Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[GeorgeHeslop'sTackle.]

He'll only get one, guilty or not guilty, and SKY already decided on Sunday.

Agreed. Truth is Mariner saw nothing, despite looking straight at "the incident," because there was nothing to see.... Until Sky (MUTV lite)' insisted otherwise in its post match "analysis"

 

[cleavers]

Agreed. Truth is Mariner saw nothing, despite looking straight at "the incident," because there was nothing to see.... Until Sky (MUTV lite)' insisted otherwise in its post match "analysis"

Pretty much.

 

[stony]

Duncan Castles doing his best for the rag cause I see. Contemptible fucking gobshite.

 

[Phil1]

Duncan Castles doing his best for the rag cause I see. Contemptible fucking gobshite.

He's beyond contempt the snivelling little gobshite. Even Mourinho must get embarrassed at how far up his arse he is.

 

[Blueknows]

I doubt it, but even if he could appeal, it would be dealt with before the derby.

I don't know why people are obsessed with him playing against united anyway, jose will park the bus, games Sergio is not the most helpful in anyway.

 

[cleavers]

So we can't win without him ?

 

[Terra Passenger]

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.

I suspect that this will be the main reason for our challenge of the charge. The term "secondarily to a challenge for the ball" is pretty vague though.

Schedule A to the FA rulebook contains the following language when explaining when retrospective action may be taken:
"An act of violent conduct occurs secondarily to a challenge for the ball, and so is not seen as the Match Officials are concentrating on the challenge for the ball"

In this context the term "secondarily to a challenge for the ball" might mean that when going up for a contested header, the challenge is made with the head; secondarily to the challenge an elbow is thrown.

 

[capiloton]

love this. it's about time to challenge the FA and incompetence referee.

 

[dennishasdoneit]

love this. it's about time to challenge the FA and incompetence referee.

Dead right.

 

[SWP's back]

Ok. If you believe there was no contact and aren't going to alter that view after the photo I've posted then that's up to you.

Thw offence itself is possibly only worth a yellow but now it's taken off the pitch it's nothing or red.

Exactly so I expect it to be classed as nothing.

 

[mancity dan]

The hearing will be today, from what I have read elsewhere.

 

[Manchester1894]

The club have access to film that we don't. I suspect the act of throwing the elbow is indefensible. However as mooted a few pages back, the integrity of the ref is to be brought into question. I sincerely hope we have a close up of a WH player asking the ref about an elbow and him replying that he saw it and was accidental.

 

[Tanzeylee]

All this talk about camera angles is bs from the right camera angle your cock can look huge.

 

[moomba]

No chance we'll push the "he saw it angle". Even though he saw it.

FA would have to admit the ref lied about not seeing it, they'd have to sack him in that case.

 

[razman]

What is the most realistic outcome?

Reduced ban maybe? Don't know if can be totally over turned..

 

[Phil1]

What is the most realistic outcome?

Reduced ban maybe? Don't know if can be totally over turned..

The most likely outcome is he will be banned for 3 games.

The best outcome for us as a club is the fact we're highlighting that the referees in this country are by and large shithouses who do as they are told and have little integrity.

The other bonus is we won't see Marriner at the Etihad for a while.

 

[M18CTID]

What is the most realistic outcome?

Reduced ban maybe? Don't know if can be totally over turned..

I can't see anything other than a 3 match ban. I guess it's just a case of us appealing and having nothing to lose by doing so. Unless the club have something up their sleeve that they can present to the FA of course.

Incidentally, has any player ever successfully appealed against one of these retrospective charges? I can't think of any.

 

[cibaman]

We are arguing that his actions were nowhere near as aggressive as other players who have been charged, according to The Times.

 

[SPIDERBOY]

No chance we'll push the "he saw it angle". Even though he saw it.

FA would have to admit the ref lied about not seeing it, they'd have to sack him in that case.

He has seen it and that's the point.
What is the point of having someone in charge of a game who hasn't got the bottle to make a decision?
He should of yellow carded him at least and it was done.

The one simple question City may be asking is "using the same footage to find Aguero guilty,please explain how the ref has not seen it and we will accept the ban".

 

[mosssideblue]

NO INTENT, NO CONTACT, NO BAN - City correct to appeal

I think your wrong on the first two and hope your right with the last one.