Historical sanction in Spanish football. The Competition Committee has agreed to penalize Valencia with “the partial closure for the next five games” of the Grada Mario Kempes de Mestalla. The place from where the racist cries against Vinicius arose. In addition, the Committee also financially punishes the Valencian club with 45,000 euros.
Besides, Vinicius’s red card has also been withdrawn because the Competition Committee has also left “proven that, as the referee reflected in his minutes, there were racist shouts at Vinicius, a Real Madrid CF player, during the aforementioned match, altering the normal development of the same and considering the infractions very serious”.
“Victed the arbitration decision”
The Competition Committee is made up of three members: one appointed by LaLiga, another by the Higher Sports Council (CSD) and another by the Spanish Football Federation (FEF). The red card is removed from Vinicius because the resolution of the arbitration act “adopts on an altered and partial factual basis” and “incurs a manifest lack of validity to base a sanction on it.”
In this sense, the Competition Committee maintains the fact that Iglesias Villanueva, responsible for VAR at Mestalla, did not show the entire sequence to De Burgos Bengoetxea “defied the referee’s decision.”
🚨 Competition Committee
➡️ Closure of the Mario Kempes de Mestalla stands for five games.
➡️ 45,000 euros fine for Valencia CF.
ℹ️ https://t.co/LF1XOZhGrW pic.twitter.com/b9DK2DLrYM
– RFEF (@rfef) May 23, 2023
In this sense, the Competition Committee of the Spanish football federation has decided to “leave without disciplinary effects the expulsion of Mr. Vinicius José De Oliveira Do Nascimento& rdquor ;.
Related news
In addition, the disciplinary body maintains that “given the allegations and the videographic and graphic evidence provided by the Real Madrid Football Club regarding the expulsion imposed at minute 90 plus 5 of the match on the player D. Vinicius José De Oliveira Do Nascimento& rdquor; he has decided to remove the red one.
“Omission of the entire set”
These are the arguments that have supported the disciplinary measure: “This Committee considers it accredited that the referee’s assessment was determined by the omission of the entire event that occurred, which vitiated the arbitration decision. Indeed, the fact that he If a determining part of the facts were stolen, he was led to adopt an arbitrary decision, and this because it was impossible for him to adequately assess what happened, since in the necessary procedure for the adoption of such a decision, an essential step would have been omitted. so that it could have been legitimately and legally adopted”, the disciplinary body of the Federation indicated in its report.