I like the way the rags seem to think that if Aguero is banned we don't stand a chance of beating them. Unlike them, though, we have more than one player who can score a goal, so the advantage is still ours. Expect to see one of Iheanacho, Sterling, Sané or Nolito in his place and life goes on.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Aguero banned for three games (updated)
- Thread starter citytill1die84
- Start date
Blue Mooner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 3,139
The
The refs kind of covered though isn't he? He can say that he saw the two jostling for the ball (something that cannot be denied as he's looking straight at it) but say he didn't see an elbow throw. FA (thanks to the kind people who 'sent' them the footage) can say back to him, that's fine Andre, we have another angle where he's throwing an elbow so don't worry about it.
Which defeats the object of re-refereeing a match. If you can argue that you were looking at every incident but then you don't see something at the time then in theory everything in the whole match can be re- refereed - that opens up a huge can of worms..
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
they can if they see the club is using the appeal to there advantage by having the advantage in playing him
I'm not sure about that, but in this case the club aren't gaining an advantage. It'll be dealt with today.
Plain Speaking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 5,096
You're right.The refs kind of covered though isn't he? He can say that he saw the two jostling for the ball (something that cannot be denied as he's looking straight at it) but say he didn't see an elbow throw. FA (thanks to the kind people who 'sent' them the footage) can say back to him, that's fine Andre, we have another angle where he's throwing an elbow so don't worry about it.
It's the media I'm general, and Sky in particular, that are controlling public opinion on such incidents.
Nixon_The_Bike_Thief
Well-Known Member
Or, in a bizarre twist none of us see coming, Sergio gets off scot free and the FA back Mariner with an explanation of " We charged him based on the camera angles provided and repeated by the media, City brought further footage and less commonly shown angles which clearly show no contact was made reaffirming Andre's initial report that he did not see an elbow because there wasn't one"
This would keep Mariners reputation intact (probably even support his fine work to an extent), justify why the FA brought the charge and also attempt to readdress the trial by media bollocks from sky to a certain degree.
Not going to happen though, 3 match ban the bent bastards lol
This would keep Mariners reputation intact (probably even support his fine work to an extent), justify why the FA brought the charge and also attempt to readdress the trial by media bollocks from sky to a certain degree.
Not going to happen though, 3 match ban the bent bastards lol
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Which defeats the object of re-refereeing a match. If you can argue that you were looking at every incident but then you don't see something at the time then in theory everything in the whole match can be re- refereed - that opens up a huge can of worms..
But the whole point of the changes to what the ref is asked is specifically to catch unseen incidents. It's hard enough seeing contact at full speed knowing that it's alleged, let alone while also trying to track the ball on the day. i don't find it unreasonable that Marriner did not see the full detail of what happened.
The fact that there's even a debate about whether it was violent conduct or not suggests to me that Aguero is innocent seeing as if he deliberately elbowed Reid in an aggressive manner it would be fairly obvious from the footage alone. It was a shrug, a natural reaction to being jostled from behind and something that happens unpunished in many a football game.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Is it possible the panel will bottle it and succumb to the pressure from the likes of sky and the daily mail...?
It is possible, but that drifts to a total lack of trust in the game as it is now.
Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
Except that it doesn't open up a can of worms because the FA just do what they like and show no consistency even when it comes to charging people with retrospective action.Which defeats the object of re-refereeing a match. If you can argue that you were looking at every incident but then you don't see something at the time then in theory everything in the whole match can be re- refereed - that opens up a huge can of worms..