The Football Association have published the written reasons behind the decision to make Carlisle United's Shaun Miller the first player in the country to receive a retrospective diving ban.

Details of the decision made by an independent regulatory commission have been provided on the FA's website today.

Miller recently served a two-match ban after a panel unanimously agreed the striker had dived to win a penalty in the 35th minute of Carlisle's 3-3 draw with Wycombe on October 17.

Miller denied the charge and was supported by video, written and photographic evidence from the club.

But a three-man commission that included Tottenham Hotspur legend Gary Mabbutt rejected United's appeal and agreed that Miller was guilty of "successful deception of a match official" in his reaction to defender Dan Scarr's challenge.

Their verdict dismissed Miller's and United's arguments, including their claims that neither he nor his team-mates had appealed for the penalty, whilst noting there had been a "staunch reaction" from the opposition players to Miller's actions.

They also claimed the 30-year-old showed "no intention" of staying on his feet in the incident.

The commission hearing took place three days after the Wycombe game via WebEx video conference.

It heard evidence supplied by Miller in which the forward said: "As we came together there was some upper body contact.

"My momentum and the upper body contact made me off balance and resulted in me going to ground."

The commission, though, "did not accept" this version of events, and said Miller had started to go to ground before the alleged contact.

"Although a split second reaction, there was no intention to stay on his feet," their written summary says.

"As soon as the first touch was taken, he went to ground. There was no attempt or intention to take a second touch. This coincided with the opposing player withdrawing from the challenge. He can clearly be seen drawing his foot back."

The document adds that, although Miller argued that he did not appeal for a penalty and then played the ball as it rolled to him, "that does little to support his case as the incident had already occurred."

"It is not a pre-requisite that an individual intending to deceive does not appeal," the commission added.

"In addition, the photographic evidence does little to support the case.

"It is also not accepted that no reaction from the Carlisle United [players] in some way supports his account.

"There is a staunch reaction from the Wycombe Wanderers players."

The members who sat on the commission are listed as Mr G Farrelly, chairman, Mr G Mabbutt and Mr M Robinson.

They unanimously found the charge of simulation to be proven after considering all the evidence presented.

The panel who initially judged Miller to have dived were given several points of guidance on the law before reaching their decision.

They must conclude, for instance, that "there is clear and overwhelming evidence" of simulation, whilst considering five key questions. They are:

1) Is there contact between the players involved? Simulation is more likely in cases where a player attempts to deceive the referee when no contact occurred between the players.

2) Is there fair/normal contact between the players, resulting in no offence being committed?

3) Is a player legitimately avoiding contact with the opponent to prevent injury?

4) Has the player initiated the contact between his opponent and himself in order to deceive the referee?

5) Does the player exaggerate the effect of a normal challenge in order to deceive the referee?

Before a case is put before the commission, three members of a specialist panel must have independently reviewed the incident and unanimously agreed that an incident had occurred which successfully deceived a match official.

At the time of Miller's suspension, which saw him miss games against Notts County and Chesterfield, United chief executive Nigel Clibbens said the club was "very disappointed" their appeal had been rejected.

"In our view, there was no intent to deceive the referee and it is not a clear act either," Clibbens added. "Shaun and no other Carlisle United player appealed for a penalty. They all played on and were not expecting or seeking any decision.

"You can see from the footage that they were all surprised when a penalty was given."

United declined to comment further today.

To read the copy of the written reasons visit http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/written-reasons