The Competition Judge has dismissed the appeal presented this Thursday by the Gimnástica de Torrelavega, which had denounced a possible improper alignment of Real Zaragoza in their Copa del Rey match at El Malecón considering that the sixth change of the visitors, made the minute 110, it had been illegal. In this way, the Aragonese club, which won 0-2, surpasses the tie and tomorrow will be present in the draw for the next cup round.
La Gimnástica, as explained in the statement issued this afternoon, referred to the circular of the Royal Spanish Football Federation about the extraordinary provisions for COVID-19, which establishes that “Among the rules included is the possibility of putting up to nine substitutes on the bench to make up to five changes in three interruptions of the game, in addition to an additional substitution in case of overtime, before the start or at halftime of the same” .
Real Zaragoza, for its part, minutes before the Competition ruling, had issued a statement in which it defended the legality of the change: “Not only is it expressly reflected by the referee in the arbitration report, but the last change was directly authorized by the referee, who before starting the match held a meeting with the delegates of both teams to explain how the regulations are applied in regarding the sixth substitution. At the meeting, the content of a circular received by the referees was transmitted that refers precisely to a circumstance similar to that which occurred with Real Zaragoza in the Cup match, expressly authorizing the substitution. “
That circular to which the Aragonese club refers indicates, among other things, that “sIf there are substitutions and windows available because they have not been used in the normal duration of the game, they can be used at any time during overtime. ”Zaragoza had only used two of the three windows allowed and also in that sixth change they substituted a player with physical discomfort – Toro Fernández -, which is also included in another of the points of the document: “It could be the case of a team that makes the sixth substitution (before the start of extra time or during its break) without having made the fifth because a substitution is saved for emergency cases, for example, it has a good goalkeeper for the shoot-out. penalties “.
This is precisely what the Competition Judge understands to file the appeal: “The substitution made in minute 110 was the fifth of the allowed substitutions, which had not been used up to that moment”, reiterating that “the team claimed only substituted four players, 'saving' one for extra time “.
To this he adds: “In addition, all the substitutions are made without exceeding the windows or opportunities allowed by the regulations. There were two interruptions during the game (in minutes 67 and 75) in which three substitutions were made. Once the game was over , the substitutions number 4 (marked in the minutes as made in minute 90 because the system of minutes does not allow their inclusion in any other way) and 6 (the additional substitution allowed and that was included in the minutes in section 'Visitor incidents 5.- Others'). The fifth substitution, made in minute 110, was made in a third interruption, the last of the allowed ones. “