08/08/2025
Giuseppe SilvestriSALVIAMO IL SUBBUTEO
esdprStono0llh0fa4uifi5uh0265281h40936lcu19iig6g01h553i1hft4 ·
The dream of a third and independent justice
In the previous discussion there was a debate that, in my opinion, is worth deepening, not to go back to the topic, but to address once again a topic that has been talked about for 15 years and on which no director was able to intervene (or didn't want to): third party and competence of sports justice in the Federal sphere.
Let's sum up what happened. The Disciplinary Commission heavily sanctions the member of the Cesare Natoli (as and why he is secondary now). One of the three members of the Commission, after judging and troubling him, does not hesitate to intervene in a controversial social debate, explaining clearly that letters are on the part of the directors that the member Cesare Natoli had criticized and for which he contributed to severely sanctioning him.
Obviously the doubt comes spontaneous: did the judge manage to be third in his deliberation? Did he sanction because the card holder broke the rules or because he thinks differently from him? Does it make sense that who should make tertiary their mantra to line up openly in a controversy that is dividing the movement?
The episode brings to an atavic Fisct problem: the absence of a judgmental class with the following characteristics
1) Professional competence from a legal point of view (provisions aside, but their task is another)
2) Stranger to the clubs that are part of the Fed
In the past there were hundreds of penalties that made you scratch your nose and think about the consequences they unleashed on a club or a membership.
As the Fed is set up, currently the judging body is made up of members who are:
1) Club cards
2) Individual agonists
3) Players in teams
4) Often without legal competence
(I'm talking about organs in general, not current members)
Confidence in their decisions is not up for question, but it is obvious that the concept of third party is becoming non-existent. And if they had to judge a card with which they may have quarreled, as agonists, on a playing field? Should they decide whether or not to sanction a team against which they have previously lost a promotion for a ghost goal with controversial months? And the list could go on and on.
Will they be "free in mind and spirit"? Doubts remain and always will.
This is why in ANY association or federation that manages competitive disciplines, the roles of sports judges are always assigned to people outside the logic of agonism: they must not be registered with any of the sodalizi involved and above all they must have very clear and certified competencies on the legal front. Usually the gs are former retired magistrates, noted lawyers etc etc.
For over ten years I have led - with few allies, I have to be honest - the fight to "outsourced" sports justice within the Fed.
To my advice, judging and sanctioning must be really third persons, outside the association, with no connection with the clubs. And maybe they don’t even know the rules of Cdt or St.
From the refs point of view we are still not able (impossible) to have third whistles, but why not at least start with the gs?
Isn't it better to spend part of the thousands of euros that clubs pay annually to the Fed to ensure members a fair, competent and without any shadow sports justice service?
Is it so difficult to identify a retired magistrate or lawyer who, regulations (rewritten) at hand, deliberates penalties and disqualifications with competence and blatant third party?
Is that going to cost? Patience: don’t you think that money would have been better spent than the many questionable outings we have read about the 2025 budget?
Have a good discussion, everyone.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1529578730684671/
