http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/15561482.Devastated_Hemed_says_he_accepts_FA_ban___but_can_t_agree_with_it/?ref=mac
In a message released via social media, the Israel striker wrote: “I accept the decision against me but do not agree with it and I am devastated to miss three matches.
“I would...
The extra game is added on if the FA consider it's frivolous, or a silly reason why it has been appealed. The club felt they had a good reason to appeal by stating it was accidental rather than deliberate.
That was rejected, so the 3 match ban still applies, with nothing extra.
The last two paragraphs of that article is how I feel.
Similarly at Brighton the following day, all the focus after the whistle was on slow-motion replays of a wrongly disallowed Burnley goal while Joey Barton appears to have escaped after a stamp of his own.
There is a sense that broadcasters...
We appealed three red cards (Stephens, Murphy and Murray) previously with no extra game bans. It's only if an appeal is deemed frivolous, that it is extended.
It seems that being charged, they already have reached a unanimous decision. I'm not surprised because Brighton never get the benefit of the doubt, in these cases, unlike Barton or Shelvey.
Yes, having Googled it, this article makes that clear.
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/how-retrospective-refereeing-work-what-11173785
If he has already been found guilty, why are they still calling it an alleged act of violent conduct? Surely the statement would say, he has been charged with violent conduct?