Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[MillionMilesAway]

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.

Media exposure will inevitably highlight things, I don't think that's worth worrying about as long as each is properly reviewed. The last part is going to be personal opinion.

Even then, it still has to go to the ref, and then to the panel of other refs before charge is brought. What we don't know is if there are 20 incidents a week reviewed every week.

 

[The slaughtered lamb]

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.

I think that came about after incident with Torres? If that's the law change we're talking about then the spirit and wording of that change was to do with off the ball incidents, as in those where the ref was looking the other way. Of course, the FA could say otherwise but the wording was clear.

 

[franksinatra]

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?

Im sorry I cannot agree with that. Football moves at such a fast pace its impossible to view everything and retrospective punishment is required.

The prime example is the sliding tackle. How often do you see the coming together of players and its only with TV footage its evidenced that a player has gone studs up and is looking at the player rather than the ball?

It is required, but its the inconsistency and the fact televised matches and media coverage seems to influence these charges rather than a standardised retrospective view of all games and incidents.

 

[meltonblue]

I'm happy to contest it, I don't fancy our chances much though. I personally am still a bit more annoyed at Aguero as I do think there was intent to move the arm aggressively.

Whether Fellaibi or anyone else gets away with it is a bit immaterial to me, I still get more annoyed at players for putting themselves in the position of possible bans in the first place.

I may be wrong and Aguero had no idea he had done it and there was no intent there whatsoever. I don't think so though, he does have a petulant streak in him from time to time.

 

[Rolee]

Media exposure will inevitably highlight things, I don't think that's worth worrying about as long as each is properly reviewed. The last part is going to be personal opinion.

Even then, it still has to go to the ref, and then to the panel of other refs before charge is brought. What we don't know is if there are 20 incidents a week reviewed every week.

The media will help highlight things but again it's consistency that's the issue here. Phil Bardsley could've snapped Silva's leg in two yet the panel afterwards completely ignored it.

Perhaps the PL should enforce a rule whereby incidents missed by the officials are forbidden from being discussed by Sky etc. in their post match analysis because they are prejudicing the case.

 

[Eds]

Im sorry I cannot agree with that. Football moves at such a fast pace its impossible to view everything and retrospective punishment is required.

The prime example is the sliding tackle. How often do you see the coming together of players and its only with TV footage its evidenced that a player has gone studs up and is looking at the player rather than the ball?

It is required, but its the inconsistency and the fact televised matches and media coverage seems to influence these charges rather than a standardised retrospective view of all games and incidents.

Surprised you aren't on the panel franksinatra. Where did you view the original incident from?

 

[Blue Llama]

What's the fuss about? We have sufficient depth to beat any team in the prem with or without kun.

 

[franksinatra]

Surprised you aren't on the panel franksinatra. Where did you view the original incident from?

What are you on about?

 

[franksinatra]

I think that came about after incident with Torres? If that's the law change we're talking about then the spirit and wording of that change was to do with off the ball incidents, as in those where the ref was looking the other way. Of course, the FA could say otherwise but the wording was clear.

Your right it did. Ive read it a few times and it seems a bit of a 'grey area' on reflection so apologies to Blue Mooner.

EDIT: looking at this rule you can understand the basis of Citys argument that the ref saw it and it comes down to interpretation of the rule of when wo ething was seen and when it wasnt.

 

[mekonmcfc]

i'm generally happy with pretty much all of referee's decisions, and in many cases instant replay proves they have made the correct decision. In this case i believe he saw the incident and didnt think anything was wrong. It wasnt as if the incident was off the ball, it happened exactly when Reid headed the ball. If he didnt see it then he cant be looking at play at that moment. In that case what was he actually looking at ? IMO opinion the referee has lied to cover his own back.