Tommy_Catons_Perm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 2,674
Maybe if the ref was looking at it he is deemed to have seen it ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Aguero banned for three games (updated)
- Thread starter citytill1die84
- Start date
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
Just taking a look at rag cafe..... oh dear
Corrupt Bertie FA doing their best to help him put his argument forward.
Berties and their FA are shit scared of us, dreading playing us on the 10th and want Aguero to be a part of it. They won't let us win the league easy lads, you can me sure of that. It's going to stink, stink like stunk at the end of last season when Berties were given all decisions in their favour to help them qualify for 4th. Can't have baldy in the Europa, can we?
Their having mini meetings in Stockport reading through the rule books and finding out ways to change the rules so elbows can put in a solid appeal and avoid the ban.
Bertie cnuts.
Just shows how thick they are, the FA is polluted with rags the chairman is a rag FA's UEFA rep Gill ex rag CEO
marco
Well-Known Member
With regards to the referee seeing or not seeing it, won't they just claim the ref was ball watching and not looking at the elbow? Yeah, that's incompetent refereeing, but it may actually be what happened. Just because his head was pointing in that direction doesn't mean he saw it. If my eyes are focused on a pair of enormous breasts, I certainly did not see the jewellery on her wrist, for example. I just think they have an easy get-out.
if he was ball watching he would have had to be facing the SS and his head would be raised higher than what it is on the video,it cant be argued his head is in line and the trajectory of sight is bang online all he could say to clear himself is that he blinked
M
M
mat
Guest
Well this a proper dicks on the table move. Pep had accepted whatever happens happens. If it a principle thing then fair fucks with the funniest part being we could win it and he's injured anyway so will miss it regardless.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
On the contrary. I could appeal and win this case. The rule (if correctly quoted on here) says they can only review off the ball incidents. This wasn't an off the ball incident, so it should never have gone to a charge.
Quite right.
The regulations also say that they can only review it if the ref didn't see it. He clearly did see it, so in law, there is no case to answer.
Anyone who has spent any time in court will tell you that a lot of defences are based around the police not following procedure.
If this was an independent legal hearing in front of a judge I'm very confident we'd win this appeal. As it is in front of an "independent commission" probably chaired by David Gill, I'm not so sure.
Unfortunately they charged the process rules and are entitled to review even if the ref saw it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/24847724
kaz7
Well-Known Member
We are contesting the charge and it goes to an independent panel possibly tomorrowJust a quick point as this seems to have been misunderstood: This is not an appeal. We're just putting forward argument in the hearing.
Yes I know K9, but some people keep quoting appeal. Which is getting things back to front. You appeal something if a hearing rules against you.We are contesting the charge and it goes to an independent panel possibly tomorrow
Carlos- the- jackal
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 1,765
We could have just accepted the violent conduct charge and taken the ban without any hearing but we're not we're contesting it whatever way you or anyone else wants to word it.Just a quick point as this seems to have been misunderstood: This is not an appeal. We're just putting forward argument in the hearing.
dannybcity
Well-Known Member
What exactly is the rule on it? Is it that the referee can see an incident in real time, not make a decision, then change his mind based on a replay from another angle?
I know it's been reported that he's injured but I think he's just carrying a knock not a strain.Well this a proper dicks on the table move. Pep had accepted whatever happens happens. If it a principle thing then fair fucks with the funniest part being we could win it and he's injured anyway so will miss it regardless.
marco
Well-Known Member
Just a quick point as this seems to have been misunderstood: This is not an appeal. We're just putting forward argument in the hearing.
it dosnt realy matter Marvin,we have been charged and not accepted the charges
We are contesting the charge and it goes to an independent panel possibly tomorrow
it goes to the so called independent panel anyway, that's the procedure, of course how independent they are remains to be seen but i'm sure the phone calls have already been made between them,and they are tucking into there steak dinner as we speak
Ah. Thanks. That's that theory blown then.Unfortunately they charged the process rules and are entitled to review even if the ref saw it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/24847724
Sir peace frog
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,883
- Location
- stalking the canals and rivers
- Team supported
- Manchester City Football Club
i said earlier in the week imo aguero isn't injured he was needed at the appeal.I know it's been reported that he's injured but I think he's just carrying a knock not a strain.
The slaughtered lamb
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2014
- Messages
- 4,619
You would think that would form the basis of the defence. He's looking at it but is saying he didn't see it.Maybe if the ref was looking at it he is deemed to have seen it ?
The other stuff such as inconsistency and trial by media wouldn't be a defence but I wouldn't be surprised if it's brought up.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
I don't think we will win or he will get 1 match so he is out of the derby,good to see us not just roll over thoughit dosnt realy matter Marvin,we have been charged and not accepted the charges
it goes to the so called independent panel anyway, that's the procedure, of course how independent they are remains to be seen but i'm sure the phone calls have already been made between them,and they are tucking into there steak dinner as we speak
It's a charge. A hearing. We just have some kind of argument/mitigation to put forward. Technically he could be let off without City doing anything although I don't know if that has ever happened. If you understand then fine.We could have just accepted the violent conduct charge and taken the ban without any hearing but we're not we're contesting it whatever way you or anyone else wants to word it.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
IMHO the whole retrospective action process is wrong and is subject to interference by vested interests, this is a classic example of that. FIFA want the professional game to be has close to the amateur game as possible, and are not keen on retrospective action even appealing a red card, unless it's mistaken identity, this is purely an FA process. A fair process would be to review all incidents in every game, televised or not, obviously not possible so it should be left to the ref on the pitch. Let's face it, it was the only thing he got wrong on Sunday; the offside against Sergio was wrong, not booking the persistent fouling by the WHU fullback because didn't want to send him off and he crossed the ball for WHU goal. I also suspect he blew for HT when City were attacking whereas if it had been WHU he won't.
M
M
mat
Guest
Maybe they've got the elusive Shrek elbow on Davis footage and Lamalas eyes gouging and asking where's the "retrospective action" on these two televised games?
:)
:)
quiet_riot
Well-Known Member
Don't know if mentioned, but if a player pulls out of international games through injury, isn't he ineligible for his next club game?