Cisse did not attempt to deny his retaliatory spitting offence, and subsequently received the standard six-match suspension, which was increased to seven due to an earlier red card this season. Evans, for his part, also received a six-match ban, which others argue should have been extended or included a significant monetary fine since Evans initially denied the charge.

"I did not have the intent to spit at an opponent, so when the FA charged me with that I could never accept it. To spit at anyone is one of the most disgusting things you can do; it's low and cheap. I would never think to spit at someone. You just look like an idiot," said Evans.

Evans' stubborn, unrepentant attitude reveals a lot about his character and values in a soccer world of fast money and false idolisation.

Players like this are never helped by being mollycoddled and indulged by their inner circle. Louis van Gaal, the Manchester United manager, and former teammate Paul Scholes defended Evans, claiming he is "not that type of player".

Van Gaal said: "I didn't see that from the bench. Too far to see a spitting ... I cannot imagine Jonny Evans , a very modest person, could do that." Such blind support misrepresents the facts and only serves to reinforce his sense of self-righteousness.

Evans even felt it perfectly appropriate to drag his parents into the controversy, claiming: "I was able to go home and look my mum and dad in the eye because if I'd genuinely spat at someone I think they would have been disgusted in me."

The fact that his parents already have an inherent bias towards supporting their own son, especially one bringing home unimagined wealth, appears to be lost on Evans.

The key term here is "duty of care", which is acting responsibly toward others. Since Evans would never contemplate spitting in the vicinity of his parents, who he claims would be disgusted by the act, it follows that he failed in his duty of care to Cisse.

In last weekend's match between Liverpool and Manchester United, two players also failed in their duty of care to opponents. Steven Gerrard was sent off for stamping on Ander Herrera, while Martin Skrtel has been banned for his ugly late stamp on United goalkeeper David de Gea.

Gerrard later apologised for his red card offence, but Skrtel - like Evans - maintains his innocence in light of the FA's retrospective charge of stamping.

Since nobody can truly know the real intent of another individual, "duty of care" is the standard instrument used to assess a person's culpability. Referees also regularly use this standard to help them judge the intent of players' actions.

A good way is to imagine how players who come together during challenges would behave if their opponents were good friends or family members. Skrtel clearly failed in his duty of care and therefore is guilty. In fact, Skrtel is a player with a cynical attitude similar to that of Evans, which is reproachable to those who uphold good sporting values.

For instance, when Liverpool goalkeeper Simon Mignolet was injured by Wayne Rooney, Skrtel attempted to blame Rooney and get him booked. However, it was Skrtel himself who pushed the United captain into Mignolet thus causing the accidental collision.

This is a common unsporting action performed sneakily whenever two or more players are perilously close to a collision. Referees should be aware of these incidents, where the covering defender shoves an attacker - or vice-versa - towards the goalkeeper.

Short of mind reading, duty of care is the best way of identifying unsavoury individuals.

The FA has acted accordingly and Evans and Skrtel should have no complaints to being found guilty for their irresponsible and cynical approach to opponents.