BOLA – Lions criticize “hot silence” from FPF-CD to FC Porto-Sporting (Sporting) events.

Miguel Braga criticizes the Disciplinary Board of the Portuguese Football Association and its “rising silence” regarding FC Porto-Sporting on 11 February “and against leonine players for the aggression of foreign elements in FC Porto-Sporting’s end-of-game magazine. Sporting”. .

In an editorial in the club’s newspaper this Thursday, Sporting’s communications director recalled several press releases about the game to talk about “76 days of silence.

Here’s the editorial:

“Nearly May and the Disciplinary Board of the Portuguese Football Association will keep an eye on the silent aggression against Leo-like players who have been the guest element of the game at the end of FC Porto-Sporting CP, which was played on 11 February.

To my recollection at the time, according to the observer, “at the end of the game, the Estádio do Dragão had a film that had not been seen for a long time” and that those present saw “the worst thing football can own”. Further to the events, “several security guards and assistants also took part in the confusion. One threw water at Matheus Reis; another has even attacked the Brazilian dos Leãos. It can also be seen that there were twice-guard guards who also prevented fans from entering the field.

It was possible for A Bola to “visualize a person in a red vest pushing Gonçalo Inácio in a frightening way, followed by new pushes, this time with Matheus Reis. It is worth remembering that the Brazilian defender was also attacked by two other non-game elements behind the billboard in blue. Record confirmed version: “One, two, three: The pictures show that Matheus Reis has been attacked three times at the end of FC Porto-Sporting CP”.

Days after the infamous game, Rádio Renascença reported on the referee’s report, noting that João Pinheiro says that “at the end of the game, three elements wearing a blue vest hit the player (…) with the same player hitting his back.” More. That “element wearing a blue vest, which was behind the electronic scoreboards next to the north goal, threw a bench on the playing field.”

Images, videos and descriptions are all available with one click. Furthermore, the veracity of the referee’s report assumes that those who should punish criminals in our football seem to have forgotten.

It was interesting to understand that the FPF also declares a duality of criteria. As far as the Sports Arbitration Court (TAD) website was able to search, from 2020 to the present, Pepe has been the only player to request an injunction and not opposed by the FPF – the FPF had a different view of Lucas Piazón (2021) and Luís Neton (2020 ) cases, only two examples.

It would therefore be useful to know why the FPF understood not to oppose Pepe’s request, which was not the case with Neto or Piazón. In this Danteski case, it would also be good if the FPF could explain why its Disciplinary Board considered that Pepe and Luís Gonçalves should be detained as a precaution, but when they ask for non-compliance with the penalty imposed, the FPF has no objection to accepting that they will be present in the next game. Doubts may be resolved one day. Perhaps.”

Leave a Comment