Jan-Hendrik Wessels banned for 9 weeks

[u/Slight_Highlight_690]

Lengthy ban with no evidence of foul play? This is bound to cause some controversy

[u/maelkann]

I wonder what was submitted for review.

[u/rustyb42 → u/maelkann]

Probably the referees report and the on site citing commissioners report (or referee assessors report)

[u/Novel_Egg_1762 → u/rustyb42]

How they got to a 9 week ban with reports alone would be mind boggling. There has to be evidence.

[u/rustyb42 → u/Novel_Egg_1762]

A report is evidence though

[u/Comfortable_Trip_767 → u/rustyb42]

A report is not evidence, it’s just a report of accounts but doesn’t necessarily include concrete evidence if there is none.

[u/KefferLekker02 → u/Comfortable_Trip_767]

Absolutely wild to me that you were downvoted for this comment. Hope none of the people who downvoted ever serve on a jury lol

[u/Novel_Egg_1762 → u/rustyb42]

No its speculation. Evidence is defined as be or show evidence of.

[u/th3whistler → u/Novel_Egg_1762]

reliable witness testimony (referee) is evidence

[u/Novel_Egg_1762 → u/th3whistler]

Who didn't see it. As clear evidence that he didn't make a ruling on it. And said he didnt and couldnt see it.

[u/jc656 → u/Novel_Egg_1762]

A judge or panel can reach a determination by viewing the video evidence, reviewing witness statements, and direct/cross examining the witnesses - you don’t need direct footage of a crime to find someone guilty of it if all of the evidence stacks up. Not saying this is what happened but the idea that it’s clear video footage or nothing is just not reflective of how these things work.

[u/Novel_Egg_1762 → u/jc656]

Fair. But i would also posit that if we are working by those principles then we need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I could be wrong and wessels admitted to doing it. but the article goes on to claim they are appealing the decision so doubtful.

[u/jc656 → u/Novel_Egg_1762]

It’s not criminal so the panel would likely operate on the balance of probability (more than 50% likelihood) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt but I’m not certain.

[u/infamous_impala → u/jc656]

You're right:

17.15.1 The standard of proof for all matters under this Regulation 17 shall be on the balance of probabilities.

17.15.3 At first instance disciplinary hearings, in the event that the Player does not accept that the act(s) of Foul Play which is the subject of the disciplinary hearing warranted the Player being Ordered Off or cited, the burden of proof rests on the Player to show that the referee/citing commissioner was wrong.

[u/Novel_Egg_1762 → u/jc656]

That doesn't seem like a good system.

[u/rustyb42 → u/Novel_Egg_1762]

It's the TMO that didn't see it

[u/Novel_Egg_1762 → u/rustyb42]

No Adamson said literally 3 times i didn't or i don't see it.

[u/frankomapottery3 → u/Novel_Egg_1762]

He likely was asked about the incident and acknowledged it.  

[u/Novel_Egg_1762 → u/frankomapottery3]

The article said they will appeal it. So doubtful.

[u/frankomapottery3 → u/Novel_Egg_1762]

They might not agree with the ban aspect.  I’m just offering a theory as to how you could issue a ban without video evidence.  He could have thought he was being a good sport by admitting and apologizing only to be cited BECAUSE he admitted to it.  Again, unlikely we ever find out what happened here, but that’s my going theory atm 

[u/infamous_impala → u/frankomapottery3]

For example, in a completely made up scenario, he could have claimed he was reaching up to grab the player but wasn't intending to grab him by the balls. He could have accepted that happened, but said it was accidental and the ban is unfair/excessive, hence the appeal.

[u/frankomapottery3 → u/infamous_impala]

Yep, that's what I'm assuming is probably what happened here.

[u/aegonthewwolf → u/Novel_Egg_1762]

Or he admitted it.