Dear readers, I was asked to talk about TV evidence in relation to the cases discussed at the time and, in particular, with reference to episodes of Robinho, occurred last Sunday in the championship, and Lavezzi to the previous day. Why was there no trial TV for Robihno like Lavezzi? The handball AC Milan must be likened to that made by Garden, during Fiorentina-Palermo in 2008, followed by two-match ban for the player Viola or the offense was categorized as "involuntary" as happened to Adriano when , during a derby Milan-Inter, struck the ball with his hand and made the Rossoneri goal? Why test for TV Lavezzi and Robinho is not it? These are questions that linger in the minds of fans these days which I will try to give answers.
We order. As for Napoli Lavezzi and think I have to say a few words. We distinguish the moral from the legal question because the reasons are frankly different. If a moral point of view we all agree that the act is to be censured by the law I have to write a few lines to explain how he could get to the confirmation of the sanction imposed by the Referee.
I had previously outlined the possible scenarios of the proceedings on appeal without considering what then occurred, or that the decision was made based on images stored (so it seems) but not evaluated in origin. The reference is obviously to the video of Mediaset Premium which would be evidenced by the spittle of Lavezzi clearly.
The key issue revolves precisely around the legality or otherwise of an analysis, on appeal, on movies in which contested measure there was no mention as they were "captured and examined their images on television (Sky) full warranty and technical document "(so read the decision of a referee).
In light of the foregoing, I point out that if more pictures (and I stress "if") were acquired from the outset in the trial before the Judge, although not analyzed, these must give credit in the order for disqualification, so that anyone could think that what many have "maligned", or that the tests (new?) were attached at a later time.
That said, from a technical point of view, if the confirmation (and I stress always the "if") the sentence was based on acts not mentioned in the contested decision means that the Judge was not dutiful to identify the source of evidence produced by the Federal Prosecutor's Office and, therefore, any confirmation based on other conditions (than those mentioned in origin) is legally questionable.
The problem, in fact, originates from unclear and contradictory nature of the contested decision that, if he had stated from the outset between the sources of evidence including pictures of Mediaset, would inevitably provide the suspects. Moreover, this has, from my point of view, heavily penalized the defense of Naples, on preparatasi filming of Sky, came across the evidence before suddenly not previously mentioned.
True that the sports justice must be swift but it is also true that in too many cases to the summary nature of assessments has resulted in too many cases the apparent difference in treatment between similar situations. But what about a Robihno and the possibility that the test is applied to television in the hand ball committed Chievo-Milan last Sunday, however, you must have a premise.
According to art. 35 3.1 No 3 CGS "TV images can be used as evidence of serious unsporting conduct", as well as in other cases in the standards, even where a license-holder commits an act which is derived from "the establishment of a network intentionally hitting the ball hand "as long as they are not episodes of" seen by the referee.
" Coming to the present case, the application of the test TV was originally difficult for two reasons: one, the referee was in good position and had not seen it meant to have had serious vision problems as a few meters away from ' action. Secondly it was not a goal scored directly and intentionally (on purpose) with your hand, but the action during which the player "tame" a hard ball with the upper arm and only then puts on a technique by which sprang network.
The situation examined is different from that in which Gilardino was actually and directly score a goal with his hand which the referee did not realize he was right. Assuming that we are concerned the referee seemed to have seen it in a good position and then evaluated (while making a mistake) that the action of Robinho and made prima facie evidence inapplicable television with the result that no disqualification could be imposed at Milan. 
We order. As for Napoli Lavezzi and think I have to say a few words. We distinguish the moral from the legal question because the reasons are frankly different. If a moral point of view we all agree that the act is to be censured by the law I have to write a few lines to explain how he could get to the confirmation of the sanction imposed by the Referee.
I had previously outlined the possible scenarios of the proceedings on appeal without considering what then occurred, or that the decision was made based on images stored (so it seems) but not evaluated in origin. The reference is obviously to the video of Mediaset Premium which would be evidenced by the spittle of Lavezzi clearly.
The key issue revolves precisely around the legality or otherwise of an analysis, on appeal, on movies in which contested measure there was no mention as they were "captured and examined their images on television (Sky) full warranty and technical document "(so read the decision of a referee).
In light of the foregoing, I point out that if more pictures (and I stress "if") were acquired from the outset in the trial before the Judge, although not analyzed, these must give credit in the order for disqualification, so that anyone could think that what many have "maligned", or that the tests (new?) were attached at a later time.
That said, from a technical point of view, if the confirmation (and I stress always the "if") the sentence was based on acts not mentioned in the contested decision means that the Judge was not dutiful to identify the source of evidence produced by the Federal Prosecutor's Office and, therefore, any confirmation based on other conditions (than those mentioned in origin) is legally questionable.
The problem, in fact, originates from unclear and contradictory nature of the contested decision that, if he had stated from the outset between the sources of evidence including pictures of Mediaset, would inevitably provide the suspects. Moreover, this has, from my point of view, heavily penalized the defense of Naples, on preparatasi filming of Sky, came across the evidence before suddenly not previously mentioned.
True that the sports justice must be swift but it is also true that in too many cases to the summary nature of assessments has resulted in too many cases the apparent difference in treatment between similar situations. But what about a Robihno and the possibility that the test is applied to television in the hand ball committed Chievo-Milan last Sunday, however, you must have a premise.
According to art. 35 3.1 No 3 CGS "TV images can be used as evidence of serious unsporting conduct", as well as in other cases in the standards, even where a license-holder commits an act which is derived from "the establishment of a network intentionally hitting the ball hand "as long as they are not episodes of" seen by the referee.
" Coming to the present case, the application of the test TV was originally difficult for two reasons: one, the referee was in good position and had not seen it meant to have had serious vision problems as a few meters away from ' action. Secondly it was not a goal scored directly and intentionally (on purpose) with your hand, but the action during which the player "tame" a hard ball with the upper arm and only then puts on a technique by which sprang network.
The situation examined is different from that in which Gilardino was actually and directly score a goal with his hand which the referee did not realize he was right. Assuming that we are concerned the referee seemed to have seen it in a good position and then evaluated (while making a mistake) that the action of Robinho and made prima facie evidence inapplicable television with the result that no disqualification could be imposed at Milan.
- Report: Blackburn Rovers Target Summer Moves For Real Madrid's Kaka And Milan's Robinho (22/02/2011)
- AC Milan maintains lead at the top (13/02/2011)
- Italian League: AC Milan beats Parma 4-0 in Serie A (13/02/2011)
- Chievo Vs. Milan: Robinho Gives Milan The Lead, Although A Hand May Have Helped Him Along (20/02/2011)
- AC Milan Vs. Parma: Robinho Bags A Brace Inside Five Minutes, Milan Up 4-0 (12/02/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment