RefSix

Fessi Banned...

The Referee

Well-Known Member
#3
Why 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 internal FA proceedings have no affect/influence on each other.
 
Last edited:

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#4
Why 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.
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.
 
#8
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.
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'
 

one

RefChat Addict
#9
Find it bizarre how a court of law can find not guilty but another body can come to their own conclusion.
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'
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.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#10
Quite right too, as being banned for 6 games is a lot different to going to prison for 6 weeks / months, and generally having a criminal record, so the court and jury should require beyond all reasonable doubt.

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.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#12
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.
I am sure i have read an article in the past that this has happened and the player's suspension was withheld.

The key here is that being acquitted in court law is not a proof of his innocence, it is a ruling that his guilt could not be proven. And the threshold for proof of guilt being different, both rulings of court of law and sporting judiciary can be upheld. But I do agree that lawyers would do anything to earn a buck.
 

Tealeaf

Lighting the darkest hour
Staff member
#13
I wonder if his own because on this case the FA is deemed a civil rather than criminal body?

Forestieri is cleared of criminal charges but can still be dealt with in civil matters.

However I agree that perhaps a charge of “Bringing the game into disrepute” would be more fitting, not least on the grounds that said incident was unpleasant and that the CPS thought there was sufficient grounds for a prosecution
 
#15
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.
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#16
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.
Boom 💥Peter has spoken.... 👍
 
Top