article 26.2 and 27.1 of the RFEF Disciplinary Code , as in their view Article 33.1.b ) of Royal Decree 1591/1992 of 23 December, requires that disciplinary regulations the different Sports Federations should establish a procedure to improve the hearing process , on one hand, and the right to claim ( or report ) from another , and that in any event, the alleged offender is entitled to know , before it expires that procedure ( the audience ) the charge against him , to make the appropriate arguments and offer further evidence . Consider the appellant, in short, once the deadline set by Article 26.3 of the Disciplinary Code ( fourteen hours the second following business day party ) exhausted , is no longer possible to open any inspection of the facts. In his interpretation, the start time precluded the deadline for the alleged infringer knew the prosecution would file submissions and present evidence. Second - . Recurrent falls into the error of considering the requirement of the Competition Committee to the referee , to issue report in order to clarify some aspects of the Arbitration Act , violates that article 33.1.b ) , making a forced interpretation and arbitrary thereof, the preclusion confused because of its handling of allegations of stakeholders , awarded to fourteen hours specified in the standard , with the further processing of claims, which in this case opened by the Competition Committee . Indeed , the disciplinary proceedings in the case of offenses committed during the course of play is just start with the Arbitration Act (Article 22.c ) Disciplinary Code RFEF) . The hearing process to interested This opens without prior request to yourself or your club ( which held the record copy of the arbitration work since being signed by the referee ) . As established in section 3 of Article 26, which says exhaustively this right may be exercised within a period precluirá at 14 pm on the second business day following the match in question . As you indicate the article, the rule provides a right for the person , not the disciplinary body , which is absurd to attribute rights to the process , as literally stated in the appeal. What if the disciplinary body has the powers are necessary for the material truth , when the evidence in the proceedings, the Arbitration Act fundamentally , and the arguments of the parties , reasonable doubts on specific circumstances arising from the fact prosecuted . Law 30/92 on the Legal Regime of Public Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure pay these considerations in Article 82 (1 . Purpose of the resolution process , those reports that are mandatory by legislation will be requested , and , precept 2 the petition of the end or report shall detail the requested ) - that are deemed necessary to resolve , citing the provision that requires or basing , where appropriate , the desirability of claiming them. . undisputed range over any regulations . This plea must therefore be rejected. Recurrent known, although it omits, the arbitration act constitutes the necessary documentary medium in the test set of rule infractions and sporting rules , granting nature equal amplifications or clarifications that referees do the same , being able I take effect either automatically or at the request of the disciplinary bodies , as was done by the Competition Committee. Therefore it to ask for clarification to the minutes , not expansion , did not alter or modify in any way the disciplinary procedure , even left defenseless to today appellant , who was able to plead to such clarification which in law agreed , so they have not in any way subverted the procedural process and has acted based on the provisions of Sections 26.2 and 27.1 of the Disciplinary Code that knows the appellant , having also made mention of them. The appellant has been knowledgeable at all times , both of Arbitration Act and the clarification of it has been done, having been given the appropriate transfer and knowing perfection and specificity the facts of the disciplinary proceedings , on which he has made allegations that considered desirable , so the immersion takes on Article 26.3 of the Disciplinary Code of the limitation period mentioned, merely on that basis justify reasoning inconsistent with the meaning of that article , all with to conclude that only the right interest , then try to base their arguments played in this instance , in a previous run which is under study ( that was the reason for the request for clarification ) . The appellant intends to base its right , and so is seen to spend two-thirds of the resource, the invalidity of the content of the arbitration act, not spending a single line to the concrete fact sanctioned , evidently because its right or not suit alleges some question the fact that the Competition Committee considered proven ( Iturraspe action occurred between players and Cristiano Ronaldo 75 minutes ) , and that is reflected in the second exhibition of the decision under this action. If not bout sanctioned test done or the lack thereof, can hardly be applied to grant the request to withdraw the red card shown to the player D. Cristiano Ronaldo Dos Santos , whose exhibition by the referee is not combat. Third - . The rejection of this first argument of the appeal involves the remaining , having been shown the fit to the legality of the action taken by the Competition Committee . Indeed , as the second argument , it is argued that the method is void because the events sanctioned by the referee , that argument can not be captious , were varied such as the collected facts remain in the record ( strike with the hand on the face an opponent, while the game stopped ) , only now have been defined. The appellant applied to mix the cards players suspended , Mr. Dos Santos Aveiro and Iturraspe Derteano , with what happened with another player , Mr. Gurpegui , in an incident that took no disciplinary significance in the minutes as the referee said when answering the requirement of the Competition Committee , requirement caused by appellant s belief that the referee had sanctioned Mr. Dos Santos by Mr. Gurpegui incidence , incidence occurred seconds before that took place with Mr. Iturraspe Derteano ( the appellant himself narrates on page 6 of its application to the first minute and came back 24:02 into the 24:47 minutes of the second part , ie, 45 seconds apart ) . So quick succession of events made the appellant, in his first allegation, constantly referring to the incident with Mr. Gurpegui , and led to the Competition Committee to require the arbitrator to clarify that point. There has been , therefore , altered the facts as claimed by the appellant. In absolutely free in the resource states , with the greatest inaccuracy on page 7, the Competition Committee received some allegations to the minutes when everyone thought he meant , as was the fact, the confrontation of Christian with Gurpegui (A ) and then forced to ask around about other different facts (B ) that had nothing to do with the first . The claim is free and this argument therefore also has to be rejected. Fourth - . Similar fate happens to the third argument of the appellant, holding that the requirement of the Competition Committee helplessness caused to Real Madrid CF . It is well known that the defenseless, as the resource itself out in a passage , occurs when the person did not know the fact for which he will follow the disciplinary proceedings , it is not given prior hearing before the decision , not you allow use of evidence or starved of resources authorized by law Well, any of these guarantees has been deprived the appellant : he met the minutes that led to the indictment and past allegations term it; also knew the result of the request to the referee and was given time also to be heard and make claims , it could then offer further evidence and, finally , has used this appeal. The futility of the argument is absolute. Fifth - . Resource The fourth argument is similarly without significance , and contains a version of what happened , based on the opinion of the appellant regarding the facts , it concluded that the only rational and logical thing would have been at least the same penalty for the opponent ( especially when Iturraspe who assaults Christian ) and not different sanctions. Thus refers to Mr. Iturraspe player only received a yellow card warning. Thereby raises the recurring question one inatendible because nobody has challenged before this Committee or the Competition , the legality of such differential treatment card and consequently , it is impossible to react. This Committee can not accept the claim made in the fourth exhibition , speaking in terms of the play contained in the record is inconsistent with the reality of what happened . Apart from that it is inappropriate to call close to the incident, the evidence provided by the appellant can not be considered incompatible with the reality of what happened. Sixth - . The fifth argument refers to the penalty imposed on Mr Dos Santos Aveiro by touching the face as a sign of disrespect or perhaps mockery towards the fourth official. The argument can not prevail. The most elementary logic leads to the conclusion that is correct deduction of minutes , as the chain of events speaks to that effect. Who dares do that sneer Public undoubtedly directs it to a receiver, and , logically, it was the fourth official at the player considered responsible for an unjust decision . This argument recalls that for some time with respect to the phrase son of a ... was used , the ground that was not directed towards the referee , but even against that uttered it . It is obvious that whoever says or whoever makes those gestures and looking for a target logical deduction is that it is the person who took the decision or unfavorably reported what happened . Seventh - . Should finally refer to the cases cited by the appellant. All quotes contain general references in terms of amplitude, or doctrines such as respect for the rules of procedure , the presumption of innocence, helplessness , which are indisputable but, on the amplitude , unrelated to the specific issues raised here . The Committee emphasizes and highlights the provisions of section 236 of the General Regulations of the RFEF , which provides in paragraph 1 that the referee is the sole and final sports authority in technical, to direct the parties . For these reasons , the Committee can not take into consideration the request to cancel the red card shown , and also the regulatory application conducted by the Competition Committee considered fully adjusted to law, the suspension is collected in having produced articles 123 and 117 of the Disciplinary Code RFEF in its minimum degree . Under the Appeals Committee as above, AGREES : Dismisses the action brought by REAL MADRID FOOTBALL CLUB , confirming in all respects the decision of the Competition Committee dated February 5, 2014 . Against this resolution be appeal to the Spanish Sports Disciplinary Committee within fifteen working days , counting from the day following the notification. Las Rozas ( Madrid) , to February 7, 2014 . President.
Posted on: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:44:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015