Disciplinary Council throws out FC Porto complaint over Gonçalo Inácio | OneFootball

At the end of last week, the ruling of the Disciplinary Council (CD) of the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) was made public regarding the complaint filed by FC Porto against Gonçalo Inácio, following an incident with William Gomes in the second leg of the Portuguese Cup semi-finals. At the time, the Dragons felt that the play, which took place in the opening minutes of the match, warranted a red card and also endangered the player’s physical integrity. Even so, the CD decided to close the case, in a decision that has now been explained.

The ruling first sets out the complaint made by Porto, with the Invicta club stating that Inácio “assaulted the player during an attacking move in which William Gomes was clearly advancing with the ball under control towards the opposing goal.” “The movement dynamics of the Reported Party show a trajectory of the lower limb that is directed not at the ball, but at the opponent’s body, amounting to an action objectively incompatible with any regular and fair challenge,” the Dragons further argued.

Despite this, the CD maintains that, according to the reports of the members of the refereeing team, it was not “a clear and obvious error,” and therefore there were no grounds for “intervention.” “In view of the foregoing, it must be concluded that, when weighed against the expert and especially qualified opinions brought into the proceedings, there is no unanimous solution regarding the classification of the conduct of the Defendant Gonçalo Inácio, nor even an assessment that overcomes reasonable doubt as to the occurrence of the infringement set out in article 154(5) of the RDLPFP, or any other punishable by a red card and dismissal from the field of play. On the contrary, and taking into account the position adopted by the VAR and the AVAR after reviewing the footage again, the existence of an infringement of the Laws of the Game remains contested and doubtful or, at the very least, is not clear and obvious. In other words, translating the language of the Laws of the Game into legal discourse, the conviction of the members of the video refereeing team regarding the existence of an infringement punishable by a red card does not overcome reasonable doubt,” the FPF body explained.

Gonçalo Inácio left injured after this controversial incident with William Gomes near Sporting’s penalty area

Key to this decision were the statements of the members of the refereeing team in the clássico of the premier cup competition: referee Miguel Nogueira, his officiating team, as well as VAR João Malheiro Pinto and AVAR Pedro Felisberto, who were asked whether they had seen the incident in its entirety and whether they stood by the same position.

“No, which is why I did not signal any infringement on the field of play,” referee Miguel Nogueira said after reviewing the footage. “After analysing the images, it is clear that player no. 25/B, in a challenge for the ball, negligently kicked his opponent no. 7, preventing him from continuing in possession of the ball into the penalty area, thereby denying a Clear Goal-Scoring Opportunity. A direct free kick should have been awarded and a red card shown to the offender,” it is explained.

The VAR, however, believes he assessed the play correctly. “Yes, I stand by it; according to my interpretation, this was not a clear and obvious error warranting intervention by the video assistant referee. From the VAR perspective. […] I stand by it: from the VAR perspective this is not a clear and obvious error, so there are no grounds for intervention,” he said.

In light of this assessment, the CD concluded that “it is found that the members of the refereeing team on the field of play did not perceive the incident in question in its full extent, whereas the members of the video refereeing team expressly stated that they did perceive and assess it and, ex post, continue to maintain that there was no clear and obvious error justifying their intervention under the terms of the VAR Protocol.”

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