Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[franksinatra]

If you asked 10 people to look at the incident from Clattenberg's view and in real time and then describe Aguero's actions, you would get up to 10 different descriptions, depending on what they were primarily focusing on.

A ref's training means that they should be better than most at identifying all of the relevant actions during this sort of incidents. But even so it seems to me that would be almost impossible for City to successfully challenge Clattenberg's version of what he did or didn't see.

You are correct they should be better but still unlikely to accurately gauge an incident in real time such as this. I mean people with the benefit of numerous camera angles, slo-mo on here cannot formulate an agreement on the actual events.

Like I say I dont blame the ref. its the system what stinks, the influence of the media and the fact the law seems open to such interpretation.

The definition of a law is a 'system of rules which regulates the actions of its member' It cannot be fit for purpose if the law is only enforced at the behest of the media.

 

[Machiavelli]

If you asked 10 people to look at the incident from Clattenberg's view and in real time and then describe Aguero's actions, you would get up to 10 different descriptions, depending on what they were primarily focusing on.

A ref's training means that they should be better than most at identifying all of the relevant actions during this sort of incidents. But even so it seems to me that would be almost impossible for City to successfully challenge Clattenberg's version of what he did or didn't see.

Where was he watching from?

 

[We're not really here]

In RL a player can be charged whether or not the ref has put the incident on report.

Isn't that a separate committee? I may be wrong but isn't that when a ref missed something like in football? My point is that if the ref sees something but is not sure because of the angle he puts it on report. Marriner could have done that had this easy rule be introduced.

 

[Rolee]

possibly the most anal post i've ever read

Ok

Thanks mods for changing the title.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

The rule was amended to cover a situation where the referee's position meant that his view was obstructed and the assistants/fourth official are not in a position such that they could be expected to judge the challenge.

Given the circumstances, neither the ref or his fourth official could conceivably claim that. Therefore the FA has clearly bowed to media pressure and not followed its own rules.

It's all bollocks anyway. The whole thing about not reviewing things when a ref sees it was because they don't want to undermine referees by "re-refereeing" things. But if this doesn't undermine Marriner, getting him to say he didn't see it when he was a few yards away, staring right at it, I don't know what does.

 

[franksinatra]

You just seemed very clued up, although you are a WUM and not a believer in any agenda

I dont believe in any Agenda but am not straightjacketed by that belief that I cannot see the influence of the media in this case or be cheesed off with say BTs coverage. I take every instance on face value and formulate an opinion on that, even if that does not support my overall standpoint.

Definitely not a WUM. Just have different opinion on whether there is an Agenda. Probably my other views I would imagine are pretty standard fare.

 

[franksinatra]

Where was he watching from?

I did not want to say anything.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

It's all bollocks anyway. The whole thing about not reviewing things when a ref sees it was because they don't want to undermine referees by "re-refereeing" things. But if this doesn't undermine Marriner, getting him to say he didn't see it when he was a few yards away, staring right at it, I don't know what does.

The top and bottom of this incident is that with Marriner looking directly at it, if he wasn't looking for a bit of totty in the East Stand, he saw nothing untoward that would warrant a red card. If he now says he didn't see it, and had he seen it he would have given a red card, is the biggest load of old bollocks I've heard for a long time. HTF is he gonna give a red card when he persisted with warning after warning to the Wiiiiiiiiiist Hiiiiiiiim full back who, by any objective assessment, had accumulated FOUR yellow cards by the end of the game. In the immortal words of Paxo: Why is is lying bastard lying to us!

 

[Gordyola]

BUT. Does that now mean unless a game is covered by Sky with numerous cameras the ref only has his view and has to make a decision on that? So we can only have re referring on certain games. It makes a mockery out of the game. The fact is he saw it and you can't go back and re ref it.

Exactly the whole retro action for incident on the ball should be stopped and only serious off the ball should be looked at External vested interest parties should not have any influence over incidents the FA is polluted enough already with the chair and and UEFA rep know rags

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If you asked 10 people to look at the incident from Clattenberg's view...

I think Clattenburg could safely claim his view was obstructed.