With the result 2-0 in favor for Colorado maintained, the Cruz-Maltese team no longer has any chance to remain in the elite of Brazilian football in the 2021 season
The Supreme Court of Sports Justice announced on Thursday, 4, that it did not accept Vasco’s request to cancel the match against Internacional, valid for the 36th round of the Brazilian Championship and held in São Januário, in Rio de Janeiro. In this way, the 2-0 favor score for Colorado is maintained, and the cruz-maltino team sees the chance to remain in the elite of Brazilian football to end – Cruz-Maltino was relegated to the 2nd division after finishing the tournament in 17th place in the table.
The great controversy of the match between Vasco and Internacional happened at the origin of the first goal of the visiting team, scored by Rodrigo Dourado. At the time, the bid had a suspected impediment, but the VAR equipment failed and the possible infraction could not be verified with the imaginary lines. In the order made by Otávio Noronha, president of the STJD, the body rejects it, alleging that the request from Gigante da Colina lacks the condition required by the Brazilian Code of Sports Justice to configure the “error of law”, which would support the challenge of the match.
See the complete dispatch below>
The president of the Superior Sports Court of Football, Otávio Noronha, dismissed on Thursday afternoon, March 4, Vasco’s request to challenge the match against Internacional. In his order, Otávio Noronha dismissed the initial stating that the Rio club’s request lacks the condition required by the Brazilian Sports Justice Code (error of law) to receive the challenge. With the rejection the case will be closed.
Check below the dispatch of the president of the STJD do Futebol:
– Rationale –
“Paragraph III, of paragraph 2, of article 84 of the CBJD provides that the President of the competent Court must first reject the initial of the procedure for contesting the starting result, when there is no condition for his initiative.
“Art. 84 (…)
2º The initial petition will be outright rejected by the President of the competent Court when: (NR).
III – the condition required by the Code for the impugnation initiative is missing; ”
This is exactly what happens in the present case.
It should be noted that the Exordial piece as well as the manifestation subsequent to the presentation of the video files were very carefully elaborated, but the immense rhetorical effort exerted by their talented Subscribers was certainly not enough to hide the indefectible fact that the claim of the Claimant Club, at the end of the day, is to debate, in this narrow way, of linked reasoning, the existence of supposed errors of interpretation by the Refereeing Team, in the sense of questioning, whether or not the Player Rodrigo Dourado, from Internacional, in condition of impediment at the moment when, in the 9th minute of the first half of the match, he scored the first goal of Team Colorada.
It is enough to see the excerpt of the petition of pages. 65, where the CRVG, makes considerations about the occurrence an alleged impediment “to all evidence” of the athlete Rodrigo Dourado:
“At this point, it is important to note that the VAR images clearly and irrefutably confirm that Rodrigo Dourado was in an offside position at the time the foul was called. (…)
And it is not even said that the VAR was unable to define the position of the penultimate defender of the CRVG in the move, as the images show that the athlete Ricardo Graça was bent at the moment when the foul was taken and that, offside line, obviously, should have been checked from your shoulder. ”
It was already stated in the previous decision, that the historical and peaceful jurisprudence of this STJD is in the sense that only the error of law can serve to support the claim of Impugnation to the Result of the Match, and the principle of pro competitione informs that it is not this institute should be popularized, leaving the results obtained in the field in doubt, when there are no minimum grounds to support the claim.
This Presidency, fulfilling the task entrusted to it by the CBJD, has been extremely judicious in the admissibility judgment of this procedure of linked reasoning, and which cannot, in any way, be transformed into a kind of establishment of a “third time” of match.
And, with all the biases, in the present hypothesis, there is no indication, however small, to indicate a possible deliberate error on the part of the arbitration; on the other hand, it is impossible to suppose that the refereeing team is unaware of the rules of the game regarding the condition of impediment.
And if that is so, even if there were an error – which is not being asserted – it would certainly be in fact, and not in law, which certainly prevents the receipt of this Departure Contest procedure.
It should be noted that although the Claimant has skillfully tried to deflect all the obstacles established by the Jurisprudence of this STJD in order to receive a Challenge of Match Result, it is impossible to fail to notice his expectation that this Court will interfere in the verification of the condition of the Player Rodrigo Dourado when scoring the first goal of Internacional.
There is no doubt that behind all the grounds articulated by the Claimant, including those related to a sustained non-compliance with the VAR protocols, underlies his questioning about the condition or not of the athlete’s impediment that scored the first goal of Internacional in the match.
And even if this were not the case, the discussion elected by the Impugnant to somehow try to emulate some content of legal debate, also, in itself, proves unsustainable to accredit it to initiate with the Departure Impugnation procedure.
This is because, upon knowing, processing and judging the Process assessed under No. 118/2019, this STJD unanimously signed the understanding that any mistake in the interpretation of the so-called VAR protocol does not entail the annulment of departure.
In fact, this was the understanding applied by the Presidency of this STJD, when rejecting the initial of another Contest of Departure brought by CR Vasco da Gama himself against Grêmio F. Porto Alegrense, assessed under nº 200/2019.
Indeed, the decision contained the following:
“As a final argument, without intending to enter into the merits of the controversy, it is important to emphasize that the STJD do Futebol’s Full Court, by unanimous vote of its members, when judging the case listed under No. 118/2019, understood that any error of interpretation of the “VAR protocol”, as it is supported in the present measure, cannot cancel a game, either because these hypotheses do not constitute an error of law, but also because the Court understood that the VAR Protocol is a procedural rule, which has the nature of an “instruction booklet”. ”
The present decision does not bring any taste of novelty or surprise, being limited to reaffirming the understanding already established by this Sports Court of Justice, in addition, even to legal certainty.
All this said, INDEFIRO a Exordial, in the form of the tax provided for in item III, of paragraph 2 of art. 84 of the CBJD.
Res judicata, file, ”concluded the president.