https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/49182945?__twitter_impression=true
That’s my bet ruined, I had them up by Christmas
Is 6 games enough??
That’s my bet ruined, I had them up by Christmas
Is 6 games enough??
6 is the norm in the UK. The FA justify this on the basis that they have a lower threshold for guilty verdicts when compared to FIFA etchttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/49182945?__twitter_impression=true
That’s my bet ruined, I had them up by Christmas
Is 6 games enough??
Because the judicial process can't be interfered with from outside sourcesWhy does the FA wait for criminal proceedings to conclude before opening thier own proceedings when there are different thresholds for burden of proof? Just like the John Terry case, criminal proceedings and interval FA proceedings have no affect/influence on each other.
Simple... did you say naughty words? Yes or no?
Because the judicial process can't be interfered with from outside sources
In this case FA find guilty. Gets plastered all in papers across social media etc and this can influence judge/jury.
It's just like when people have ongoing legal cases they can't discuss them for similar reasonsor why the media are restricted in what they can and can't report on.
Find it bizarre how a court of law can find not guilty but another body can come to their own conclusion.
Find it bizarre how a court of law can find not guilty but another body can come to their own conclusion.
And the reason for that is the same reason a referee generally has a different threshold for fouls in the middle of the field than in the PA. Because of the harsher punishment, you'd wan to be sure of it.Probably due to the differing levels of proof required, court of law requires 'beyond all reasonable doubt' whereas many other bodies simply require 'on the balance of probability'
I am sure i have read an article in the past that this has happened and the player's suspension was withheld.Still does seem odd though that a player can be charged by the FA for something they have already been acquitted of in a higher "court". By all means charge for a different offence, but not the same thing that the court acquitted for. Will only be a matter of time before a player takes the FA to court and that would get interesting.
Not today thoughTop of the League yesterday so it hasn’t affected the team so far!
What? It's not bizarre at all. The criminal justice system and the FA disciplinary system are two totally and completely different sets of regulations. That's like saying you find it bizarre that something can be an offence on the football field but not a criminal offence - or vice versa.Find it bizarre how a court of law can find not guilty but another body can come to their own conclusion.
What? It's not bizarre at all. The criminal justice system and the FA disciplinary system are two totally and completely different sets of regulations. That's like saying you find it bizarre that something can be an offence on the football field but not a criminal offence - or vice versa.
Also, as @The Referee alluded to, it's just like the John Terry case where JT was acquitted in a court of law of a criminal offence related to the same incident for which he was banned and fined by the FA. Incidentally, apart from anything else, even though the court case and the FA disciplinary hearing are based to the same incident, the offences that the person is being charged with, are different.
Under criminal law, the person would be charged with an offence under section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 31(1)(c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
For the FA case, the charge is "using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour contrary to FA Rule E3[2]."
These are two completely different charges, under different jurisdictions, with different rules of evidence and different standards of proof.