The FA has published the written reasons for the decision to ban Wolves striker Matheus Cunha for two games for his post-match attack on a member of Town’s security.

On December 17th, the Brazilian international was charged with misconduct for the incident in the wake of the Blues’ 2-1 win at Molineux three days earlier having elbowed a member of Town’s security detail in the back of the head and then ripped off his glasses, an incident referee Simon Hooper missed.

There was widespread criticism that it took the FA until December 30th to assemble an independent regulatory commission to hear the case, during which time Cunha, who had accepted the charged, remained available to Wolves, scoring twice within that period.

Following the incident, the player apologised and the member of security staff was reimbursed for the cost of replacing his glasses.

In his evidence, Cunha apologised to the Town security guard and gave his account of the events, which he claimed came about after he his teammate Rayan Ait-Nouri, who was shown a second yellow card in the melee, was surrounded by the Blues’ security for no reason he could see.

“As I tried to get closer to Rayan to make sure he was okay, I was suddenly surrounded by a lot of people,” he said.

“I felt like I was being shoved by the ITFC security personnel, so I shoved them back in an effort to break away from them to protect myself. It was never my intention to come into contact with Mr [redacted] and I certainly never meant to elbow him. I simply wanted to push him away from Rayan.

“Then all of a sudden, I remember Mr [redacted] turned round and had his hands on my shirt, and I shouted ‘stop’ but he kept hold of my shirt.

“Mr [redacted] is much bigger than me and I was surrounded by a large number of people, mainly ITFC personnel, so I remember feeling quite threatened at the time. So in an effort to get Mr [redacted] to let go of my shirt, in the heat of the moment

“I regrettably reached out and grabbed his glasses. I know it was wrong to do this and I take full responsibility for my actions.”

In addition to reviewing evidence supplied to the referee following the game by a Town staff member, the commission watched three videos of the incident.

The commission was sceptical of Cunha’s recollections: “Having repeatedly viewed the video footage, the commission did not accept [Cunha]’s version of events.

“It noted that there were a number of individuals on the pitch, although it was not possible to determine their roles and clubs in every instance.

“However, it did not see any provocation from ITFC personnel that would have caused [Cunha] to behave as he did. In particular, appeared calm and was simply standing on the pitch with his arms out to act as a barrier to those behind him.

“Understandably [he] turned round when he felt [Cunha]’s elbow on him, and indeed put his hand on [Cunha], but he did not appear aggressive at this point and the commission could see no justification for [Cunha]’s action in touching his face and removing his glasses.

“The commission noted that [Cunha] had to be restrained and led away by [Wolves] staff/teammates.”

The commission also dismissed a claim by Wolves that Town’s security personnel had been overly aggressive.

However, the commission agreed that Cunha accepting the charge, prompt apology and offer to pay for new glasses, as well as his previously clear disciplinary record, were mitigating factors.

Given those factors, the commission decided to reduce the suspension from three first-team games to two. A fine of £120,000 was considered, however, that was reduced to £80,000, also due to the mitigation.

Cunha missed last night’s Premier League game at home to Nottingham Forest, which the visitors won 3-0, and will be unavailable for the FA Cup tie with Bristol City at the weekend.

Photo: IMAGO/Every Second Media via Reuters Connect

SpiritOfJohn added 16:29 - Jan 7 So Cunha's statement blatantly contradicts the video evidence and he gets a reduced ban and reduced fine because he offered to pay the injured party for some new glasses. Bizarre.
35

TexacoCup added 16:31 - Jan 7 I'm absolutely stunned, ridiculous
15

Dizzyhat added 16:36 - Jan 7 "...I take full responsibility for my actions.." No, you don't, mate! That's exactly what you're not doing!
18

ArnieM added 16:40 - Jan 7 Another player gas been given av6 game ban for spitting at an opponent but this piece of work can go ballistic on the pitch and attack opposition staff and gets essentisl a one league match ban. WHY SO LENIENT?
12

GatesPerm added 16:42 - Jan 7 So using that logic: If a player is shown a red card for a dangerous/reckless tackle then they should immediately apologise, offer to buy a new pair of shin pads for the other player and get a one game reduction to the ban. I haven’t read anything as illogical/daft as that explanation for a long while.
17

itfcserbia added 16:56 - Jan 7 Oh my God, it would literally be better for them if they just had never commented on this ever. What a ridiculous statement.
9

Fozrat70 added 16:58 - Jan 7 The thing that annoys me about this is Cunha probably wouldn’t have played last nite having picked up a slight hamstring injury while playing against spurs, he probably wouldn’t have played in the cup game either so WWFC have had a free hit on this one so two weeks to get him fit then he plays. The ban should have been held until he was 100% fit and then applied for league matches only

11

poet added 17:02 - Jan 7 I’ve read some garbage in my time, but this is well up there with the best. “Non standard”. What does that actually mean? I can only assume it’s because it was an off pitch incident! So a physical unprovoked violent assault on a security guard lawfully carrying out his job, and criminal damage to a pair of spectacles he was wearing at the time, is considered by the FA as “non standard”. If this incident had occurred in a street, and caught on camera, as this one was, once identified, as Cunha clearly was, the perpetrator would have been arrested and charged. I’ve read his excuses/reasons for doing what he did, I’ve read the commissions evidence, and it’s highly unlikely that Cunha’s interpretation of what happened, would stand up in a court of law. So well done sweet FA, you’ve just cleared the way for any other such serious incidents of assault and criminal damage to be merely considered as a “non standard” incident, and menial punishment to be administered. After this, my advice to anyone at a football match who becomes a victim of such crimes, is to ignore the FA and report the incident to the Police, who would be obliged to carry out a proper investigation, with a view to the alleged perpetrator being suitably punished if convicted. Something the sweet FA have clearly failed to do.

13

Fermi_Parradox added 17:10 - Jan 7 It would be good if the club that the offence was committed against, was allowed to pick the fixtures it applied to. (E.g. Miss the Ipswich game)
2

britbiker added 17:11 - Jan 7 Credit to the Town security. He acted brilliantly under provocation from that rat of a player
9

badadski added 17:13 - Jan 7 This is just Fa disciplinary - I like how they fine him 80k for their coffers and the man assaulted gets a new pair of glasses. How does that work - he should press criminal charges with the police.
9

BobbyBell added 17:20 - Jan 7 One of the games will be a cup game where he may well have been rested anyway. It's all just garbage. The message from the FA here is that it's ok to behave this way.
6

BeattiesBackPocket added 17:24 - Jan 7 If you read it he’s not really apologising either he’s blaming someone else for HIS actions! The FA are an absolute joke could only imagine if it was Morsy how much worse it would’ve been!
10

warfarinman69 added 17:25 - Jan 7 Imagine the ban if this was Morsey!! Or any other town player. Wolves are an "established" PL club, the FA wouldn't want to do anything to harm them!
1

Dissboyitfc added 17:30 - Jan 7 The more you hear and read about the FA the more the mind boggles. Spitting is an awful thing a disgusting thing to do in another persons direction, but why is assault ok, why is it a lesser punishment? The wolves fans were fearing a 6 match suspension and were accepting it would likely be the case. Now they are laughing! Once again the FA doesn’t cover itself in glory, really not a good look!

10

Bert added 17:44 - Jan 7 Written by a PR advisor and a pack of lies.
3

grinch added 17:49 - Jan 7 is this a script for bob mortimer on would i lie to you !!
2

IpswichT62OldBoy added 18:12 - Jan 7 I never liked Wolves, now there is a good reason. I hope we relegate them.
3

BlueWax added 18:27 - Jan 7 Bad loser, thug and a liar. Wolves as a club should have had the heavy fine for not controlling their players for two consecutive home games, West Ham and Town. Unlike Wolves, we are class on and off the field.....just one donut so called supporter who embarrassed himself when trying to dig Keano out
2

RIPbobby added 18:29 - Jan 7 I'm not sure I believe his recollection of events, but I suppose he gets some credit for the apology and buying some new glasses. Forgive and forget I say. Hopefully he has learnt from this.
-1

warwickblue added 18:37 - Jan 7 As a schools'- league and cup referee for many years, I was subject to "non-standard" outbursts on several occasions, usually from over-enthusiastic fathers. Cunha's joke punishment and the FA's pathetic ramblings are not sending a very strong message from the Premier League to the park pitches up and down the country...
6

Churchman added 19:26 - Jan 7 It’s pathetic. That WW and the player made up a load of nonsense and had the brass neck to publish it, even though the footage is quite clear on what happens, tells you all you need to know. The FA are either weak beyond hope and told what to do or how can I put it, the FA officials were looked after with nice ‘Christmas Cards’ this year. Can’t think of any other explanations. That Wolves and the player try to implicate ITFC in their appalling actions with weedy excuses makes it even worse. Can’t wait for the home game.

3

Cadiar added 19:33 - Jan 7 Totally untrue what Cunha has said. Worse are a large number of Wolves fans insisting he was racially abuse. They basically got away with it. Perhaps I'll report the crime of assault to the Midlands Police & they will have to at the least investigate.
1

ArnieM added 19:35 - Jan 7 The return match at PR will be interesting. I really hope us fans can make it an aggressive cauldron of anti wolves noise the whole bloody game. Tossas deserve nothing less
2

Global_Blue added 20:24 - Jan 7 In other news, the Chairman of the disciplinary board has written an article on "my life as a member of the Wolverhampton Wanderers Board of Director's and Shareholders", he can be seen in the attached photo, next to his favourite player, Matheus Cunha.... Absolute joke.
0

Blogs 298 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls