The expert explains Sao Paulo’s request regarding the match of the 25th round of the Brasileirão
THE Superior Court of Sports Justice (STJD) will judge, this Thursday 26th, from 10am, the contestation of the St. Paul about the referee Paul Caesar Zanovelliwho whistled the Team defeat 2-0 for Fluminense. The match, valid for the 25th day of the Brazilian ChampionshipIt was marked by the origin of the first goal of the Rio team, considered irregular by the Sao Paulo club (see above).
The case will be analyzed in plenary session, the last instance of the STJD. San Paolo requested the contestation of the match with an anonymous provision. In practice, it is an “indirect” way to ask for the annulment of the result and the rescheduling of the match. The direct request for opposition could only be presented two days after the insertion of the summary of the match in the CBF, which also happened before the VAR audios were released.
“From the agenda of the STJD plenary, it is clear that São Paulo did not present a contestation of the match, but rather an unnamed measure, aware that the deadline for contestation had already expired. The issue is that the unnamed measure, historically, serves to resolve problems that have no other measure provided for in the code itself, which is not the case with the contestation of the start”, explains the lawyer specialized in sports law and partner of CCLA Advogados, Márcio Andraus.
Fluminense x Sao Paulo: What Will Be Judged at STJD?
The complaint from San Paolo refers to the goal scored by Kauã Elias. In the action, Zanovelli took the lead after a foul by Calleri on Thiago Santos. Defender Thiago Silva held the ball and realized that the referee had marked the infringement. Having said that, he adjusted the ball with his hand and restarted the game, which ended with a goal.
Sao Paulo saw the lack of Thiago Silva in the game and even complained on the pitch. Zanovelli said he gave an advantage in the action, but contradicted himself when analyzing the VAR. “I wanted to give the advantage, the player (Thiago Silva) stop and take the free kick. I signalled a foul. Let’s move on. I gave the lead, I followed. It’s a fantastic goal, All rightIgor (Junio Benvenuto, VAR)?”, he concluded.
What does Sao Paulo have to do to overturn the defeat against Fluminense?
The club also points to the foul on Thiago Santos suffered by Calleri at the beginning of the action, contrary to what Zanovelli declared to the VAR. For San Paolo the goal should have been disallowed, since the game was not interrupted, causing a handball by Thiago Silva.
To this end, San Paolo is asking for the match to be cancelled and for the referees responsible for the alleged error to be punished or, at least, to be removed from the club’s matches and sent to a refresher course. San Paolo’s argument is also supported by the fact that the operation is not subject to interpretation and that different analyses can be carried out. This is the so-called error of fact, which differs from an error of law (when the rule is applied incorrectly).
In this sense, a poorly applied rule that harms the club by direct error can be a reason for canceling the match, as provided for in Article 259, paragraph 1 of the Brazilian Code of Sports Justice. It will also be possible to analyze the procedural rite. In other words, whether São Paulo could have appealed the unnamed provision, or whether it should have filed an objection within the terms and then collected the evidence.
“This is a groundbreaking and controversial case. It is very rare for us to see a reversal at the STJD. Arbitrators usually apply the correct rules, just with a different understanding of the facts. But in this case, we found the arbitrator to be confused,” Andraus says.
In practice, in addition to canceling the result, they are asking to reschedule the match according to the same procedures as the original match, with the exception of the referee team. Zanovelli’s request to be removed from the San Paolo matches could be accepted even if it is not canceled.
Thus, Sao Paulo understood that, from the moment Thiago Silva touched the ball with his hand (violating rule 12), a direct free kick should be awarded against Fluminense.
What punishment can be applied by the STJD to the referee of Fluminense x São Paulo?
The STJD Prosecutor’s Office also reported the referee for the infraction described in Article 259 of the CBJD. The complaint was filed after the instrument of São Paulo. Zanovelli may receive a suspension of 15 to 120 days and, in case of repeat offense, a suspension of 60 to 240 days, with or without a fine of R$ 100 to R$ 1,000.
It was also requested that the match refereeing body be summoned to provide personal testimony, in addition to a written statement from the CBF Refereeing Commission.
The Prosecutor’s Office stresses that “there is no way to deduce with certainty whether the signal made by the defendant was advantageous or, in fact, to charge the foul reported by the assistant referee”.
However, it is argued that the VAR audio indicates that Zanovelli said to give the advantage. This confirms that the game should have been stopped when Thiago Silva committed an offence by touching the ball with his hand, and the foul should have been called by the referee in favour of the Sao Paulo team.
Source: Terra
Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.
