The case involves FC Steaua Bucuresti and Gabriel Muresan before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), stemming from an incident during a football match where Muresan allegedly struck an opponent, Raul Rusescu, resulting in injury. The referee issued a yellow card for the incident, but FC Steaua sought harsher sanctions through the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) Disciplinary Committee, which initially imposed a 16-match suspension and fine. The RFF Appeal Committee later overturned this decision, ruling the complaint inadmissible, as the referee's on-field disciplinary decisions are final unless the misconduct was unseen or a red card was issued. FC Steaua appealed to CAS, challenging the Appeal Committee's decision. CAS addressed legal issues such as standing to sue and the scope of disciplinary review, noting that while a club is not directly affected by disciplinary actions against an opposing player, standing could arise from procedural errors. CAS clarified that an appeal must target the federation, not the player. On the merits, CAS upheld the Appeal Committee's ruling, emphasizing that under RFF regulations, a referee's disciplinary decisions are final unless the misconduct was unseen or a red card was issued. Since the referee witnessed and sanctioned the incident with a yellow card, the disciplinary bodies lacked authority to revisit the decision. The CAS panel affirmed the Appeal Committee's decision, concluding that FC Steaua's appeal was unfounded. The ruling reinforced the principle that referees' in-match disciplinary actions are binding unless exceptional circumstances apply, preserving the integrity of on-field decisions. The case underscores the limited scope for post-match disciplinary review under football regulations. FC Steaua argued that the referee missed the severity of the offense and that disciplinary bodies had authority under specific regulations, but CAS rejected these arguments, emphasizing the finality of the referee's decision. The proceedings highlighted the structured nature of CAS arbitration in resolving sports disputes, with both parties participating in hearings and procedural steps. Muresan countered the appeal by arguing FC Steaua lacked standing and that the referee's decisions were final, describing the incident as accidental. CAS determined the applicable law was primarily Romanian regulations, with FIFA and UEFA rules as supplementary sources. The panel's decision hinged on whether the club had the right to appeal and the validity of disciplinary actions, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to procedural deficiencies and upholding the principle of respecting referees' on-field judgments. The case illustrates the tension between referees' decisions and disciplinary bodies' authority, reinforcing the finality of in-match disciplinary actions in football.