The Disciplinary Board of the Portuguese Football Federation has punished Nuno Miguel Pereira Vicente, a physiotherapist at FC Porto, with a month’s suspension and a fine of 357 euros for the events that took place in the Benfica match with Porto B, on May 22, 2021, in Campus do Seixal, counting in Liga 2, any alleged assault against Nélson Veríssimo, coach of the red team B, an act that was then denounced by Benfica TV (which was broadcasting the match) using images.
BOLA had access to the ruling of the FPF CD, whose arguments in favor of the decision to attempt aggression and non-aggression were at least debatable and controversial.
Soon in the summary can be read.
“I. All sports agents performing functions within the scope of competitions organized by the LPFP must maintain behavior in accordance with sports principles in order to ensure the proper performance of professional competitions, and to avoid phenomena of sports violence.
Secondly. It is not any push or kick that could constitute aggression for the purposes of the unlawful type of aggression. Only those who objectively pose a more serious injury are likely to endanger the physical integrity and/or health of others. Subjectively, it is necessary to have an intent, that is, knowledge and intent to strike a third party intensively and that of course it is not covered by any grounds for excluding unlawfulness (for example, with animus defenseendi). »
Then the “proven facts” are described and corroborated by TV images by text
«5.º After the end of the match, Rodrigo Conceicao, player of FC Porto Sade B, wears the jersey of the refereeing number in the referee’s report on pages 31 et seq.
Sixth on that occasion, participant Nuno Miguel Pereira Vicente ran towards Nelson Verissimo, and in the same direction jumped with his right knee, aiming to reach Nelson Verissimo, whom he managed to collide with, according to images captured and broadcast by Benfica TV (both post seals and those found). on pages 59 – from about 1:44:40 a.m.). »
Then there are the “unconfirmed facts”, which are “that coach Nelson Verissimo designed”.
Further, in “Motivation for Realistic Thinking”:
«18. The conviction of the judge, now the Portuguese Football Federation’s Disciplinary Board, was based on the body of evidence presented to the case – which was the subject of critical analysis in light of common rules of trial and in accordance with the provisions of normality and reasonableness – i.e. the fls CD/DVD. 18 contains recordings of images and sounds relating to the defendant’s behavior and is the subject of the current case records presented during the presentation of disciplinary hearing evidence.
It also relied on the defendant’s statements in the aforementioned disciplinary act, which were proven to be contradictory.
Let’s see: The defendant claims that he got close to try to get the players involved in the confusion and that he jumped in an effort to keep people away and calm the mood. He supposedly touched coach Nelson Verissimo with his hands and made one without intent. Justifying that if he had intended to attack the coach he would have done much worse. “I jumped in in an effort to isolate the parties involved and not offend people’s honor and physical integrity,” she says. He also claims, at the behest of his brilliant defender, that he had no idea that the one who hit him was the head coach. But at the request of the site here, it states that its purpose was to separate FCP player Francisco Conceição (who was not involved in the confusion) from coach Nelson Verissimo.
He also states that at the time he was not aware of what had happened and that he had apologized to the master in the tunnel. Emphasizing that there is a touch of yes, as was the case for the player Francisco Conceicao, with no intention of attacking.
It is unlikely from the outset that the defendant did not know who the coach was and could not identify him. In addition to completely different outfits, he ended up admitting that his goal was to keep the player away from the coach.
On the other hand, it is not reasonable, nor according to the rules of experience, that as a result of confusion, with the hot spirits of the players, the defendant would make a leap to appease, especially when the persons, who allegedly attempted to separate, found themselves facing the defendant.
The photographs were coupled with the defendant’s statements, the Disciplinary Board formed his conviction that the defendant had intended to attack coach Nelson Verissimo, and it was unsuccessful. Well, he feels the defendant’s touch, and turns around to recognize the culprit, but without any significant harm to his physical integrity. The failure to carry out the aggression occurs because the defendant hits the player Francisco Conceicao first, which prevents him from striking the coach directly and immediately.”
There are, then, several relevant points in the decision logic:
«29. Verification of the concept of “aggression”, from an objective point of view, is central to the wrongful act involved, that is, whether it is compatible or has been proven to be filled with the accused and confirmed “payments” (and only such) . Since “aggression” is behavior harmful to the physical integrity or health of third parties, it may also be a motive. It is not limited to any impulse that may constitute aggression for purposes of the unlawful type in dispute. Only those who objectively constitute a more severe injury are likely to endanger the physical integrity and/or health of another person (and that this third party has the quality required by regulatory principles). Subjectively, it is necessary that there be malice, that is, knowledge and intent to gain access to the third party extensively and that of course it is not covered by any reason to exclude illegality (for example, with animus defensendi).
33. The defendant was not able to obtain the result because despite the engagement with the coach, there was no actual damage to the legal good, physical safety, but only its danger.
34. We consider that although he shocked the coach and the latter felt the touch, he does not have sufficient disciplinary dignity to consider that there was an effective injury to his physical integrity.
34. So we are facing the legal system to try.
37. In light of what I said above, when establishing factual evidence, the defendant’s hypothesis that he did not intend to harm anyone was not accepted. The Disciplinary Board was satisfied that the defendant had intended to hit the coach and not for any conciliatory purpose as stated. Because, as it is repeated, those who advance with the aim of appeasement do not jump and show themselves on someone else’s back.
39. Everyone concludes that the defendant’s behavior proves the practice of a disciplinary offense which is an attempt to aggression and not carried out as attributed to him in the indictment. Assuming their typical and even unlawful behavior in the form of danger and also in view of the lack of verification of the reason for said justification or any other reason.”
“Writer. Communicator. Award-winning food junkie. Internet ninja. Incurable bacon fanatic.”