DIVING CONTROVERSY:ARSENAL HAVE submitted a strident defence of Eduardo da Silva to Uefa ahead of the striker's disciplinary hearing today and they hope it can persuade the governing body to spare him a suspension of two European matches.

The London club believe that Uefa’s process in arriving at the decision to charge Eduardo with “deceiving the referee” after his tumble earned a penalty against Celtic in the Champions League play-off last Wednesday has been flawed.

Arsenal were stunned to learn of the charge on Friday and were left to digest the wording of a fax from the Uefa general inspector, Gerhard Kapl, which appeared to point to conclusions already formed. In the fax outlining the charge and the surrounding circumstances, Eduardo is said to have “succeeded in deceiving the referee, who was influenced by the player’s gross unsporting behaviour”.

It added: “There are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a plea for mercy.”

Eduardo is also said to have won the penalty with an “obvious dive” and “through the act of cheating”, while the referee’s observer is quoted as saying that there was “not the slightest interference with the player”, with regard to the Celtic goalkeeper Artur Boruc’s challenge. It is implied that Eduardo ought to have immediately told the referee, Manuel Mejuto Gonzalez, that he did not feel a penalty should have been awarded.

One of Arsenal’s complaints, in their 19-page submission, is that, having also studied the video evidence, they feel that there was some element of contact from Boruc.

They believe that this is shown in the footage that Uefa has sent them and, therefore, there is inaccuracy in the governing body’s analysis. They have urged Uefa to scrutinise the flashpoint again.

Moreover, Arsenal contend it is impossible for Uefa or anybody to read any intention to deceive into Eduardo’s tumble. They have pointed out he did not appeal for a foul and they have also stressed Eduardo’s blemish-free disciplinary previous and the fact that, following his horrific leg break at Birmingham City in February 2008, he is generally mindful of the need to pull out of potential collisions.

Arsenal have drawn attention to what they believe is inconsistency in Uefa’s application of Article 10 (1) (c), which gives them the opportunity to revisit incidents containing alleged deceptions, even if the referee has seen and acted upon them.

Even though the article entered the rules in 2006, Uefa’s retrospective charging of Eduardo has been the first time that they have applied it and Arsenal argue that there have been countless other occasions when it could have been employed.

Notwithstanding the potential to set a dangerous precedent, Arsenal are perplexed that Uefa has effectively condemned Eduardo with video evidence, while they continue to refuse to use it to help referees arrive at their decisions. The case will be judged on the basis of written submissions from both sides.

Eduardo is on international duty with Croatia.

• Guardian Service