Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[SWP's back]

so what is the rule ??

i always through when you put in appeal they can increase the punishment

We are contesting the charge as per Prestwich Blue.

Has hasn't been handed a ban as yet, he's simply been charged.

If they ban him, we could appeal that. No ban has increased due to frivolity since they changed to rules to expedite the process (to stop teams knowing a ban is coming and appealing anyway to allow a player avoid missing out on the next match).

 

[SWP's back]

well we will all find out soon enough wont we, and does changing the title change that ?? i'm sure people will still think the same

We know now. We don't have to find anything out.

If he's handed a ban, there's not a chance we will appeal it having contested the charge.

 

[Barcon]

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of contesting the charge?
why not just wait until the verdict and then contest the ban if there is one.
Is there a chance that if we contest the charge they will change their mind and not review the incident?

 

[blueinsa]

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of contesting the charge?
why not just wait until the verdict and then contest the ban if there is one.
Is there a chance that if we contest the charge they will change their mind and not review the incident?

By contesting it we can attend the hearing and give our representations without affecting any potential punishment. If he is guilty it will be a 3 game ban anyway and we have lost nothing.

If we appealed a 3 game ban after it potentially leaves us open to a further game being added for a frivolous appeal.

 

[SWP's back]

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of contesting the charge?
why not just wait until the verdict and then contest the ban if there is one.
Is there a chance that if we contest the charge they will change their mind and not review the incident?

You can put forward any mitigating circumstances and give your side of the story.

 

[che_don_john]

He went down clutching his forehead to begin with. The very same forehead he used to head the ball with 'after' the alleged incident.

Whether Reid made a meal of it or not is irrelevant: Aguero will be judged on whether he tried to elbow Reid, not on Reid's reaction.

Marriner's claim to have not seen it might seem ridiculous, but actually it's not, and we'd be foolish to use that in Aguero's defence; just because someone can be looking at something, doesn't mean they necessarily saw it. This is true in every day life - staring at the TV and missing something, staring at the kitchen table and not seeing your car keys right there in front of you, etc. Human perception is a fickle and flawed thing. It happens to us all, and we're not in fast-paced, high-pressured position of referring a Premier League football match.

And as for these claims of some kind of Utd-media agenda driving the inquiry; let's not forget that Rooney was banned (and subsequently missed our semi-final against them) for swearing down a camera lens after replays were shown on TV over and over again. Fair to say that it worked in our favour that time.

The fact is this: Aguero was being manhandled by Reid and threw an arm out at him. It was reactionary and most probably wasn't intended to hurt the player, but you can't do that. Everyone makes mistakes - maybe Marriner made one, but Aguero certainly did, so we just have to suck it up and he'll have to learn from it.

 

[We're not really here]

Whether Reid made a meal of it or not is irrelevant: Aguero will be judged on whether he tried to elbow Reid, not on Reid's reaction.

Marriner's claim to have not seen it might seem ridiculous, but actually it's not, and we'd be foolish to use that in Aguero's defence; just because someone can be looking at something, doesn't mean they necessarily saw it. This is true in every day life - staring at the TV and missing something, staring at the kitchen table and not seeing your car keys right there in front of you, etc. Human perception is a fickle and flawed thing. It happens to us all, and we're not in fast-paced, high-pressured position of referring a Premier League football match.

And as for these claims of some kind of Utd-media agenda driving the inquiry; let's not forget that Rooney was banned (and subsequently missed our semi-final against them) for swearing down a camera lens after replays were shown on TV over and over again. Fair to say that it worked in our favour that time.

The fact is this: Aguero was being manhandled by Reid and threw an arm out at him. It was reactionary and most probably wasn't intended to hurt the player, but you can't do that. Everyone makes mistakes - maybe Marriner made one, but Aguero certainly did, so we just have to suck it up and he'll have to learn from it.

Well done for finding the one and only time the FA punished a rag.

 

[remember arthur mann]

When will we find out the outcome?

Sky @ 4.40pm, finger on the pulse stuff "Sergio Aguero could find out today !!

 

[Vienna_70]

What are you on about man. It is a legitimate appeal which may not be successful but if it is, it does not follow that some kind of crusade to stop City winning the league will ensue.
How exactly are they going to "fuck us over to the nth degree in the Derby" to punish us for exercising our legal rights? Are you saying that they will attempt to fix the result in the Rags favour?

Won't they be trying to do that, anyway?

 

[Blue Mooner]

Whether Reid made a meal of it or not is irrelevant: Aguero will be judged on whether he tried to elbow Reid, not on Reid's reaction.

Marriner's claim to have not seen it might seem ridiculous, but actually it's not, and we'd be foolish to use that in Aguero's defence; just because someone can be looking at something, doesn't mean they necessarily saw it. This is true in every day life - staring at the TV and missing something, staring at the kitchen table and not seeing your car keys right there in front of you, etc. Human perception is a fickle and flawed thing. It happens to us all, and we're not in fast-paced, high-pressured position of referring a Premier League football match.

And as for these claims of some kind of Utd-media agenda driving the inquiry; let's not forget that Rooney was banned (and subsequently missed our semi-final against them) for swearing down a camera lens after replays were shown on TV over and over again. Fair to say that it worked in our favour that time.

The fact is this: Aguero was being manhandled by Reid and threw an arm out at him. It was reactionary and most probably wasn't intended to hurt the player, but you can't do that. Everyone makes mistakes - maybe Marriner made one, but Aguero certainly did, so we just have to suck it up and he'll have to learn from it.

Your defense of seeing or not seeing the incident is ridiculous. If the ref is staring straight at the incident he saw it, If he had seen an elbow he would have called it at the time. If you slow something down to a quarter of the speed it can put a completely different perspective on something that happens in real time.

You are missing the whole point. These post match charges were to deal with incidents of violent conduct when the ref is clearly not looking at the incident ie off the ball. This was nothing of the sort. It was in full view of the referee and he didn't call it. In the same way that a referee might view a penalty incident and not give it, even if most of the home fans believe it to be a penalty. You don't then retrospectively go back and then say well the ref was looking at the incident but he didn't 'see' that it was a penalty. Its complete nonsense. If you are looking at it you are seeing it. It's how you then interpret what you have seen and that in some cases is up to interpretation.

The ref saw it and didn't see anything untoward. End of. And by the way I fully agree with that assessment, this is no cut and dried case by any means.