Racing, now, is Second!: Competition sees no improper line-up at Bilbao Ath-Depor

Racing, now, is Second!: Competition sees no improper line-up at Bilbao Ath-Depor


The Competition Committee ruled this Thursday on Deportivo’s complaint to Bilbao Athletic for improper alignment in the match of day 31 played in Lezama (1-1). the basque set lined up Diarra and Artola as starters in that match, who had seen the fifth yellow before the match with the now defunct Extremadura. Athletic, as specified in its allegations, understood that they had already served a sanction in that undisputed match, something that Competition estimated. Deportivo have already announced that they will resort to the Appeals Committeefor which you will have a period of ten days.

As a consequence of this resolution, Competition considers the result of the match valid, which ended 1-1. In this way, Deportivo remains with 62 points in the classification, 13 of the leader, so Racing de Santander is now officially a Second Division team since although there are five games left, Cantabria and A Coruña still have the game against Extremadura pending (plus three for each). The Blue and Whites remain with only three points over the third, Racing de Ferrol. For Bilbao Athletic means keep the score which is 41, so your cushion with the decline is five points.

Bilbao Athletic Shield/Flag

Competition conclude in its ruling, based on article 59 of the Disciplinary Code, “dismiss the claim that, due to improper alignment, has been made by Real Club Deportivo de La Coruña SAD against Athletic Club “B”, by the line-up of the latter’s footballers, Juan Artola (number 22) and YoussoufDiarra (number 10), in the match played between both teams last day April 10, without any declaration of disciplinary responsibility”

See also  Real Madrid | Clamor for Jovic

In the reasoning of the sentence, the sole judge of Competition He agrees with Deportivo and the spirit of what he claims, but at the same time points out that it is a case of a strictly disciplinary nature and not a civil one. If the latter were the case, Depor would be right in its complaint, something that does not happen according to the Federation body: “In the opinion of this Competition Judge, this match should not compute or be valid to extinguish the liability incurred by a player subjected to suspension, because what the legislator has tried is that the punitive measure has an effective and real fulfillment because, in the case that concerns us, the two affected players are unable to play a match that they have already won, so here, the punitive function is totally diluted”.

Sports Shield/Flag

ANDhe sole judge continues his reasoning to reach the conclusion that reason is on the side of Bilbao Athletic given the vagueness of the rule: “However, the opinion expressed, favorable to the thesis of the complainant club, is not supported by the legal reality contained in the Disciplinary Code, to the extent that the aforementioned article 59 makes an express declaration that in the cases of non-appearance typified in article 77, in terms of the matches in which the opponents are declared winners, either by exclusion from the competition or by withdrawal from it, must be considered as played -for all purposes-, a generic declaration that certainly cannot exclude the disciplinary field. Very probably this was not the intention of the legislator, however, to elucidate the present controversy we must remember that we are in a sanctioning environment, governed by the informative principles of the same, and must be here what is established, in the first place, in Article 7 of the Disciplinary Code in which it is provided with respect to the responsibility derived from sports infractions, that the federative disciplinary bodies must abide by the informative principles of the sanctioning law”.

See also  Albiol: "There are no more teams above Liverpool's level"

With all this reasoning, the final summary of the single Competition judge is really contradictory: “The conclusion, therefore, cannot be other than to apply the most favorable rule for the offender, despite, I insist, what it should be in the opinion of this judge.”

[

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.