Here it seems necessary to state that it is n't a disadvantageous situation for rival nor is an obtained benefit in the same game , because evidently the result of the action supposes leaving their own team with less players .
And neither is it a useful strategy for the next game , because the club will not be able to count on those players .
The advantage , obviously , consists in the fact that the players will begin the following phase of the Championship without cards that could threaten their participation in a future game .
But it is about a long term advantage , with a certain degree of indetermination , because the team can be eliminated first of change , and in addition with this action the players fulfil a sanction game and go to the second cycle of cards , in which the suspension by card accumulation takes place with one less than in the first cycle .
So that , by passing rounds , it is not so clear that it is an advantage .
Regarding this assumption , the players did not act in order to avoid the application of the sanction ( this would have been a clear case of legal fraud ) , but rather chosen when to obey it .
They made a strategic decision without avoiding the punishment .