8 game ban
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
- Status
one
RefChat Addict
I think you mean condemn
'Balance of probabilities' is curious... does 51/49 earn an 8 game ban?
Should Rodriguez be banned because the balance of probabilities suggests that no racial incident occurred?
I realise there are differences in the burden of proof between criminal/civil law (etc.), but I'm not keen on 'BOP' making and breaking reputations
Should Rodriguez be banned because the balance of probabilities suggests that no racial incident occurred?
I realise there are differences in the burden of proof between criminal/civil law (etc.), but I'm not keen on 'BOP' making and breaking reputations
afronaut81
Well-Known Member
I thought "Balance of probability" is how the FA judge all cases on.
Perhaps with something so reputationally damaging there should be a higher bar but there still would have been an evidence gathering stage and the panel would have considered it all in making a decision
Perhaps with something so reputationally damaging there should be a higher bar but there still would have been an evidence gathering stage and the panel would have considered it all in making a decision
What’s the balance if the N word came out??? Are their levels of if he meant it???
It's the standard for civil cases (i.e. outside of criminal charges), so I think the FA is correct to keep that standard for their own proceedings. Raising the bar would deter claims from being pursued, among other things, but these claims are usually he said/she said affairs, and so on judging these issues, excluding any fence-sitting a balance of probabilities judgement is the best way forward.
Criminal claims being more serious, require the higher bar. I imagine many will forget about these civil cases in the near future, most likely by next season. Criminal charges stick... or they ought to in any case.
51% if you really had to pick a number. It is just saying that the scenario is likely to have happened as the claimant has suggested.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
It also happened with John Terry in 2012 - found not guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence by the courts but banned by the FA for using insulting/abusive language with a racial component. Different charges, different jurisdiction and different legal considerations involved.
Can't Leeds rustle up some tee shirts or something! Two victims here apparently!! Can he appeal or is that it??
Justylove
RefChat Addict
To be fair, based on some of the howlers he's made and the opinion of a large number of Leeds fans, they'd be appealing to have the ban extended to the end of the season!
jakejlewis128
New Member
If there's a genuine belief that he racially abused someone then an 8 game ban is laughable when a fan would receive a lifetime ban. Players are supposed to be ambassadors so it too should be a lifetime ban.
StiltonRef
Member
If it is based on one person's word against the other how do they decide the probability?
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
How do we know that it's only based on that? Until the full written reasons are published (sometime this week) we can't be sure what exactly it's based on. In my experience of looking at past judgements they're very comprehensive and the reasoning behind the decision is fully explained.
If you want an example, the Luis Suarez - Patrice Evra incident is a classic case. People were also saying at the time, that it was a case of one person's word against another. The disciplinary panel used video footage and comprehensive interviews with both players, with other players and with the match officials, about what they heard both during the game and immediately after it. If you look at what is only a partial transcript in the following article, I think you'll agree it could hardly be a more detailed accounting of what happened. I don't know if they have the same amount of evidence in this case but we'll soon find out.
FA report Luis Suarez - Patrice Evra
Last edited:
- Status