Sergio Ramos

WADA has established clear rules for the use of dexamethasone. Its administration is allowed prior to matches. But it is mandatory that such an administration be reported by the team doctor in the course of a doping test. Should the doctor neglect to do so and should traces of dexamethasone be found in an athlete's blood, it is considered as a suspected case of doping. The next, compulsory step is the initiation of a doping investigation.

Click to expand...

Wolfe said:

So it's a case of doping standing on the fact that someone didn't submit the right paper?

Click to expand...

FinBarcelonafan said:

Right before CL final you forget. Hmm. Good timing to forget.

Click to expand...

Wolfe said:

He's playing on BDO level almost through the entire season.

Won't be mentioned though will it?

Click to expand...

Morten said:

Wait, people in here said Ramos is suspended for Bilbao?
I cant find anything about it when searching, so i guess he is not?

Click to expand...

Messigician said:

The ice man

Click to expand...

"Recklessness" is not, in itself, a violation - it must be linked to an offense or violation, since "reckless" is simply a judgement of the "seriousness" of the violation. So, the referee must first decide if an infraction has occurred [which must fall under 1 of the following 7 criteria]:

• body check;
• jump on [a player];
• kick or try [to kick];
• push;
• hitting or trying [to hit] (head butts included);
• make [an entry/challenge] or contest the ball;
• trip or try [to trip]

Only if the referee decides that one of the previous offenses has occurred, the following section will be considered referring to carelessness, recklessness or excessive force, also necessary to sanction the direct or penalty kick.

Concluding and as a literal summary of IFAB's position in this regard:

• If there is accidental contact and it is not considered by the referee as one of the 7 listed offenses, recklessness or excessive force are NOT CONSIDERED or NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. ”
• "Recklessness" is not an offense: it must be linked to an offense, as it is a measure of the "seriousness / intensity" of the offense.
• The Spanish referees and this CTA cannot have been confused about a translation of a term that should not even be taken into account in case there is no first offense or fault.

In this sense, a stomp can only be evaluated under the heading of fouls for “making an entry or contesting the ball”, in English: “tackle or challenge”.

In both cases, the Laws of the Game are clear on page 198:
"Tackle-Tackle: Dispute with the foot for the ball (at ground level or in the air)."
"Disputa-Challenge: Action with which a player fights with an opponent for a close ball in order to take it away from them."

Therefore, in the specific case of a stomp, the dispute of the ball must be considered so that it can be considered a “Tackle / Challenge”, and therefore can be punishable.

In case of accidental stomping if it does not affect the opponent's immediate ability to play or dispute the ball, there is no offense, there is no infraction and the interpretation of recklessness or not is absolutely indifferent, on which it is stated that our group is supposedly confused.

Finally, if a stomp occurs without the dispute of the ball and it is not accidental but intentional, the referee must assess if there is violent conduct that requires a direct red card according to the rule 12 established on page 125.

All of the above is NOT AN OPINION or an interpretation of this by CTA, but the official position of the body in charge of preparing the Laws of the Game, IFAB, which is absolutely consistent, as it cannot be otherwise, with this Referees Committee and its arbitrators who have not made any translation errors.

Click to expand...

Wolfe said:

BTW
an official statement was made by RFEF's Arbitration Committee (CTA) member Carlos Velasco Carballo regarding Iturralde's allusion that Spanish referees are confused by the rules translated from English and that IFAB (International Football Association Board) deems the Raul Garcia incident to be a penalty - categorically refuting this is the case and doing so with support of IFAB officials:

Note this is translated from Spanish, anything in [] I've added


https://as.com/futbol/2020/07/07/primera/1594149585_437700.html


-------------------------


In other words, the referees in the VAR room deemed this accidental, for which there's very good supporting evidence, it's not been a dispute for the ball hence VAR couldn't be used if the act doesn't constitute violent conduct, which it obviously wasn't, thereby no foul.

Case closed.

Click to expand...

Wolfe said:

Because both players are in active pursuit of the ball?

It isn't intentional. Don't think anyone said it is?

Click to expand...