Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
I don’t think they were better than Leverkusen were last season, but I agree on the others.
They weren’t pretty to watch, but their athleticism & physicality were hard to cope with.
UEFA Ethics and Disciplinary investigation - Rangers v Slavia Prague
- Thread starter rangeral
- Start date
I don’t think they were better than Leverkusen were last season, but I agree on the others.
They weren’t pretty to watch, but their athleticism & physicality were hard to cope with.
Riccles
Well-Known Member
No.
He was a professional footballer, and an assistant chief executive of the PFA.
crimsonking
Well-Known Member
My thoughts exactly.
tottie beck
Well-Known Member
I'm guessing from UEFAs rules the best case scenario we can hope for is a partial ground closure for Slavia, and a 10 game ban for the player. We would likely be fined to even things up.
Marty101
Well-Known Member
Was wondering how UEFA determine these things - what is the standard of proof, and is corroboration required.
Article 24 of the 2020 disciplinary regulations says:-
1. The competent disciplinary body has absolute discretion regarding the evaluation of evidence.
2. The standard of proof to be applied in UEFA disciplinary proceedings is the comfortable satisfaction of the competent disciplinary body.
So the brain donors in the media saying there is no evidence simply don't understand the rules. Even just Glen Kamara's statement about what happened in itself is evidence capable of assessment by the disciplinary body. That's before you look at the circumstances immediately before and after the comment being made, and before we take into account that Zungu apparently heard it too.
It's entirely up to the disciplinary body whether they regard the offence as made out, and "comfortable satisfaction" seems plainly to be a much lower standard than "beyond reasonable doubt."
If it is found to be made out then the penalties are set out in Article 14.1 (The player is a person under the scope of Article 3)
1 Any person under the scope of Article 3 who insults the human dignity of a person or group of persons on whatever grounds, including skin colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, gender or sexual orientation, incurs a suspension lasting at least ten matches or a specified period of time, or any other appropriate sanction.
also 15.4 provides for additional measures where appropriate (I doubt they would be applied here, but you never know if Slavia are shown to be in bad faith after the event with their propaganda.)
4 If the circumstances of the case require it, the competent disciplinary body may impose additional disciplinary measures on the member association or club responsible, such as the playing of one or more matches behind closed doors, a stadium closure, the forfeiting of a match, the deduction of points and/or disqualification from the competition.
Article 24 of the 2020 disciplinary regulations says:-
1. The competent disciplinary body has absolute discretion regarding the evaluation of evidence.
2. The standard of proof to be applied in UEFA disciplinary proceedings is the comfortable satisfaction of the competent disciplinary body.
So the brain donors in the media saying there is no evidence simply don't understand the rules. Even just Glen Kamara's statement about what happened in itself is evidence capable of assessment by the disciplinary body. That's before you look at the circumstances immediately before and after the comment being made, and before we take into account that Zungu apparently heard it too.
It's entirely up to the disciplinary body whether they regard the offence as made out, and "comfortable satisfaction" seems plainly to be a much lower standard than "beyond reasonable doubt."
If it is found to be made out then the penalties are set out in Article 14.1 (The player is a person under the scope of Article 3)
1 Any person under the scope of Article 3 who insults the human dignity of a person or group of persons on whatever grounds, including skin colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, gender or sexual orientation, incurs a suspension lasting at least ten matches or a specified period of time, or any other appropriate sanction.
also 15.4 provides for additional measures where appropriate (I doubt they would be applied here, but you never know if Slavia are shown to be in bad faith after the event with their propaganda.)
4 If the circumstances of the case require it, the competent disciplinary body may impose additional disciplinary measures on the member association or club responsible, such as the playing of one or more matches behind closed doors, a stadium closure, the forfeiting of a match, the deduction of points and/or disqualification from the competition.
