Maurício is the only one reported by the STJD with a code used 49 times

Maurício was reported under article 254 of the Brazilian Code of Sports Justice (CBJD), which deals with violent play and provides for suspension of one to six games. The complaint was based on code A1.11 of the summary, which describes the infraction as "hitting an opponent in a reckless manner while fighting for the ball".

The report analyzed a survey carried out by Palmeiras of the summaries of the 205 Brazilian Championship games played until last Thursday (30), and the occurrence "A1.11" appeared 49 times and involved 46 different players. In 48 of these cases, the referee only punished the infraction with a yellow card.

Among the 46 players warned with a yellow card for "recklessly striking an opponent while fighting for the ball", Maurício is the only one to be reported in this edition of the Brasileirão.

Contacted by the reporter three times throughout the day, the STJD did not respond as to why Maurício was the only one reported among the 46 players who received a yellow card for "hitting an opponent in a reckless manner while fighting for the ball". Maurício's hearing will take place this Tuesday (4), starting at 10 am (Brasília time).

THE REPERCUSSION ON PALMEIRAS

Palmeiras management is uncomfortable with the entity after controversial decisions this year. Abel Ferreira received an unprecedented seven-game suspension in April. Paulinho was initially cleared, but then the full STJD suspended the attacker for his celebration against Flamengo. Striker Allan was suspended two games for his expulsion against Chapecoense.

The club issued an official note criticizing the STJD after the complaint against Maurício and stated that the decision represents an affront to the institution and authority of Brazilian arbitration.

Maurício was asked about the topic after the victory against Fortaleza and said he was sad about the repercussions of the move.

"The move was completely unintentional, you can see from my history that I'm not a malicious player, with the desire to hurt the opponent. I'm very calm and I know my nature, my values. We receive this in a very strange way, but I can't go into much detail about the subject, because we are always subject to more punishments. I'm sad, we see several moves that are similar, some have cards, others don't, but they are not reported. We are defending so that there is no risk at all", said Maurício.

EXPERTS DIFFER ON THE COMPLAINT

The report sought out two lawyers specializing in Sports Law, who disagree on the case.

In the view of Felipe Crisafulli, a lawyer specializing in Sports Law, the fact that Maurício is the only one accused has no relation to the repercussion of the case.

"Of course, the repercussion draws attention to the episode, but, as a rule, every move that constitutes or could constitute a disciplinary infraction - that is, a violation of any provision of the CBJD -, especially when it appears in the match summary, is analyzed by the Attorney's Office. The athletes, therefore, are subject to punishment by the Sports Court. The absence of complaints in other cases in which the code used by the referee in the summary was "A1.11" perhaps concerns the referee of Vitória x Palmeiras -that is, to a possible incorrectness in the interpretation of the bid- than to the actions of the Prosecutor's Office", he said.

"In other words, it may be that the athlete's conduct should have been recorded on the scoresheet under another code, related to a more serious infraction. From this perspective, perhaps the card applied should also have been different, with direct expulsion, and not yellow," he added.

As for Kiara Schiavetto, the STJD needs to show an objective justification to differentiate Maurício's case from the others.

"Selectivity, in itself, does not allow us to state that there was persecution, but it can generate a perception of unequal treatment, especially if there is no objective justification to differentiate the case from others", he began.

"It is also possible that factors such as the seriousness of the move, the images available or the repercussion of the move may have influenced the Prosecutor's Office's decision. If the complaint is based on concrete elements that distinguish this episode from others, it may be legally justifiable. Otherwise, the lack of equality in action may be subject to criticism", he concluded.