No Mercy for Vinicius: Four-Match Ban Upheld

Vinicius Junior's four-match suspension remains in full effect after the Royal Spanish Football Federation's (RFEF) Appeals Committee completely rejected Real Madrid's appeal. The Brazilian forward was sanctioned by the Disciplinary Committee following his straight red card against Villarreal, where he pulled Nathan Saliba's hair, compounded by his subsequent heated outburst directed at the referee.

However, Los Blancos are not giving up the fight and will escalate the matter to a higher authority by appealing to Spain's Administrative Court of Sport (TAD).

Real Madrid's next four La Liga fixtures will see them take on Sevilla, Barcelona, Santander, and Valencia.

If the harsh sanction is upheld, Vini's return to domestic league action will be pushed back to late November, following the international break, when Madrid face Celta Vigo on November 22.

Real Madrid's Arguments and the Committee's Verdict
In their appeal, the capital club sought to overturn the two-match ban for the dismissal itself or reclassify the offense under Article 121.1 of the Disciplinary Code rather than Article 130.2, which would have reduced that sanction to a single game. Furthermore, the club requested the cancellation of the other two-match ban for dissent against referee Diaz de Mera, arguing there were no grounds to apply Article 127 and that the situation should have only resulted in a yellow card under Article 118.1.

The appeals panel, however, dismissed all of Madrid's claims. Regarding the red card, the committee concluded that no clear and obvious factual error was made by the match official. The two-match ban was upheld under Article 130.2 since the incident occurred away from the ball, with the body finding no justification to overturn the initial decision.

Addressing the player's conduct following the dismissal, the committee emphasized: "The fact that the referee was unable to decipher the exact words does not preclude him from perceiving the attitude, gestures, direction, and overall context of the behavior. The inability to literally transcribe the statements should not be confused with an inability to determine the essence of the footballer's actions." The request to apply the more lenient Article 118.1 was dismissed on the grounds that issuing such a caution falls entirely within the on-pitch referee's discretion.

Disciplinary framework of the case: Article 130.2 (Violence during play): Imposes a two-to-three-match ban when the action occurs away from play or while play is stopped, with no possibility of challenging for the ball. Article 121.1 (Direct dismissal): Mandates a minimum one-match suspension, except for more serious offenses, with incidents occurring off the ball carrying a minimum two-game ban. Article 127: Regulates punishments for contesting referee decisions and dissent toward match officials.

Under current regulations, directing protests at the main referee, assistant referees, or the fourth official—provided the action is not classified as a more severe offense—carries a suspension ranging between two and three matches or a period of up to one month.