Vinicius will not be able to play in the Clásicoas the Competition Committee has handed him a four-match suspension after seeing red in last Saturday's match against Villarreal. The Brazilian was sent off for pulling Nathan Saliba's hair in the move that would end with his goal, which was later disallowed for this reason. He will miss the matches against Sevilla, Barcelona, Racing and Valencia. He will not return until after the November international break.
The match official, Isidro Díaz de Mera, recorded in the match report both the reason for the red card and an additional incident with the player already sent off. It was the VAR who alerted the referee, who changed his mind after reviewing the play.
The report states the following: "2-match suspension for acting violently off the play, with no possibility of contesting the ball or with play stopped, with additional fine(s) pursuant to Article 5. And another suspension: 2-match suspension for protesting to the referee, head referee, assistant referee, or fourth official".
' The fact that the ball was not in play has worked against the Brazilian in the sanction; otherwise it could have been just one match, but in addition the referee states in the report "aggressive attitude" on the part of the Madrid player and stresses that he had to be restrained by his teammates.'
Vinicius later apologized to his teammates and the fans for having left his team with ten men through social media. The player will miss the match against Sevilla next Sunday at 9:00 p.m. and the one at Camp Nou the following Sunday, October 25, at the same time. The forward was not in the starting lineup in the last match against Villarreal after returning from international duty, and his place was taken by Diomande.
The full disciplinary ruling
DE OLIVEIRA DO NASCIMENTO, VINICIUS JOSÉ "VINI JR." (Real Madrid CF) 2-match suspension for acting violently off the ball, with no possibility of contesting the ball or with play stopped, with additional fine(s) applied pursuant to article 52 of the Disciplinary Code. (Article: 130.2)
DE OLIVEIRA DO NASCIMENTO, VINICIUS JOSÉ "VINI JR." (Real Madrid CF ) 2-match suspension for protesting to the referee, head referee, assistant referee or fourth official, with additional fine(s) pursuant to Article 52 CD.. (Article: 127)
First. - Real Madrid Club de Fútbol states in its submission that there is a manifest material error, alleging that the images provided prove that the player did not actually pull his opponent's hair, but rather that there was accidental contact of his hand with the hair and headband the opponent was wearing, during a tussle between both footballers. Likewise, it argues that the action occurred during an ongoing play and that the footballer had the possibility of challenging for the ball, as would be shown by his subsequent involvement in the move that ended in a goal. Finally, with regard to the conduct after the sending-off, the Club maintains that the player's protests cannot constitute an autonomous infringement or justify an aggravation of the sanction.
Second. - It is a repeated criterion of this Disciplinary Committee that the finding of a manifest material error in the referee’s report requires the submission of evidence which unequivocally, beyond any reasonable doubt, proves either the non-existence of the fact recorded in the report or its evident arbitrariness. This repeated criterion is based on the following points: (i) First, Article 155 of the Competition Regulations of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), which, in its first paragraph, establishes that “the referee is the sole and unappealable sporting authority, in technical matters, to officiate matches.” This same provision adds that among his obligations is that of “cautioning or sending off, depending on the seriousness of the offence, any footballer who displays incorrect conduct or behaves in an improper manner and likewise coaches, assistants and other persons affected under the regulations” (Article 156, paragraph 2, section e)); as well as that of “drawing up, faithfully, concisely, clearly, objectively and completely, the match report, as well as any supplementary reports he deems appropriate, sending both, with the utmost urgency and by the fastest procedure, to the competent entities and bodies” (Article 156, section b). Regarding the evidentiary value of these reports, Article 27 of the RFEF Disciplinary Code establishes that they “constitute necessary documentary evidence in the body of proof of infringements of sporting rules and regulations” (paragraph 1). And it adds that “in the assessment of infringements relating to sporting discipline, the referee’s decisions on facts related to play are final and presumed true, save for manifest material error” (paragraph 3). In this way, referees’ reports enjoy a rebuttable presumption of truthfulness, which may therefore be overturned when the existence of a manifest material error is proven. (ii) Second, the doctrine of the disciplinary bodies of this RFEF and of the Sports Administrative Court (TAD) supports the foregoing statements. All of them have clearly ruled in different decisions on the need for the evidence submitted to conclusively demonstrate the referee’s manifest error. In this regard, reference may be made to the TAD Decision of 29 September 2017 (Case 302/2017), which stated that “when the aforementioned Article 27 of the RFEF Disciplinary Code states that refereeing decisions on facts related to play are ‘final and presumed true, save for manifest material error,’ it is allowing the principle of immutability (‘final’) enjoyed by the refereeing decision in favor of legal certainty, in this case, of the Laws of the Game, nevertheless to be mitigated when there is a ‘manifest material error,’ as a modality or subspecies of ‘material error,’ that is, where there exists, as the Constitutional Court has indicated when referring to this term in procedural laws (See Articles 214.3 of the Civil Procedure Act and 267.3 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary), a clear or obvious error, independently of any opinion, assessment, interpretation or legal classification that may be made.” (iii) Lastly, from all of the above it follows that, in order to challenge the truthfulness of the decisions recorded in the referee’s report, the appellant must provide the disciplinary body with appropriate and sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of “a manifest material error.” In this regard, it is also settled doctrine of the TAD that declares the full validity of video evidence as a suitable evidentiary instrument to rebut the content of the referee’s report. For its part, it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Committee to review and assess the content of the recording in order to verify whether or not it corresponds to the appellant’s allegations. In short, only proof of a manifest material error would rebut the presumption of truthfulness enjoyed by the referee’s report and would make it possible to set aside the caution under appeal.
Third. None of these circumstances are present, in the opinion of this Disciplinary Committee, in the case before us, since the appealing Club does not provide any evidence whatsoever capable of disproving what is stated in the referee’s report.
On the contrary, the images are compatible with the referee's account, making the hair pull unequivocal, and the considerations regarding the position of the hand, the arrangement of the fingers, or the supposedly accidental nature of the contact do not allow a manifest material error to be established under the terms required by article 27.3 of the Disciplinary Code.
Moreover, the fact that the ball was in play, or that the footballer subsequently took part in the same attacking move, does not in itself determine that, at the specific moment when the sanctioned conduct occurred, he was in a position to challenge for the ball. The referee’s report expressly states that the hair pull occurred “without the ball being contested between them,” a circumstance which, assessed together with the images, makes it possible to conclude that the action took place outside of an effective challenge for the ball.
Consequently, this Committee considers the application of Article 130.2 of the Disciplinary Code to be appropriate, proceeding to impose the suspension of two matches, the minimum provided for in the aforementioned article.
Regarding the allegations made by the Club concerning the conduct following the sending-off, this Committee considers that the facts recorded in the “Other incidents” section of the referee’s report constitute autonomous conduct, separate and distinct from that which led to the sending-off. The footage shows that, once sent off, he protested the referee’s decision, moving toward the referee in an aggressive manner and having to be restrained by his teammates.
Based on this, it is appropriate to impose a sanction of a two-match suspension, in application of article 127 of the Disciplinary Code, the minimum provided for in the aforementioned article.
By virtue of the foregoing, this Disciplinary Committee resolves:
To impose on Vinicius José de Oliveira do Nascimento the sanction of a two-match suspension pursuant to Article 130.2 of the Code
RFEF Disciplinary Committee, with the corresponding accessory fines
To impose on Vinicius José de Oliveira do Nascimento the sanction of a two-match suspension pursuant to article 127 of the Code
Disciplinary of the RFEF, with the corresponding accessory fines.