Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[Tim of the Oak]

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.

Unless we have a recording along the lines of Manchester1894'd post above

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

I'll be disappointed if we are using the ref saw it defence, very weak argument if that's the case.

 

[SWP's back]

What is the most realistic outcome?

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

Nothing needs to be overturned as he hasn't yet received a ban.

 

[HellasLEAF]

I like that we are putting up a fight personally.

Right we should.

What we should just roll over immediately to them?

 

[mosssideblue]

I'll be disappointed if we are using the ref saw it defence, very weak argument if that's the case.

From reading this thread, I conclude that for a ban to be imposed by an independent panel, the following criteria are assessed and have to all be met (please correct me if wrong)

1. It has to be an off the ball incident
2. The referee has claimed not to see the incident in his match report
3. There has to be proven intent (with or without any contact being made)

From what I saw live at the game and afterwards on TV, I cannot see how all three are met

Foe me:

1. Definitely was not an off the ball incident
2. Very doubtful the Ref didn't see it
3. I think we are guilty as charged on that one

If I am correct, we have a strong argument IMO

 

[Ric]

Could any prospective ban be increased if the FA deem the appeal to be frivolous?

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

I can't think of a single incident where a player has benefited from contesting a charge, regardless of whether the referee is lying through his teeth.
If anything, I think we're doing this, knowing that Mariner will probably have another City game in the near future, and in modern parlance, will "Owe us one".

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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.

I don't think that's true. The ref's vision just needs to be incomplete, and it's quite possible that he couldn't see the contact - there's plenty on here who can't see much, and looking head on might not be the best place.

 

[Phil1]

Could any prospective ban be increased if the FA deem the appeal to be frivolous?

C'mon bossman, you're supposed to answer those kinds of questions for us, not the other way round!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Could any prospective ban be increased if the FA deem the appeal to be frivolous?

It could, but I doubt this falls under frivolous (obviously we'll have to see what's said).

However I thought the frivolous bit related to appealing against a sending off, rather than a charge after the event.

 

[cibaman]

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".

As has been mentioned, the term "secondarily to a challenge" is fairly vague. It means that refs can say that they were focusing on the challenge, didn't notice the violent conduct even though they were looking at the challenge. It may be disingenuous, but it makes it very difficult to challenge the ref's integrity. Which is probably the intention.

 

[mattyb]

Could any prospective ban be increased if the FA deem the appeal to be frivolous?

I don't think so in this case. Frivolous would mean without any real case for appeal.

The most notable one would be Ferdianand. He played the system knowing he would always be banned, so that he could play against City. His appeal meant that the FA wouldn't conclude the appeal until after the game, and therefore he could play

 

[cibaman]

It could, but I doubt this falls under frivolous (obviously we'll have to see what's said).

However I thought the frivolous bit related to appealing against a sending off, rather than a charge after the event.

Isn't the concept of a "frivolous appeal" largely redundant? It was brought in when players used to appeal purely so that the delay while the appeal was heard meant they wouldn't miss a particular match.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I don't think so in this case. Frivolous would mean without any real case for appeal.

The most notable one would be Ferdianand. He played the system knowing he would always be banned, so that he could play against City. His appeal meant that the FA wouldn't conclude the appeal until after the game, and therefore he could play

That's the one I was thinking of. Anyway, this isn't an appeal, it's contesting a charge.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Isn't the concept of a "frivolous appeal" largely redundant? It was brought in when players used to appeal purely so that the delay while the appeal was heard meant they wouldn't miss a particular match.

I think so. I certainly don't recall one for years now.

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

From reading this thread, I conclude that for a ban to be imposed by an independent panel, the following criteria are assessed and have to all be met (please correct me if wrong)

1. It has to be an off the ball incident
2. The referee has claimed not to see the incident in his match report
3. There has to be proven intent (with or without any contact being made)

From what I saw live at the game and afterwards on TV, I cannot see how all three are met

Foe me:

1. Definitely was not an off the ball incident
2. Very doubtful the Ref didn't see it
3. I think we are guilty as charged on that one

If I am correct, we have a strong argument IMO

I agree with each of your points but I'm concerned if the main thrust of our argument relies upon the ref being honest. I hope we are building a case around 1 and 3; i didn't think there was intent.

 

[lazza]

It's all Pep mind games: keep the Rags guessing!

Appeal the ban.

Win the appeal.

Rest Kun for the derby.

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

Could any prospective ban be increased if the FA deem the appeal to be frivolous?

Didn't Ferdinand once get an extra ban for a frivolous appeal?
However, that was in the days when the appeal process took a fortnight, and players didn't necessarily miss the next game.
I seem to remember United appealing, just so that Ferdinand would be eligible to play against City in the League Cup Semi Final.

 

[We're not really here]

It is an incident that happens in every game. I accidentally broke a centre back's nose once. He was pulling and trying to get his arm across me. I yanked away using my arms as leverage. Forearm caught him. I didn't intend to hit him but it is a contact sport.
Reid spends half his life grappling and in this case Sergio is trying to pull away from Reid's fouling. No intent. Anyone who has played knows this.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

We've paid for another dossier ala 2012?

Or we've threatened to release that one.