Meaning, not stopping at the fixed number of penalty matches, this sentence forces the player who caused the consequences to "accompany" the recovery period of his colleague. The question is, is this a suggestion for football federations around the world to study this penalty model for serious fouls?
For many years, the penalty frame for tackles has remained limited: a few matches of suspension, a few weeks of banned play with fines. But for victims, the price to pay is sometimes months of treatment, training recovery, affecting performance and even their career. The mismatch between the short "conviction" time of the offender and the long days of pain of the victim certainly creates a feeling of injustice on the pitch.
Attaching the suspension period to the injury recovery process of the victim has great deterrent meaning. When the price of an impulsive moment or a rough tackle is a career gap equivalent to the victim, each player will have to be more careful in each foot swing decision. From there, the awareness of protecting legs of colleagues will have a basis to improve.
Of course, to institutionalize such a penalty is not simple, because it requires absolute transparency from the health sector to avoid the risk of abuse or prolonging virtual recovery time, as well as many other related issues.
However, researching such a compatible penalty mechanism may also be necessary. Football cannot only protect the match with time-sensitive red cards, but needs sanctions that are strong enough to protect the player's professional life. Looking at the decision of the Brazilian Court is not to mechanically imitate, but to find a more appropriate and fair balance of justice for those involved.
