Tribunal overturns William Gomes’ two-match ban | OneFootball

The Central Administrative Court South granted an injunction that annulled the two-match suspension imposed by the Disciplinary Council (CD) of the Portuguese Football Federation on William Gomes, following a challenge to the face of center-back David Sousa, from Casa Pia. The decision stems from the arguments presented by the defense, made public this Monday, which convinced the court that the sanction presented legal inconsistencies, supporting the appeal filed by the Porto side with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The dispute focused on the classification of the midfielder’s conduct: the disciplinary decision had initially recognized that the action of William Gomes was merely negligent and not intentional. The defense argued that Article 154 of the Disciplinary Regulation of the League (RDLPFP), used to sanction so-called “violent play,” only provides for punishment when there is intent—that is, intention to harm the opponent—and not when the conduct is merely negligent.

The Court accepted this reasoning: “From the content of the judgment, there is no qualification of the Applicant’s conduct as intentional, even as a possibility, but explicitly as negligent. Now, Article 154 of the RDLPFP does not expressly provide for its application in cases of merely negligent conduct, unlike what happens with other rules of the regulation.” Based on the principles of legality and typification, the defense argued that, in the absence of intent and express provision for negligence, the sanction lacked legal grounds and was therefore null and void.

The Court upheld the legal argument and suspended the penalty, concluding that there was no legal basis to punish the player solely for negligence. Nevertheless, it rejected the defense’s attempt to justify or mitigate the behavior on the field:

The court emphasized that the claim of having kept his eyes on the ball does not exclude negligence; rather, it demonstrates insufficient care was taken.

The defense also presented a subsidiary argument, requesting a reduction of the penalty—two matches—since, according to the CD itself, it was a case of negligence and not a deliberate act. They also claimed urgency in the decision, arguing that immediate enforcement of the suspension would prevent William Gomes from playing against Nacional da Madeira and would cause him irreparable sporting and professional harm, affecting his value and reputation.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇵🇹 here.