Cagliari v Roma, Folorunsho-Hermoso: why justice can’t step in | OneFootball

The incident during the Cagliari-Roma match sparked debate: the verbal clash between Folorunsho and Hermoso, clearly captured by cameras for over ten seconds, went viral and raised questions about possible disciplinary consequences.

Cagliari-Roma, Folorunsho-Hermoso case: why sports justice cannot intervene. What the Code really stipulates

Despite the severity of the insults, the Cagliari midfielder is at real risk of not being sanctioned due to the limitations set by the current Sports Justice Code.

What happened on the field

During a heated moment of the match, the two players—already tense due to the game's development—came into contact and exchanged harsh words. The referee, positioned at a distance, then intervened by showing a yellow card to both. If the referee's report indicates that he perceived what happened, the case would already be closed. Otherwise, the review would pass to the federal inspectors and, if necessary, to further investigation.

But, despite the availability of very clear images, a decisive obstacle remains: television evidence cannot be used for this type of conduct.

Why TV evidence cannot be applied

La Gazzetta dello Sport has reconstructed the legal reasons that prevent further sanctions. Everything revolves around article 61, paragraph 3, of the Sports Justice Code, which limits the use of TV evidence to the following cases not seen by the referee or VAR:

violent conduct

seriously unsportsmanlike behavior

use of blasphemous expressions

Verbal insults, even if harsh or derogatory, do not fall into these categories. The system directly punishes only blasphemy: for all other forms of verbal offense, the use of TV evidence is not allowed.

Moreover, it would be necessary to ascertain whether the VAR evaluated the incident. The regulation, in fact, allows intervention in case of potential expulsion for:

violent conduct

biting or spitting

acting in an offensive or insulting manner

This last point concerns insults, but there remains an interpretative issue: which expressions are considered sanctionable and attributable to the rule? The matter falls under article 28 of the Code, which defines the type of offenses punishable directly.

A regulatory gap that fuels controversy

The incident highlights a structural issue: the current regulation distinguishes between blasphemy—punished even through images—and other forms of insult, which may escape discipline if not caught by the referee.

This scenario creates an evident paradox: even very serious and fully documented insults risk having no disciplinary consequences.

The Folorunsho-Hermoso case thus becomes emblematic of a broader issue: the increasingly evident need to update a disciplinary system no longer adequate to the technological and communicative reality of modern football.

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