The RFEF's disciplinary committee announcement stated that Real Madrid had appealed Vinicius' red card, arguing that he did not pull an opponent's hair but rather had accidental contact with his hair and headband. However, the RFEF rejected the appeal.
Spanish Football Federation announcement (key content highlighted in red)
Considering Real Madrid Club de Fútbol's appeal regarding the red card decision against player Vinicius in the 73rd minute of the match, this Disciplinary Committee believes:
First, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol stated in its written appeal that there was a clear factual error in the referee's report, and argued that the submitted video evidence proved that the player did not pull the opponent's hair, but rather, during a struggle between both players, his hand accidentally came into contact with the opponent's hair and headband. Additionally, the club argued that this action occurred during an ongoing attack, and the player had an opportunity to contest the ball at that time, as evidenced by his subsequent involvement in the goal-scoring sequence that followed. Finally, regarding the conduct after being sent off, the club believes that the player's protest cannot constitute an independent violation nor serve as a basis for aggravated punishment.
Second, this Disciplinary Committee consistently holds that to establish a clear factual error in the referee's report, unequivocal evidence must be submitted, excluding all reasonable doubt, to prove that the facts recorded in the report do not exist or that the record is clearly arbitrary.
This consistent standard is based on the following points:
(1) Firstly, Article 155, paragraph 1, of the Regulations of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) states: "The referee is the sole and ultimate technical and sporting authority responsible for enforcing the laws of the game." The same regulations also state that the referee's duties include: "To caution or send off all players, as well as coaches, assistants, and other persons subject to the regulations, whom he observes acting improperly or exhibiting inappropriate conduct, depending on the severity of the offense" (Article 156, paragraph 2, e); and "To accurately, concisely, clearly, objectively, and completely write the match report, and, if applicable, supplementary reports, and submit them as quickly as possible through the appropriate procedure to the competent entities and bodies" (Article 156, b).
Regarding the evidentiary value of the aforementioned report, Article 27 of the RFEF Disciplinary Code states that the referee's report "is necessary written evidence in the evidentiary system required to prove violations of the laws of the game and sporting conduct" (paragraph 1). The article also states: "In determining violations related to sporting discipline, the referee's decisions on facts related to the match have final effect and are presumed to be true, except in the case of clear factual error" (paragraph 3).
Therefore, the referee's report enjoys a rebuttable presumption of truth; this presumption can be overturned once a clear factual error is proven.
(2) Secondly, relevant rulings by RFEF disciplinary bodies and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAD) also support the above conclusion. These bodies have consistently ruled in different decisions that the evidence submitted must conclusively demonstrate a clear error by the referee.
In this regard, the ruling issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on September 29, 2017 (file number 302/2017) can be cited. This ruling states that when Article 27 of the RFEF Disciplinary Code stipulates that the referee's decisions on facts related to the match "have final effect and are presumed to be true, except in the case of clear factual error," it means that, for the sake of legal certainty and especially the stability of the Laws of the Game, the principle of irrevocability ("final effect") enjoyed by the referee's decision can be moderately limited in the presence of a "clear factual error."
A "clear factual error" is a specific instance of "factual error"; as the Constitutional Court explained when interpreting this term in procedural law (see Article 214.3 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 267.3 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary), it must be a clear, obvious error that does not depend on any possible opinion, evaluation, interpretation, or legal qualification.
(3) Finally, from the above, it follows that if the authenticity of a decision recorded in the referee's report is to be challenged, the appellant must provide the disciplinary body with appropriate and sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a "clear factual error."
In this regard, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has also consistently recognized that video evidence can serve as an effective means of proof to overturn the content of the referee's report. At the same time, the Disciplinary Committee is obligated to view and evaluate the relevant video footage to verify whether its content aligns with the appellant's claims.
In summary, only by proving a clear factual error can the presumption of truth enjoyed by the referee's report be broken, and the appealed red card decision be invalidated.
Third, this Disciplinary Committee believes that none of the above circumstances exist in this case, because the appealing club did not submit any evidence capable of overturning the facts contained in the referee's report.
On the contrary, the video footage is consistent with the referee's description, and it clearly shows the action of pulling hair. Considerations related to hand position, finger posture, and the alleged accidental nature of the contact are not sufficient to prove a clear factual error according to the standard required by Article 27.3 of the Disciplinary Code.
Furthermore, the ball being in play at the time, or the player subsequently participating in the same attack, does not independently prove that the player had an opportunity to contest the ball at the specific moment the penalized action occurred. The referee's report clearly states that when the hair-pulling occurred, "neither side was contesting the ball." A comprehensive assessment, combining this with the video footage, leads to the conclusion that the action occurred in a situation where the ball was not being actively contested.
Therefore, this Committee deems it appropriate to apply Article 130.2 of the Disciplinary Code, and accordingly imposes a two-match suspension, which is the minimum penalty prescribed by the said article.
Regarding the club's appeal concerning the player's conduct after being sent off, this Committee believes that the facts recorded in the "Other Incidents" section of the referee's report constitute a separate and distinct act, independent of the actions that led to his sending off. Video evidence confirms that the player protested the referee's decision after being sent off and approached the referee in an aggressive manner, ultimately having to be restrained by his teammates.
Based on the above circumstances, a two-match suspension should be imposed in accordance with Article 127 of the Disciplinary Code, which is the minimum penalty prescribed by the said article.
For the above reasons, this Disciplinary Committee decides:
- To impose a two-match suspension on Vinicius in accordance with Article 130.2 of the RFEF Disciplinary Code, along with the corresponding additional fine.
- To impose a two-match suspension on Vinicius in accordance with Article 127 of the RFEF Disciplinary Code, along with the corresponding additional fine.
AF's PC site is now live! Browse full news, comments, match details and stats on your computer. Visit: www.allfootballapp.com