FA reveal Wigan Athletic star red card appeal decision 'was not unanimous'

The 19-year-old defender was dismissed by referee Sebastian Stockbridge after colliding with ex-Latics forward Devante Cole, who was through on goal.

While the official ruled there had been a denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO), Hughes was convinced he had got the ball.

Indeed, after reviewing video evidence, Latics boss Shaun Maloney believed the club had 'a strong case' for the decision to be overturned.

However, an FA Regulatory Commission - consisting of Tony Agana (chairman), Luke Swindlehurst and Mick Kearns - elected not to overturn the sending-off, which ruled Hughes out of the trip to Blackpool on September 2.

And the club have now received the written report explaining the decision.

"In order for a claim of Wrongful Dismissal to be successful the Player and/or his Club must establish by the evidence it submits that the Referee made a clear and obvious error in dismissing the Player," read the report.

"The burden rests on the Player and/or his Club to prove this.

"The role of the Regulatory Commission is not to usurp the role of the Referee and to simply re-referee the incident.

"In his Official Report Form the Referee, Mr Sebastian Stockbridge stated: 'I have to report that I, as the Referee sent off Hughes, Charles Roger of Wigan Athletic FC, Under Law 12 section: S5'.

"The Club submitted as evidence, broadcast television quality footage showing the incident in question from three different angles together with detailed submissions in support of the claim.

"For the avoidance of doubt, the commission viewed all footage and written submissions prior to the hearing and took all of the evidence into consideration when determining this claim.

"The IFAB Laws of the Game (Law 12) in relation to DOGSO states that a player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if: '…….denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick……'.

"Viewing the broadcast tv footage of the incident, The Commission first considered whether the challenge made by (CRH) Hughes was in fact a foul and there was a detailed discussion around this point.

"One panel member felt that CRH had won the ball legitimately and that the attacking player’s own momentum was a factor in him falling.

"However, the other two panel members believed that the footage showed a foul had been committed by CRH raising his leg after he had made contact with the ball causing the attacking player to fall.

"Therefore, by a majority decision it was found that a foul had in fact been committed.

"Next The Panel went on to consider whether, having committed a foul, CRH had denied his opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

"In determining this The Panel took into consideration the following factors: the distance between the offence and the goal; general direction of the play; likelihood of the attacker keeping or gaining control of the ball; and the location and number of defenders.

"On consideration of the above factors The Panel agreed unanimously that the criteria for DOGSO had been met and therefore the referee had not made a clear and obvious error in sending off CRH.

"The Club’s claim for Wrongful Dismissal is therefore dismissed."