ARSENAL’S FURY at the two-game Champions League suspension that was handed down to Eduardo da Silva for diving yesterday has been deepened by confirmation from Uefa sources that any player who commits the same offence and is seen by the referee will escape with no greater punishment than a booking.

The London club are considering an appeal against the ban, which stands to rule out Eduardo from the Champions League group ties against Standard Liege and Olympiakos, amid feelings of injustice and persecution. Arsenal strongly believe that the governing body’s processes have been inconsistent and flawed.

Eduardo was found guilty by an independent disciplinary panel, convened under the auspices of Uefa, of “deceiving the referee” with his tumble in last Wednesday’s Champions League play-off against Celtic. It yielded a penalty, from which he scored.

The referee, Manuel Mejuto Gonzalez, has stood by his decision to award the penalty but Uefa nonetheless decided to refer the case to its disciplinary unit. It can do so under the little-used law 10(1)(c), that permits it to revisit incidents containing alleged deceptions or simulations, even if the official feels that he has got the decision right at the time, or even upon reflection.

In this instance, Uefa has ruled that Gonzalez had been conned by Eduardo, and it feels comfortable that its view is correct, having pored over the replays. The irony for Arsenal is that if Gonzalez felt that he had been deceived at the time and booked Eduardo, Uefa would have been satisfied and left it at that.

The apparent discrepancy between a booking on the pitch and a retrospective two-game ban for the same offence appears to be an anomaly in the rule book. Although the suspension is similar to that which might accompany a red card, Uefa will not now ask referees to send players off for such offences.

Eduardo’s case was heard at Uefa’s headquarters in Nyon and was judged on the evidence of written submissions from both sides. Arsenal had sent a 19-page dossier in which they outlined a tough defence, but the writing had appeared on the wall for their striker when Uefa’s general inspector, Gerhard Kapl, wrote, for the prosecution, that “in this case, there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a plea for mercy”.

Arsenal’s feeling that the case might have been prejudged has contributed to their angst. Kapl also referred to Eduardo’s “gross unsporting behaviour” and him having won the penalty with an “obvious dive” and “through the act of cheating”.

On the face of it, it appeared that Uefa would only have decided to over-rule the referee Gonzalez and bring a charge of cheating against Eduardo if it felt that there was the strong possibility of getting a guilty verdict, and that was how events played out in Switzerland.

“The club is disappointed with Uefa’s decision,” read a statement. “We have been informed that we will receive a ‘reasoned decision’ from Uefa by Thursday. Once we receive Uefa’s rationale, we will make a decision on the next steps.

“We have been deeply frustrated by the perfunctory and apparently arbitrary process that Uefa has followed in this instance. We believe it is imperative that Uefa’s explanation for its decision provides clear and comprehensive standards that will be consistently enforced. It is also critical that Uefa provides specific details of the processes it plans to adopt in reviewing all games under its jurisdiction.

“Arsenal do, of course, have the right to appeal,” said a Uefa spokesman. “They have been sent the written decision with all the reasoning and, upon receipt of it, they have three days to appeal. Then there would be another hearing where the appeals body would review the case. It would also be possible for the player to be present at that hearing.” - Guardian Service