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.
Because City can employ a top barrister to represent Sergio he will drive a coach and horses through the process and regulations I'm sure that City are pissed that this is the third trumped up charge, led by the media, we have suffered more than any other club with this. The whole process of looking at a particular incident and not others is unfair and unjust and it's about time it was stoppedOut 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?
Why was it in our favour rooney got ban.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.
This incident did not occur
i) secondarily to a challenge for the ball
ii) off the ball
iii) after a challenge for the ball or a coming together.
It was a direct challenge for the ball with the referee looking straight at it who did not act and so the FA's 'new rules' don't apply.
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.