Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[cibaman]

If you are looking at an incident (As Mariner was) and you see an elbow, you would blow up for a free-kick and send the player off. Mariner was looking at the incident and didn't see anything wrong with the respective challenges. Under FA rules that should be the end of the matter.

It's like saying the ref was looking at a challenge in the penalty box that 90% of people thought was a penalty but the referee doesn't give it. Do you retrospectively award a penalty because the ref was looking at the incident but didn't 'see' the foul. No, because that was his decision based on what he saw and how he interpreted that situation - its the referees judgement, that's what they get paid to do.

This trumped up charge would never had been brought but for the rag infested media. The problem, is that the SKY pundits are so poor and ill informed about the laws governing the game that they thought they had 'caught' our star striker bang to rights. The problem is, under FA rules they haven't because the referee saw the incident and awarded nothing - if you are looking at an incident you can't claim you didn't see it.

You can, often legitimately, claim you didn't see it in its entirety, every detail. Which is what Clattenberg will claim. And it will be impossible for City to prove otherwise

 

[TonyM]

....is a former player (Giggs?), former manager (Ferguson?), and former referee(Clattenburg?)....

 

[SexAndManCity]

Just listening to BBC Five Live Daily from midweek and they've already convicted him.
The following are direct quotes:

1. 'What he did deserves a 3 match ban'
2. 'They can't possibly be contesting the fact that Sergio Aguero elbowed the player in the throat, the player couldn't even talk afterwards'
3. 'He's elbowed him in the throat'
4. 'Did one individual have a sneaky look at an opponent and then push his arm/elbow towards him and make some contact? Yes he did'

Apparently the fact that Andre Marriner saw it but claimed he didn't is 'a ridiculous loophole' and he should be allowed to do one thing during the game and then change it once he's seen it again later.

However, they're all idiots because they argue that City have no other options without Aguero, even claiming that Gabriel Jesus 'has come in'...

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You can, often legitimately, claim you didn't see it in its entirety, every detail. Which is what Clattenberg will claim. And it will be impossible for City to prove otherwise

Marriner. Marriner. Marriner. Not Clattenburg.

I know his is the first name that pops into your head when we talk about bent refs but he wasn't the ref this time.

 

[SWP's back]

they can if they see the club is using the appeal to there advantage by having the advantage in playing him

Again. That's not how it works.

 

[Eds]

Just listening to BBC Five Live Daily from midweek and they've already convicted him.
The following are direct quotes:

1. 'What he did deserves a 3 match ban'
2. 'They can't possibly be contesting the fact that Sergio Aguero elbowed the player in the throat, the player couldn't even talk afterwards'
3. 'He's elbowed him in the throat'
4. 'Did one individual have a sneaky look at an opponent and then push his arm/elbow towards him and make some contact? Yes he did'

Apparently the fact that Andre Marriner saw it but claimed he didn't is 'a ridiculous loophole' and he should be allowed to do one thing during the game and then change it once he's seen it again later.

However, they're all idiots because they argue that City have no other options without Aguero, even claiming that Gabriel Jesus 'has come in'...

It might be ridiculous but it isn't really a loophole. He saw the incident as he would any other and deemed there to be nothing in the challenge. If anything he should have given us a free kick for Reid pushing Sergio.

 

[SWP's back]

Only if the claim is frivolous. The fact that video evidence will show that Marriner did see the incident, then that gives us a basis on which to appeal.

Personally, I think we will be lucky to be successful.

It's not a bloody appeal.

 

[Eds]

Once and for all, we are not appealing, we are contesting the charge. If you don't understand that then there is no hope for you

 

[SWP's back]

possibly the most anal post i've ever read

It's an important distinction as people keep asking if he can get an extra ban. He can't at this stage.

 

[moomba]

As the ball was clearly heading their way, I would presume both players were clearly challenging for the ball.

Thats the angle I reckon we'll use. Won't work but there is merit in making the argument.