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.