Real Madrid s appeal was rejected! Official of the Spanish Football Association: Heysen s red card penalty remains unchanged, and one game is suspended

The Spanish Football Association officially announced the disciplinary decision for the fourth round of La Liga. Real Madrid's appeal for Heisen's red card was rejected, and Heisen was suspended for one game.

In Real Madrid's match against Real Sociedad, Heysen was sent off with a red card in 32 minutes, and after the game Real Madrid appealed the red card. The Spanish Football Association stated in the announcement that Real Madrid believed that the referee's appeal for a major misjudgment was not valid, so it rejected Real Madrid's appeal to revoke Heysen's red card.

Swissach Football Association Announcement

In view of the complaint by Real Madrid Football Club on the red card penalty against player Heysen in the 32nd minute of the game, this Disciplinary Committee determined:

First: The appeal club pointed out in the document that there were obvious substantive errors in the referee's report and believed that the behavior of the player who was sent off did not undermine the obvious chance of scoring. Based on this appeal, the club requested the red card decision to be revoked.

Second: The standard that this Disciplinary Committee has always adhered to is: If you want to prove that there are obvious substantive errors in the referee report, you must provide conclusive evidence to clearly prove that the facts contained in the referee report do not exist or there are obviously arbitrary circumstances in a manner beyond reasonable doubt.

The standard is based on the following key points:

(i) Article 260 of the General Rules of the Royal Football Federation of Spain (RFEF) stipulates: "The referee is the only sports authority that cannot be appealed at the technical level of the game ". The same provisions provide that its obligations include: "Warning or expulsion of football players, coaches, auxiliary personnel and other applicable rules based on the severity of the foul" [Article 261, paragraph 2, e]; and "Faithly, concise, clear, objective and complete writing of the match report, and writing supplementary reports as needed, and submitting them to the relevant competent entities and institutions through the most urgent and fastest procedures" (Article 261, paragraph 2, e). Regarding the effectiveness of the evidence of the report, Article 27 of the RFEF Discipline Guidelines stipulates: "The report constitutes necessary written materials in the system of evidence for violations of sports rules" (paragraph 1). And add it: "In determining violations involving sports discipline, the referee's decision on the facts related to the competition is final and presumed to be true unless there is obvious substantive error" (paragraph 3). Therefore, the referee report enjoys a legal presumption of authenticity, which can be overturned by proving that there are obvious substantive errors.

(ii) Secondly, the jurisprudence of the RFEF Discipline Agency and the Sports Administrative Tribunal (TAD) supports the above conclusion. Multiple resolutions clearly require that the evidence must be conclusively prove that there are obvious mistakes in the referee. For example, TAD Judgment No. 302/2017 of September 29, 2017 states: "When Article 27 of the RFEF Code of Discipline clearly stipulates that the referee's decision on the facts of the competition is final and presumed to be true unless there is obvious substantive error, it is actually allowed to be amended through the special form of "obvious substantive errors" while maintaining the principle of immutability of the referee's decision (i.e. "finality") to ensure legal certainty. Just as the courts are in the procedural law The error must be clear or significant without relying on any viewpoint, assessment, interpretation or legal characterization. Finally, based on the above provisions, if the complainant wants to question the authenticity of the decision in the judgment report, it must provide the disciplinary body with sufficient and appropriate evidence to prove the existence of the claimed "obvious substantive error". In this regard, the TAD case repeatedly confirms the complete validity of the image evidence as an effective means of overturning the content of the referee's report. The Disciplinary Committee is obliged to review and evaluate the contents of the submitted videos to verify whether they match the complaint. In the end, only clear and significant obvious substantive evidence can break the presumption of authenticity of the referee report and thus cancel the disputed red card.

3: Based on the above considerations, this Discipline Committee found that this case does not meet any of the above circumstances, because the appeal club neither raises substantial disputes nor provides any evidence to prove that the fact that the player sent off to pull down his opponent with his hands from behind is not valid.

In addition, it is necessary to reiterate that as sports discipline agencies at all levels have repeatedly emphasized (including resolutions of the RFEF Appeals Board of Resolutions of February 22, 2022, September 29, 2024 and October 27, 2024) - the disciplinary body has no right to evaluate the application or interpretation of the Rules of Competition, which is in accordance with Article 118.3 of the RFEF Disciplinary Code "is unique, exclusive and ultimately a referee, and federal disciplinary bodies shall not accept relevant disputes ".

Therefore, the judgment on whether there is an "obvious goal opportunity" is a technical decision on the interpretation and application of the "Match Rules". This matter is the exclusive authority of the referee. Once the violation is established, the disciplinary agency shall not conduct review. In this regard, the Sports Administrative Tribunal clearly stated that the function of the disciplinary body "cannot be equated with the re-arbitration of sports events or tests" (TAD No. 101/2025 BIS and 66/2025 BIS).

In summary, the request to revoke the red card penalty for player Heysen was rejected, and a minimum suspension of one game was imposed on him in accordance with Article 121.1 of the RFEF Code of Discipline, and a corresponding fine was attached in accordance with Article 52.

Royal Football Federation

Announcement on the resolution of the Discipline Committee of September 17, 2025

source:7m vn1