Aguero banned for three games (updated)

Remember Kevin Horlock was sent off for "walking aggressively" in the past. Also I'm sure the FA will take the view of "the intent" element of the charge. My fear is with challenging the charge Kun gets an extra match ban for a "frivolous" appeal. Fingers crossed but my gut feeling is he's going to get done come what may. Only my two penneth thats all.
 
Gordyola said:
That doesn't prove anything unless the world is only 2D
Click to expand...
That only further proves the media pushed for it. That angle makes it look like contact but as you see from the other angle, his arm is lower than Reid's head and not touching it
 
johnmc said:
But from the angle I've posted you can see the point of contact. Look at reids face. You can't do that with your face unless there is contact.
Click to expand...

20120521-193230.jpg
 
Why did Reid go down clutching his face, then say that there was something wrong with his voice and imply contact to his Adam's apple? Looks like a shove to the chest to me - if you push anything, you start with a bent arm that straightens and this is no different. He was only trying to regain his initial position after Reid had bundled into the back of him and half shoved him over.
I agree 100% that it's a stupid thing to do if intentional, but none of us really know if it was and the reactions of everyone around, including Aguero himself, don't seem to imply that.
 
Also - City have almost never challenged/responded/appealed in the past, even if the decision was more ridiculous than this. They've always just accepted it and cracked on so perhaps everyone really does think it's a bad call from the officials.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
So, you're saying it is a red card offence and the referee saw it and decided not to send him off and then said he didn't see it in order to both make himself look stupid and send Aguero off, after the event. The obvious question is why would he?
Click to expand...

And the obvious answer is because he's faced with the choice of looking like a completely shite ref who saw a clear red card offence and decided to do nothing, vs lying and saying he didn't see it.
 
Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...e-elbow-verdict-on-monday-and-could-miss-man/

I was wrong it's a calf injury. Pulled out the Argentina squad with it.
Click to expand...
Argentinian FA reported a calf problem with Aguero. And on the back of that media started reporting he had a calf strain.

Remember there has been some disputes with players over travel etc. Aguero's father has talked in the past about Aguero not playing for Argentina if messi stops playing etc. The players have been unhappy with travel arrangements etc. 2 hour hold ups at airports etc. I read this a while ago so don't remember the details but it's made me a bit sceptical. He looked OK when he came off even if he was walking very slowly. I reckon he's fit but it's just a hunch based on circumstantial stuff.
 
SWP's back said:
No. That's not how it works. If one shows daylight between elbow and player than any other angle is irrelevant.

I'm not actually cross with you, I'm cross with myself for indulging you on your fishing trip.
Click to expand...

I think you both make the same point, just for either side of the argument.
One picture showing definite contact is indeed conclusive (however i don't believe there is one of these) whilst another picture, taken at the same time, from a different angle, showing daylight between the 2 would disprove the contact argument.

I believe Reid's facial expression is down to him having just headed the ball (or about to head it) not because of any contact. He went down clutching his face when it then turned out to be his neck/throat/Adam's apple that was (allegedly) struck. Again, it looks more like contact to the top of his chest more than anything.
 
CitizenTID said:
That only further proves the media pushed for it. That angle makes it look like contact but as you see from the other angle, his arm is lower than Reid's head and not touching it
Click to expand...
More to the point, surely we have some footage of our own that proves mariner was looking directly at it, and couldn't possibly, as he's claimed, have "missed the incident"

Might not help Sergio in this instance, but it would prove Marriner to be a total liar, and surely call into severe question his credibility to do the job in the future, as a result
 
Last edited:
Gordyola said:
Doesn't matter whether he so it or not the FA changed the rules

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/24847724
Click to expand...

The latest changes cover "acts of violent conduct that occur secondarily to a challenge for the ball" and "in off-the-ball incidents where one or more match official did see the players coming together, but the match officials' view was such that none of them had the opportunity to make a decision on an act of misconduct that took place within that coming together".

FA director of governance Darren Bailey said: "This enables the FA to consider acts of violent conduct, like an elbow or a stamp, which have occurred after a challenge for the ball or coming together of players.
Click to expand...

This incident did not occur
i) secondarily to a challenge for the ball
ii) off the ball
iii) after a challenge for the ball or a coming together.

It was a direct challenge for the ball with the referee looking straight at it who did not act and so the FA's 'new rules' don't apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top