«Antony has no desire to contact the Getafe player, but to get to the ball even if he doesn't manage it in the end»

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) has upheld the objections of Real Betis ' legal services to Alberola Rojas' report in order to nullify the direct red card that Antony received against Getafe. In its letter, the committee justifies this decision by pointing out that in the aforementioned action, the Brazilian wanted to play the ball and did not seek the infringement against Juan Iglesias in the 91st minute of the match. Thus, Antony will be able to play this Saturday against Real Madrid.

«After viewing the images, it can be seen how the player Mr. Antony Matheus Dos Santos does not stop looking at the ball that the opposing player is controlling, trying to intercept with his left foot the trajectory of the ball that the aforementioned opponent has just hit, without it being possible to infer in the impetuous action of the expelled player any intention of contacting the Getafe player, but rather of reaching to contact the ball, although in the end he does not succeed . Consequently, the allegations of Real Betis Balompié must be upheld and the expulsion of the player Mr. Antony Matheus Dos Santos must be left without disciplinary effects», states the Disciplinary Office in its resolution on this case, known on Wednesday morning.

In the rest of the document, the Disciplinary Committee points out that it has taken into account "the video and graphic evidence" provided by Betis, which alleged that "there is a manifest material error in the referee's report" since it maintains that "it turns out that the player did not commit the action that is reflected in the referee's report. For this reason, it requests that such expulsion be annulled," which has happened. The committee recalls that for there to be a manifest material error in the report, evidence must be provided that "unequivocally, beyond all reasonable doubt, proves either the nonexistence of the fact reflected in the report or its patent arbitrariness," as has happened.