The FA has released its Regulatory Commission’s written reasons for the suspension of Sheffield Wednesday wing-back Marvin Johnson for his elbow on Wes Burns during last month’s 2-2 draw between the clubs at Portman Road.
Assistant referee Ian Cooper spotted the 16th-minute incident and alerted referee Geoff Eltringham and a penalty - which was eventually saved - was awarded. However, the officials were unable to identify which Wednesday player had been involved.
The FA subsequently charged Johnson with improper and/or violent conduct and despite an appeal, the 32-year-old was banned for three matches.
According to the Regulatory Commission, which was made up of chairman Udo Onwere, Francis Benali and Paul Raven, the referee included the incident in his match report.
"In the 16th minute my [assistant], Ian Cooper, witnessed an off the ball elbow by a Sheffield Wednesday player but at the time was unable to identify which player it was.
"As no other match official witnessed the incident no action was taken at the time other than the award of a penalty kick. On review of MOAS footage the player who committed the offence was No18 Marvin Johnson who would have been sent off for his actions.”
Cooper submitted an incident report form in which he said: "In the 16th minute of the game I witnessed a Sheffield Wednesday player elbow an opponent in the face in the Sheffield Wednesday’s penalty area.
"But at the time I could not identify the individual who had done it. On video review it is timed at 15:40 and the player responsible is Sheffield Wednesday’s No18 Marvin Johnson.”
In addition, Burns, at the FA's request, as is customary in these situations, wrote a letter outlining his take on the incident and stating that he would be willing to appear as a witness in any FA proceedings if required.
Johnson denied the charge but elected not to have a personal hearing and the Commission, which also had video evidence and photos of the incident, concluded: "Having thoroughly reviewed the video evidence, the Commission noted that it showed that [Johnson] had made firm contact on his opponent (in or around the head area) when not challenging for the ball and, as such, there was no clear evidence that the Referee was obviously wrong.
"Furthermore it was concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that this contact could not be seen as negligible. In addition to this, the
Commission found the corroborating reports of the referee and his
assistant to be persuasive.
"Indeed the Commission felt that it would be very difficult to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that [Johnson] did not make firm contact on his opponent in this particular incident.”