Ayman El Shorbagy, president of Eastern Company ENPPI, has criticized the punishment imposed on team coach Mohamed Barakat following an incident involving his objection to a refereeing decision, arguing that describing the incident as “misconduct” was excessive and did not reflect what happened on the pitch. ⚽
El Shorbagy explained that objections to refereeing decisions can occur during matches, stressing the importance of distinguishing between normal emotional reactions during competition and actions that genuinely warrant severe disciplinary sanctions.
🔥 Ayman El Shorbagy Questions the Description of the Incident
Speaking on the “Number One” program, the ENPPI president said the notification issued regarding the punishment is the official disciplinary notice sent to the two teams, while the referee’s report is considered a confidential document.
El Shorbagy criticized the wording reportedly used in the referee’s report, arguing that describing the incident as “misconduct” was excessive.
He said: “The referee Mahmoud Nagy cannot write what happened and describe it as misconduct, because this is written in a report, and that was a mistake by the referee because the report is confidential.”
📢 “Misconduct Is a Very Strong Word”
El Shorbagy stressed that describing an incident as serious misconduct carries significant implications and should not be used for every objection or emotional reaction during a match.
He said: “Misconduct is a very strong word. What if I insulted the referee? Would that also be misconduct?”, clearly criticizing the way the incident was characterized.
The ENPPI president believes disciplinary sanctions should be proportional to the nature of the incident, particularly because, in his view, the coach did not go beyond objecting to a refereeing decision.
⚖️ El Shorbagy: Referees Need Discretion
Ayman El Shorbagy emphasized that referees should have discretionary authority when dealing with different situations during matches, explaining that the circumstances of each incident should be considered before a decision is made.
He said: “The referee always needs to use his discretion. We have to assess the circumstances of each situation, and we will not interfere in that.”
He added that ENPPI does not seek to interfere with referees’ work or the decisions made during matches, but believes subsequent disciplinary sanctions should reflect the actual nature and seriousness of the incident.
🟥 Why Did ENPPI Object to Barakat’s Suspension?
The ENPPI president explained that he could accept Mohamed Barakat being sent off if the referee considered his objection worthy of a red card, but he believes extending the punishment to a four-match suspension was disproportionate.
He said: “Send him off for objecting, if Barakat was wrong, I agree. But you don’t know exactly what happened. Send him off and treat it as an objection, but then giving him a four-match suspension — what exactly was the misconduct?”
The comments reflect ENPPI’s position that the club does not object to accountability if the coach made a mistake, but believes the punishment should correspond to the nature of the offense.
🗣️ Details of Mohamed Barakat’s Objection
The ENPPI president also revealed details of the incident that led to Barakat’s punishment, explaining that the coach objected after receiving one decision from the assistant referee and a different decision from the fourth official.
El Shorbagy said: “The assistant referee gave him one decision, while the fourth official gave him another. He then said, ‘You don’t understand the law,’ and that is an objection that should have been handled more lightly.”
According to the ENPPI president’s account, the coach’s reaction came in the context of conflicting refereeing decisions during the match, prompting him to express his frustration.
El Shorbagy believes that the statement, even if considered inappropriate or worthy of punishment, does not amount to serious misconduct deserving a four-match suspension.
🏆 ENPPI Stands by Its Position
Ayman El Shorbagy continues to call for the rules to be applied fairly and proportionately while respecting referees and the relevant authorities. At the same time, he believes ENPPI has the right to express its position regarding disciplinary sanctions that it considers disproportionate to the incidents involved.
The case once again highlights the importance of controlling emotions on the pitch while also ensuring that disciplinary sanctions correspond to the nature of each individual incident, rather than treating minor objections in the same way as more serious offenses.
Ultimately, the ENPPI president believes what happened with Mohamed Barakat was simply an objection to a refereeing decision and did not deserve to be classified as serious misconduct or result in a four-match suspension. ⚽📢
Do you believe Mohamed Barakat’s punishment was excessive? Should a coach be suspended for four matches for objecting to a referee? Share your opinion. 🔥
