The Appeal Committee of the RFEF dismissed the appeal by Real Madrid to try to reduce the penalty of five parties filed defender Sergio Ramos, after being sent off in the second leg of the second round of Copa del Rey.
Ramos was the second caution and the corresponding expulsion in the match against Celta Vigo, after which he went to the match referee calling him a "scoundrel" repeatedly. Thus, the Competition Committee punished him with a one-match ban for the expulsion and four more for the insults.
The Real Madrid appealed to the Appeals Committee, but has been rejected by the agency, arguing that the penalty is endorsed with previous examples produced this season, like Sergio García (Espanyol).
Furthermore, Appeal says, "is to recall" the Competition Judge has merely applied "on this occasion", the penalty provided for insulting referee "in the absolute minimum" of four games.
The committee also considered the appeal by the Athletic Club for the admonition that saw Mikel San Jose against Rayo Vallecano, by holding an opponent. The appeal was also rejected as "videographic proof that the action was interpreted as it is presented by the referee."
Ramos was the second caution and the corresponding expulsion in the match against Celta Vigo, after which he went to the match referee calling him a "scoundrel" repeatedly. Thus, the Competition Committee punished him with a one-match ban for the expulsion and four more for the insults.
The Real Madrid appealed to the Appeals Committee, but has been rejected by the agency, arguing that the penalty is endorsed with previous examples produced this season, like Sergio García (Espanyol).
Furthermore, Appeal says, "is to recall" the Competition Judge has merely applied "on this occasion", the penalty provided for insulting referee "in the absolute minimum" of four games.
The committee also considered the appeal by the Athletic Club for the admonition that saw Mikel San Jose against Rayo Vallecano, by holding an opponent. The appeal was also rejected as "videographic proof that the action was interpreted as it is presented by the referee."
No comments:
Post a Comment