The Football Association (FA) has officially released its reasons behind the rejection of Aston Villa’s appeal over Jhon Duran’s three-match suspension, following an incident of violent conduct during their Boxing Day encounter against Newcastle United.
In a decision which sparked considerable debate, the striker was sent off after a controversial incident involving Fabian Schar. Referee Anthony Taylor showed the red card, a decision supported by video referee (VAR) Graham Scott, classifying Duran’s actions as a stamp on the Newcastle centre-back.
Aston Villa have expressed their disappointment with the outcome of the appeal, which now sees Duran ruled out of crucial matches against Brighton, Leicester City, and the upcoming FA Cup clash against West Ham.
Read more:
Sean Dyche Discusses His Everton Future Amid Friedkin Group Speculation
For their appeal to be successful, Villa had to demonstrate that referee Taylor had made a blatant error in showing the red card. The club submitted three video angles of the incident, as well as slow-motion footage, which they said would help their cause.
Among the material provided were close-ups and still images, highlighting Duran’s left foot at the time of contact. Additionally, a letter from Sharon Barnhurst, Aston Villa’s head of football administration, dated December 27, was attached to their application, arguing that the red card was unjustified and that a three-match suspension was excessively punitive .
After deliberations, the commission revealed three divergent opinions regarding Duran’s actions: One member argued that Duran was fully aware of his actions when he stepped on Schar’s back, saying the attacker had the opportunity to avoid contact.
-
Read more:
Matheus Cunha sees his suspension reduced after purchasing glasses; here’s why
This perspective held that although Duran initially attempted to avoid the challenge, he deliberately chose to bring his right foot down on his opponent’s back, which was called an “obvious act of brutality.” Therefore, this view asserted that the referee’s decision to eject Duran was justified.
Conversely, another committee member argued that Duran had no real chance of avoiding contact due to the proximity of the players and the speed with which the incident unfolded. This member suggested that Duran’s foul was due to a twisting of his left ankle, displacing his momentum, rather than a deliberate act of aggression.
The final opinion within the commission struggled to definitively determine whether Duran’s actions constituted excessive force. They noticed that from specific angles it appeared Duran made an initial effort to avoid contact before unintentionally stepping on Schar.
Ultimately, Villa’s appeal for wrongful dismissal was rejected by a close vote of 2-1. Additionally, the commission repeatedly agreed that there were no circumstances surrounding the incident that warranted a complaint of excessive punishment. Thus, this aspect of the appeal met a similar fate.
What are your thoughts on the commission’s findings? Let us know what you think!
