I mean, it shouldn't be simpler than this: Have the ref immediately send them off. If they want to contest it and prove that the ref was a moron for the sending off, say so at the hearing they're entitled to.
If you hide your mouth and talk directly to another player, you assume the burden of proof. Seems ok to me.
Tchouameni has come out and said Prestianni didn't call Vini JNR a racial slur, instead saying he called him a homophobic slur that starts with F. But the Madrid players are claiming they heard the racial slur. Simply put if you cover your mouth like that to talk shit, you are probably going to be seen as guilty and the onus is on you to prove innocence. I can't see how he doesn't get a minimum 10 game suspension because either the investigation finds he said a racial slur, of they accept his explanation or a homophobic slur.
Players hide their mouths constantly. To talk to teammates, the ref, opponents, coaches, whoever. We’d have to forfeit after our first corner of every match if this standard was applied.
The rules are the same, UEFA applies them to a harsher standard. “Natural position” is a phrase that leaves a lot up to your own interpretation.
I can't remember the last time a player pulled their shirt up that blatantly to cover their mouth to abuse another player though.
Right, it basically never happens. Which is why a standard that would assume that any player covering their mouth to say something is saying something abusive is absurd on its face.
That said most of the time players cover their mouths for FKs or talking to teammates or opposition players post games they put their hand over their mouths. The shirt thing was weird behaviour and I can't remember the last time someone did that. The last time I remember a player pulling their shirt up to their mouth they put it in their mouth and bit it out of frustration. They didn't use it to mask what they said.
Unless you have the player who made the accusation there giving testimony. If it is proven that the accusation was, indeed, intentionally false then the accusing player should be given a 3-match ban that cannot be repealed.
Ok let me adjust that: if you hide your mouth in order to talk to a player on the opposing team, then it's a six month ban that can be appealed. We've seen plenty of times when one player has spoken to an opposing player openly. As a matter of fact I've seen some Liga MX highlights involving players being booked/sent off for either talking back openly to an official or an opposing player after physical play results in a foul. Now, I get your trepidation about players abusing such moves but my argument would be "Why would you need to cover your mouth when you can say it openly?"
And you don't like Trump for similar tactics? p.s. I suspect Prestiani is guilty, but so far there's no water-tight proof I've heard or seen.
If Vini and a few other Madrid players said it happened, what water-tight proof are you looking for? Witness testimony (even a single witness) alone is sufficient to convict even in an American criminal context where the burden is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That's not what T said. He said that he asked the piece of garbage what he said and the piece of garbage told him that he used a homophobic slur and not a racist one. "We were told Prestianni called Vinicius a monkey. Prestianni denied it to us, he said he called Vini a f*ggot instead"
Indeed. And right now I feel everyone should be punished, because like you I think it's over for us this season.
Are we talking football or actual criminal prosecutions? Because if we're talking about the latter, it happens all the time, ie., prosecutors get convictions via the testimony of a sole witness all the time. Over the course of my career, I've read hundreds of trial transcripts confirming this. Yes, you've guessed correctly. I exclusively do appellate work.
I don’t do appellate work. I have done one appeal in my career. I do mostly trial work in the civil arena although my area occasionally touches on criminal issues. I don’t know what kind of cases you review where there is a single witness and a conviction - but I would imagine there has to be other corroborating evidence and not just a single witness for prosecution to move forward. That was my point - if the only evidence is a single witness - that is unlikely to move the case to trial.
No, the legal system. Way too many wrongful convictions based on eyewitness testimony that turned out to be either flat-out wrong or completely fabricated. The lawyers per capita in this forum (also me) is too high lol
Sure Legal system will never be perfected. But right now the justice system is the only thing that it’s preventing US from descending into a banana republic…/ so there is that