West Ham star Mohammed Kudus has revealed his state of mind before the Spurs bust-up for which one FA panellist wanted to make an example of him.
West Ham’s star boy Mohammed Kudus was dismissed after the red mist descended in the Premier League defeat to bitter rivals Tottenham Hotspur.
A ruckus ignited when Kudus kicked the ball against Tottenham defender Mickey van de Ven while he was on the floor as he tried to tackle the Hammers man.
Van de Ven jumped up, pushed Kudus and called him crazy. Kudus then shoved the Dutchman in the face and he went to ground.
Pape Matar Sarr joined him there when he confronted West Ham’s best player who retaliated by shoving him in the face too.
Kudus was initially booked but had his yellow upgraded to red after the intervention of VAR.
Kudus was ‘stressed’ before Spurs bust-up
After the game top former referee Mike Dean claimed Kudus faced a six-game ban for his actions.
Dean insisted Kudus would be charged over the ‘separate incident’ involving Sarr.
MORE WEST HAM STORIES
He was proved right as the FA did indeed bring charges against Kudus for the Sarr shove.
Hammers News exclusively revealed last week that West Ham’s owners were ‘sure’ Kudus’ ban would be extended.
Although as we stated, the club provided evidence in mitigation which they hoped would see length of the extended ban lessened.
Now the FA has announced Kudus has been hit with a fine and further two-game ban.
FA panellist wanted West Ham star hit with mammoth ban
But Hammers News can reveal it could have been a whole lot worse.
The incident has also led to speculation Kudus was ‘acting out’ due to frustrations he has with Hammers boss Julen Lopetegui.
Now we can reveal Kudus’ state of mind going into the game had nothing to do with Lopetegui, or Spurs.
And if one of the three-person disciplinary panel had got their way, Kudus would have been handed a huge ban so he could be ‘made an example of’.
Kudus says he was ‘stressed’ before the Spurs bust-up and one of the three FA panellists wanted the West Ham star hit with a mammoth ban.
Hammers News has received the full 2,500-word report of the hearing from a contact at the FA.
It reveals what Kudus said in mitigation and that one panellist wanted to hand the West Ham star a ban in excess of six games.
What Mohammed Kudus said in his ban appeal to the FA
“Kudus began his letter by apologising, stating that he was deeply embarrassed by his behaviour in the 20 seconds following his foul on Micky Van de Ven (“MVdV”),” the report reads.
“He accepted that he had lost his cool and said that his behaviour was out of character. He stated that he could not recall the events clearly, but having viewed the footage, he felt that MVdV had exaggerated the incident as there was minimal contact from him. He had only been reacting to a push from MVdV. He felt that the referee’s original decision to give him a yellow card was correct and that his actions in relation to MVdV did not merit a red card.
“As far as the Incident with Sarr was concerned, Kudus stated that after his push on MVdV, he was quickly surrounded and was pushed into Richarlison by Sarr and then into Sarr by Destiny Udogie. He was repeatedly pushed and shoved and felt intimidated.
“He accepted that he should not have pushed Sarr in the face and that his action merited a red card. However, he did not injure anyone, or use force.
“Kudus stated that his preparation for the match had been mentally and physically challenging because he had travelled for a midweek international fixture and had received various negative comments on social media. He referred to his work within the community and in his home country of Ghana, stressing how he tried to be a role model.”
FA panel were split on Kudus ban, one wanted longer punishment
In it’s written reasons for deciding Kudus will miss an additional two games – against Newcastle and Arsenal – The FA Commission said an extra three-match suspension was their starting point.
“However, the Commission was split on the number of games for which Kudus should be banned,” the report states.
“One member felt that a ban in excess of three matches would be appropriate for the incident with Sarr, in view of the following:
“The member also felt that the Commission’s sanction should include a deterrent element, sending a clear message that such public displays of violent conduct are
unwelcome.
“The other two members of the Commission, while agreeing that the Incident with Sarr was a serious offence and Kudus’ behaviour could in no way be condoned, did not consider that the matters referred to in paragraph 29 above were sufficiently aggravating to merit an increase from the Commission’s starting point. In reaching their conclusion they took account of the fact that Kudus had been jostled by Spurs players and was not solely to blame for what occurred.
“The Commission agreed unanimously that Kudus’ acceptance of the charge and his apology, which it found to be sincere, coupled with his clean disciplinary record, were mitigating factors, albeit that the dissenting member felt that they were outweighed by the aggravating factors referred to in paragraphs 29 and 30. By majority decision the Commission agreed to reduce the ban for the incident with Sarr by one match and ordered that Kudus serve a two-match ban for it.”