FPF opens proceedings over Durán’s dismissal without immediate suspension

At the final whistle at Estádio de São Miguel in the Azores, Benfica players and staff were caught in a pitch-side confrontation after their 2-1 win over Santa Clara on 26 October. Referee Cláudio Pereira showed five red cards: to Benfica’s Jhon Durán and general director Mário Branco, Santa Clara’s Fernando, and assistant coaches Tiago Pinto and Gonçalo Santos. Durán was sent off after the match, but the card still threatened to rule him out of Benfica’s next fixture, against Gil Vicente.

On 29 October, the FPF Disciplinary Council opened proceedings over Durán’s dismissal instead of imposing an immediate suspension. That distinction settled the urgent question for Benfica: he was eligible to face Gil Vicente while the case continued. But the decision did not overturn his red card or accept the club’s challenge. Benfica’s complaint now sits within a fact-finding process, and Durán’s conduct remains under review.

Benfica had challenged Durán’s dismissal, disputing the referee’s account.

For Benfica, the practical effect was immediate: Jhon Durán was not just named in the squad for Gil Vicente, but started the match. He scored the fourth goal in the 81st minute as Benfica won 4-1, turning his availability into a direct part of the result. The Council’s decision had arrived on the day of the fixture, while the inquiry was still under way.

The case also covers Santa Clara’s Fernando, who was sent off in the same post-match confrontation. He, too, could be considered for his club’s next match, away to Marítimo, before the Council reaches its decision. The ruling therefore affected both clubs’ immediate choices, not only Benfica’s selection for a match played hours later.

That distinction matters: a player’s absence was not automatic while the proceedings continued, but neither had either player been cleared.

Referee Cláudio Pereira’s report classified Durán’s conduct as offensive, insulting or coarse language or gestures, and said officials could not make out the words he directed at them. The description leaves the words themselves unknown, while setting out the refereeing team’s view of their effect.

Pereira’s account also places the exchange in a sequence: it says Santa Clara’s Fernando provoked Durán, then describes Durán’s words as imperceptible but as helping the wider confrontation spread. That is the reasoning Benfica challenged, rather than a record of any specific phrase or gesture by Durán. The club’s response focused on the gap between the officials’ inability to hear the words and the report’s conclusion about what they caused.

How can the referee attribute that effect to words he says he did not understand? And how can he support that account when the images show no aggression or provocative gesture by Benfica’s player?

The distinction matters because the report describes an alleged contribution to the disorder, not words that can be weighed individually. It also records Fernando as the person who provoked Durán, giving the exchange a direction that Benfica disputes. The record, as described in the press, therefore sets out the officials’ interpretation without establishing the precise words spoken or resolving the club’s objection.

Opening proceedings gives the FPF Disciplinary Council room to gather evidence before deciding what happened. It can hear from those involved and may call Cláudio Pereira to explain how he reached the conclusions in his report, Luciano Gonçalves, president of the FPF Refereeing Council, told RTP Notícias.

That hearing would let the disciplinary body ask the referee to clarify his account directly, rather than rely only on the written report. It can also consider what the other people involved say.

The next step is for the Council to test the accounts it receives, including Pereira’s explanation if it calls him, before deciding whether the dismissal carries a further disciplinary consequence.

The Council opened proceedings against Durán and Fernando without suspending either player, ordered further inquiries and was expected to decide within 15 days. Luciano Gonçalves, president of the FPF Refereeing Council, defended the officials’ judgment while conceding that the report could have been clearer.

Gonçalves told CNN Portugal that Pereira was some distance away and could not make out Durán’s words, but believed his actions had provoked the anger that led to the confrontation. He said the referee had meant to condemn that conduct, not to claim he had heard the words themselves.

In my view, it could have been explained better. It would have had the same outcome, because even if that action could have earned one of the players a yellow card, the Benfica player would still have been sent off because he already had a yellow. The refereeing team was some distance away and wanted to condemn that conduct, but the way it was written was certainly not clear enough for everyone to understand.

His explanation accepts a weakness in how the report expressed the case, while maintaining that the officials judged Durán’s conduct to have fuelled the disorder. The written account and the refereeing council’s defence now sit alongside the club’s objections for the disciplinary body to assess.

The timing matters beyond Benfica because fixtures can leave little time to plan around a disciplinary decision. Marco Silva said coaches need to know quickly which players are available when matches are close together.

When games are scheduled in midweek, it was important to have a quick decision so we knew what to expect.

For Luís Pinto, the question was whether Gil Vicente would receive the same treatment. After Durán was allowed to play while the inquiry continued, the Gil Vicente coach asked whether his own player Espigares would be allowed to feature against Vitória after a dismissal. His concern was not simply the late notice, but whether the same approach would apply to another club.

I just want to see whether I’ll have Espi next week to play against Vitória [Guimarães]. Do I believe it? Of course I don’t believe it at all.

Its decision on a possible sanction is expected within 15 days of the proceedings opening on 29 October. The question now is whether the inquiry changes the account set out in the report, or confirms that the forward should face a penalty.

For Benfica, the next important moment will not be another selection announcement but the Council’s ruling. For Durán, the red card at the end of the Santa Clara match remains the start of a case, not its conclusion.

• Whether the ruling imposes a disciplinary penalty on Durán.