• Uefa report damns Croatia forward for diving against
Celtic
• Arsenal submit strident 19-page defence ahead of hearing
Eduardo is facing a Uefa disciplinary hearing after
this incident in the Arsenal v Celtic Champions League
play-off.
Arsenal have
submitted a strident defence of Eduardo da Silva to Uefa ahead of
the striker's disciplinary hearing tomorrow and they hope it can
persuade the governing body to spare him a suspension of two
European matches.
The London club believe that Uefa's process in arriving at the
decision to charge Eduardo with "deceiving the referee" after his
tumble earned a penalty against Celtic in the Champions
League play-off last Wednesday has been flawed.
Arsenal were stunned to learn of the charge on Friday and were
left to digest the wording of a fax from the Uefa general
inspector, Gerhard Kapl, which appeared to point to conclusions
already formed. In the fax outlining the charge and the surrounding
circumstances, Eduardo is said to have "succeeded in deceiving the
referee, who was influenced by the player's gross unsporting
behaviour". It added: "There are no exceptional circumstances that
would justify a plea for mercy."
Eduardo is also said to have won the penalty with an "obvious
dive" and "through the act of cheating", while the referee's
observer is quoted as saying that there was "not the slightest
interference with the player", with regard to the Celtic goalkeeper
Artur Boruc's challenge. It is implied that Eduardo ought to have
immediately told the referee, Manuel Mejuto González, that he did
not feel a penalty should have been awarded.
One of Arsenal's complaints, in their 19-page submission, is
that, having also studied the video evidence, they feel that there
was some element of contact from Boruc. They believe that this is
shown in the footage that Uefa has sent them and, therefore, there
is inaccuracy in the governing body's analysis. They have urged
Uefa to scrutinise the flashpoint again.
Moreover, Arsenal contend it is impossible for Uefa or anybody
to read any intention to deceive into Eduardo's tumble. They have
pointed out he did not appeal for a foul and they have also
stressed Eduardo's blemish-free disciplinary previous and the fact
that, following his horrific leg break at Birmingham City in
February 2008, he is generally mindful of the need to pull out of
potential collisions.
Arsenal have drawn attention to what they believe is
inconsistency in Uefa's application of Article 10 (1) (c), which
gives them the opportunity to revisit incidents containing alleged
deceptions, even if the referee has seen and acted upon them. Even
though the article entered the rules in 2006, Uefa's retrospective
charging of Eduardo has been the first time that it has applied it
and Arsenal argue that there have been countless other occasions
when it could have been employed.
Notwithstanding the potential to set a dangerous precedent,
Arsenal are perplexed that Uefa has effectively condemned Eduardo
with video evidence while it continues to refuse to use it to help
referees to arrive at their decisions. The case will be judged on
the basis of written submissions from both sides. Eduardo is on
international duty with Croatia.
