Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

He's not appealing, he's responding to a charge, he's either found guilty (3 games), or not guilty (nothing).

My mistake I've misunderstood the situation.

Then no worries he can have two bites of the cherry so to speak.

 

[Chippy_boy]

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?

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.

 

[cleavers]

Then no worries he can have two bites of the cherry so to speak.

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

 

[Marvin]

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.

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.

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

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

But if he's found Guilty and given a three match ban, surely he can appeal that? That may then allow him to play in the Derby against the rags.

I don't know the protocols involved so I'm commenting from a position of ignorance.

 

[SexAndManCity]

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.

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.

 

[cleavers]

But if he's found Guilty and given a three match ban, surely he can appeal that?

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.

 

[GeorgeHeslop'sTackle.]

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

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

 

[Toney’s bookie]

Doesn't matter whether he so it or not the FA changed the rules

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/24847724

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.

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.

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

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.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

Cheers fellow blue.