The case related to the Serie B match between Cittadella and Pisa on August 27th continues to be discussedwhich ended with a score of 1-1. As is now known, initially, the result was not approved following an appeal by the Tuscan team, advanced for an error in the match sheet, where a member of Cittadella, Jacopo Desogus, who later entered the field, did not appear. A confirmed oversight that was also confirmed by the coach of the Veneto Edoardo Gorini (“It was naivety, a mistake”), but which only cost the Granata club a heavy fine.
A decision that did not go down well with Pisa, who presented a further appeal against the decision of the Sports Judge.
How will it all end now? To take stock of the situation, on the microphones of pianetaserieb.ittheLawyer expert in sports law Matteo Sperduti: “The Sports Judge, following Pisa’s appeal, analyzing the regularity of the match and the relative approval, also recalling a principle of law established by the Sports Guarantee Board at CONI, decided to apply a simple fine to the Granata club rather than the game lost by default. This is because, according to the judge, the Sports Justice Code, for the case in question does not provide for this type of case among the specific ones for which the most severe sanction can be applied, such as that of a defeat by default. In fact, in the provision issued it was clarified that, in the absence of a specific regulatory provision that sanctions with the loss of the match the irregular position of a member because he is not indicated in the roster, it is not possible to adopt a sanction for a conduct not specifically referred to by the regulation nor can one resort to the institute of “analogy” or the application of the sanction for similar cases. Therefore, the Sports Judge made a very simple reasoning: the legislation does not consider, at present, that the failure to indicate a player in the team sheet is to be considered an irregular position and therefore the sanction of forfeiture does not apply. [..] This, obviously, could create a precedent, which in my opinion cannot be classified as “dangerous”, but it must be defined in a uniform manner how companies can behave in cases such as the one under examination and it must be the sports legislator who resolves this doubt, rather than the sports judge.
Certainly, Pisa’s appeal can change the cards on the table and the legal result can be reversed. This is because, let us remember that the decisions taken by the sports justice bodies for a similar case, that of the Roma footballer Diawara, were of a different opinion, for which it was explicitly stated that such a case, the participation of a footballer not included in the list, cannot lead to the application of a “graded” sanction but must lead to the application exclusively of the loss of the match as a direct effect. Therefore, taking into account the appeal presented by the Pisa company, we will see in the continuation of the trial whether the provision will be overturned or confirmed by the appeal judging body”.