Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
Haha.
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
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
In RL a player can be charged whether or not the ref has put the incident on report.
Correct. There's a citing officer, but anything the ref puts on report is also looked at. They occasionally appear to not use the report system much any more, as there are cameras present at the top games.
I said earlier that the big difference is that every charge is listed on the RFL disciplinary page, including those dismissed and the reasons given. It's obviously easier there as playacting is largely restricted to Sam Tomkins, and it's dealt with quickly.
steviemc
Well-Known Member
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.
Yep, the problem we have with retrospective incidents is that the decision making process often becomes a guessing game, especially with regard to intent. What could simply have been an instantaneous decision, decided by the blow of a referees whistle, becomes a long drawn out process of attempts at reading body language and analysing facial expressions etc.
Only Aguero and Reid know the true nature of the situation, but I wouldn't be shocked if they're both thinking 'what the fuck's this all about?'
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 27,952
Don't know why anybody bothers contesting these things. There is about a 3% chance of getting off. Only chance of a reduced sentence is if we can prove Aguero didn't actually touch Reid.
Last edited:
To sum up!
Relevant bit of the definition of "violent conduct" is "a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible". Plus, it's been recently emphasised to officials that it can be violent conduct even if you miss.
The original charge comes after a review by 3 former referees. I think the appeal panel against red cards is a former player, former manager, and former referee but appeals against a retrospective charge seem to involve a QC and a member of the FA Council, and a former manager. You'd only have to have one of them thinking "it's no worse than a lot of incidents not given so much attention" and you might win the appeal.
Apart from those who think it wasn't worth a red card (at the time) or isn't "violent conduct" the main concern is that some United players (Rooney, Fellaini) commit violent conduct regularly and either get a yellow, or no card and no retrospective charge. Fellaini of course served a retrospective 3 match ban last season (remember Van Gaal's "It's not in the books that someone has to grab by the hair and then pull it behind - only in sex masochism.") Whether or not there is a bias, the key thing is that there is an obvious conflict of interest at the heart of the FA (and UEFA and FIFA): David Gill.
Finally, Marriner's failure to see it (or unwillingness to admit he had seen it but took no action) is bad, but worse (in refereeing terms at the time) is that he turned his back on the two players who'd clashed, potentially missing any further "afters".
Relevant bit of the definition of "violent conduct" is "a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible". Plus, it's been recently emphasised to officials that it can be violent conduct even if you miss.
The original charge comes after a review by 3 former referees. I think the appeal panel against red cards is a former player, former manager, and former referee but appeals against a retrospective charge seem to involve a QC and a member of the FA Council, and a former manager. You'd only have to have one of them thinking "it's no worse than a lot of incidents not given so much attention" and you might win the appeal.
Apart from those who think it wasn't worth a red card (at the time) or isn't "violent conduct" the main concern is that some United players (Rooney, Fellaini) commit violent conduct regularly and either get a yellow, or no card and no retrospective charge. Fellaini of course served a retrospective 3 match ban last season (remember Van Gaal's "It's not in the books that someone has to grab by the hair and then pull it behind - only in sex masochism.") Whether or not there is a bias, the key thing is that there is an obvious conflict of interest at the heart of the FA (and UEFA and FIFA): David Gill.
Finally, Marriner's failure to see it (or unwillingness to admit he had seen it but took no action) is bad, but worse (in refereeing terms at the time) is that he turned his back on the two players who'd clashed, potentially missing any further "afters".
D
D
Deleted member 13905
Guest
does anyone know when the outcome of this charade is due to be released?
the "inedpendent panel" must have had their free lunch by now.
the "inedpendent panel" must have had their free lunch by now.
steviemc
Well-Known Member
To sum up!
Relevant bit of the definition of "violent conduct" is "a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible". Plus, it's been recently emphasised to officials that it can be violent conduct even if you miss.
As the ball was clearly heading their way, I would presume both players were clearly challenging for the ball.
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
Will the judgement, and how they arrived at it, of the panel be available for public viewing or is it a closed shop stitch up?
IMO If the Q is "was it violent conduct that the referee missed at the time?" - hes going to be found guilty unless sufficient doubt can be raised to the intent of the arm movement.
As others have said there is sufficient leeway in the wording of such reviews that the referee is beyond reproach regarding his integrity to not having seen it at the time.
This process needs reviewing in my opinion as there should be means by which violent conduct which is in fact worse than a referee perceives/interprets it gets away with a yellow or nothing.
Fellaini, Costa and others have gotten away with clear red card offences which were only given as yellow at the time.
The referee should be allowed to indicate an incident "For Review" whatever action he takes at the time, similar to the way rugby referees do.
That way all controversial incidents are subject to the same ojective analysis and process by the appropriate authorities.
I'm pretty sure the FA can come up with an analytical process that's more thorough and less subjective than the current one.
IMO If the Q is "was it violent conduct that the referee missed at the time?" - hes going to be found guilty unless sufficient doubt can be raised to the intent of the arm movement.
As others have said there is sufficient leeway in the wording of such reviews that the referee is beyond reproach regarding his integrity to not having seen it at the time.
This process needs reviewing in my opinion as there should be means by which violent conduct which is in fact worse than a referee perceives/interprets it gets away with a yellow or nothing.
Fellaini, Costa and others have gotten away with clear red card offences which were only given as yellow at the time.
The referee should be allowed to indicate an incident "For Review" whatever action he takes at the time, similar to the way rugby referees do.
That way all controversial incidents are subject to the same ojective analysis and process by the appropriate authorities.
I'm pretty sure the FA can come up with an analytical process that's more thorough and less subjective than the current one.
Blue Mooner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 3,139
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.
If you are looking at an incident (As Mariner was) and you see an elbow, you would blow up for a free-kick and send the player off. Mariner was looking at the incident and didn't see anything wrong with the respective challenges. Under FA rules that should be the end of the matter.
It's like saying the ref was looking at a challenge in the penalty box that 90% of people thought was a penalty but the referee doesn't give it. Do you retrospectively award a penalty because the ref was looking at the incident but didn't 'see' the foul. No, because that was his decision based on what he saw and how he interpreted that situation - its the referees judgement, that's what they get paid to do.
This trumped up charge would never had been brought but for the rag infested media. The problem, is that the SKY pundits are so poor and ill informed about the laws governing the game that they thought they had 'caught' our star striker bang to rights. The problem is, under FA rules they haven't because the referee saw the incident and awarded nothing - if you are looking at an incident you can't claim you didn't see it.