Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[jessery]

As frustrating as it is, all of the common sense points made on here will never figure into the discussion they're having. They have to protect the referee.

 

[Blue Mooner]

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.

People are questioning what 'seeing' an incident means it is quite clear it is off the ball incidents that the ref is not looking at and therefore doesn't see.

If you can now say the referee is looking directly at an incident be it a potential foul, penalty or violent conduct but the ref is looking at it but does nothing at the time effectively every club can present video evidence on pretty much anything where they disagree with a referees judgement at the time.

Mariner was looking directly at the incident and didn't judge it worthy of any punishment, free kick, booking, sending off. That should be the end of it under the FA's own rules...,,

 

[franksinatra]

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.

That is pretty much my take on it. I cannot blame the referee at all or even the panel of three refs, I would raise more questions about the FA rules, influence of the media, inconsistency of applying retrospective punishment.

 

[bellsouth]

You're right.
It's the media I'm general, and Sky in particular, that are controlling public opinion on such incidents.

What stinks the most is the process by which the FA are alerted to incidents. Surely they can have one of their own people review video footage of each game every weekend and not rely on being sent footage from someone else, if that's what I've understood has happened.

 

[The slaughtered lamb]

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.

I don't find it unreasonable that refs don't see every detail but I do find it unreasonable that not seeing every detail is now being used as the definition of not seeing something. If someone is looking at something, surely it's reasonable to suggest they saw it. If not, then it's pointless having witness statements as you could always argue that they didn't see what they Thought they saw. It all gets a bit ridiculous. Is it not also unreasonable that someone else is being asked to pay the price for the ref 'not seeing' something in these circumstances?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Has anyone ever appealed and won?

It's not an appeal. Think of it as being charged by the police and being told you can accept a caution/fine or how to court. You go to court and can be found guilty or not guilty. If the former, you can appeal.

He's been charged and told he can accept (and presumably suffer a 3 match ban) or go to a hearing, where we'll presumably contest the circumstances of the charge.

 

[Manc in London]

now he will end up with a 4 match ban after the appeal

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.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I don't find it unreasonable that refs don't see every detail but I do find it unreasonable that not seeing every detail is now being used as the definition of not seeing something. If someone is looking at something, surely it's reasonable to suggest they saw it. If not, then it's pointless having witness statements as you could always argue that they didn't see what they Thought they saw. It all gets a bit ridiculous. Is it not also unreasonable that someone else is being asked to pay the price for the ref 'not seeing' something in these circumstances?

I agree with you and Frank in as much as it being vague as to how the decision is made to take it further.
The ref booking Aguero would be better than a post-match charge, and there seems something wrong there. It would be better if there was scope to upgrade/downgrade as well as the all or nothing approach we have now.

I don't see a solution though, and certainly not one that could be clearly written down. The inconsistency with e.g. the Costa/Adrian challenge is the problem, which was either not re-reffed or the ref said he saw it clearly. If that's in the outfield, it's a straight sending off. I'd be quite happy if all that type of thing got reviewed - as an example, the RFL disciplinary website lists all the charges/arguments brought and the decisions made and why. Something like that would be great.

 

[M18CTID]

It's not an appeal. Think of it as being charged by the police and being told you can accept a caution/fine or how to court. You go to court and can be found guilty or not guilty. If the former, you can appeal.

He's been charged and told he can accept (and presumably suffer a 3 match ban) or go to a hearing, where we'll presumably contest the circumstances of the charge.

Put another way PB, has anybody successfully contested one of these charges in the past? I can't for the life of me think of a single example

 

[franksinatra]

People are questioning what 'seeing' an incident means it is quite clear it is off the ball incidents that the ref is not looking at and therefore doesn't see.

If you can now say the referee is looking directly at an incident be it a potential foul, penalty or violent conduct but the ref is looking at it but does nothing at the time effectively every club can present video evidence on pretty much anything where they disagree with a referees judgement at the time.

Mariner was looking directly at the incident and didn't judge it worthy of any punishment, free kick, booking, sending off. That should be the end of it under the FA's own rules...,,

This rule was changed in 2013 with a stray elbow example being cited which was 'secondarily' to the actual challenge for the ball.

Its a nonsense to suggest the FA cannot charge Aguero under their own rules. You are misleading people.