I like the way the rags seem to think that if Aguero is banned we don't stand a chance of beating them. Unlike them, though, we have more than one player who can score a goal, so the advantage is still ours. Expect to see one of Iheanacho, Sterling, Sané or Nolito in his place and life goes on.
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
Blue Mooner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 3,139
The
The refs kind of covered though isn't he? He can say that he saw the two jostling for the ball (something that cannot be denied as he's looking straight at it) but say he didn't see an elbow throw. FA (thanks to the kind people who 'sent' them the footage) can say back to him, that's fine Andre, we have another angle where he's throwing an elbow so don't worry about it.
Which defeats the object of re-refereeing a match. If you can argue that you were looking at every incident but then you don't see something at the time then in theory everything in the whole match can be re- refereed - that opens up a huge can of worms..
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
they can if they see the club is using the appeal to there advantage by having the advantage in playing him
I'm not sure about that, but in this case the club aren't gaining an advantage. It'll be dealt with today.
Plain Speaking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 5,206
You're right.The refs kind of covered though isn't he? He can say that he saw the two jostling for the ball (something that cannot be denied as he's looking straight at it) but say he didn't see an elbow throw. FA (thanks to the kind people who 'sent' them the footage) can say back to him, that's fine Andre, we have another angle where he's throwing an elbow so don't worry about it.
It's the media I'm general, and Sky in particular, that are controlling public opinion on such incidents.
Nixon_The_Bike_Thief
Well-Known Member
Or, in a bizarre twist none of us see coming, Sergio gets off scot free and the FA back Mariner with an explanation of " We charged him based on the camera angles provided and repeated by the media, City brought further footage and less commonly shown angles which clearly show no contact was made reaffirming Andre's initial report that he did not see an elbow because there wasn't one"
This would keep Mariners reputation intact (probably even support his fine work to an extent), justify why the FA brought the charge and also attempt to readdress the trial by media bollocks from sky to a certain degree.
Not going to happen though, 3 match ban the bent bastards lol
This would keep Mariners reputation intact (probably even support his fine work to an extent), justify why the FA brought the charge and also attempt to readdress the trial by media bollocks from sky to a certain degree.
Not going to happen though, 3 match ban the bent bastards lol
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Which defeats the object of re-refereeing a match. If you can argue that you were looking at every incident but then you don't see something at the time then in theory everything in the whole match can be re- refereed - that opens up a huge can of worms..
But the whole point of the changes to what the ref is asked is specifically to catch unseen incidents. It's hard enough seeing contact at full speed knowing that it's alleged, let alone while also trying to track the ball on the day. i don't find it unreasonable that Marriner did not see the full detail of what happened.
The fact that there's even a debate about whether it was violent conduct or not suggests to me that Aguero is innocent seeing as if he deliberately elbowed Reid in an aggressive manner it would be fairly obvious from the footage alone. It was a shrug, a natural reaction to being jostled from behind and something that happens unpunished in many a football game.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Is it possible the panel will bottle it and succumb to the pressure from the likes of sky and the daily mail...?
It is possible, but that drifts to a total lack of trust in the game as it is now.
Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
Except that it doesn't open up a can of worms because the FA just do what they like and show no consistency even when it comes to charging people with retrospective action.Which defeats the object of re-refereeing a match. If you can argue that you were looking at every incident but then you don't see something at the time then in theory everything in the whole match can be re- refereed - that opens up a huge can of worms..
jessery
Well-Known Member
As frustrating as it is, all of the common sense points made on here will never figure into the discussion they're having. They have to protect the referee.
Blue Mooner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 3,139
But the whole point of the changes to what the ref is asked is specifically to catch unseen incidents. It's hard enough seeing contact at full speed knowing that it's alleged, let alone while also trying to track the ball on the day. i don't find it unreasonable that Marriner did not see the full detail of what happened.
People are questioning what 'seeing' an incident means it is quite clear it is off the ball incidents that the ref is not looking at and therefore doesn't see.
If you can now say the referee is looking directly at an incident be it a potential foul, penalty or violent conduct but the ref is looking at it but does nothing at the time effectively every club can present video evidence on pretty much anything where they disagree with a referees judgement at the time.
Mariner was looking directly at the incident and didn't judge it worthy of any punishment, free kick, booking, sending off. That should be the end of it under the FA's own rules...,,
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,147
But the whole point of the changes to what the ref is asked is specifically to catch unseen incidents. It's hard enough seeing contact at full speed knowing that it's alleged, let alone while also trying to track the ball on the day. i don't find it unreasonable that Marriner did not see the full detail of what happened.
That is pretty much my take on it. I cannot blame the referee at all or even the panel of three refs, I would raise more questions about the FA rules, influence of the media, inconsistency of applying retrospective punishment.
You're right.
It's the media I'm general, and Sky in particular, that are controlling public opinion on such incidents.
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.
The slaughtered lamb
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2014
- Messages
- 4,619
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?But the whole point of the changes to what the ref is asked is specifically to catch unseen incidents. It's hard enough seeing contact at full speed knowing that it's alleged, let alone while also trying to track the ball on the day. i don't find it unreasonable that Marriner did not see the full detail of what happened.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
It's not an appeal. Think of it as being charged by the police and being told you can accept a caution/fine or how to court. You go to court and can be found guilty or not guilty. If the former, you can appeal.Has anyone ever appealed and won?
He's been charged and told he can accept (and presumably suffer a 3 match ban) or go to a hearing, where we'll presumably contest the circumstances of the charge.
Manc in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,853
now he will end up with a 4 match ban after the appeal
Only if the claim is frivolous. The fact that video evidence will show that Marriner did see the incident, then that gives us a basis on which to appeal.
Personally, I think we will be lucky to be successful.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
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?
I agree with you and Frank in as much as it being vague as to how the decision is made to take it further.
The ref booking Aguero would be better than a post-match charge, and there seems something wrong there. It would be better if there was scope to upgrade/downgrade as well as the all or nothing approach we have now.
I don't see a solution though, and certainly not one that could be clearly written down. The inconsistency with e.g. the Costa/Adrian challenge is the problem, which was either not re-reffed or the ref said he saw it clearly. If that's in the outfield, it's a straight sending off. I'd be quite happy if all that type of thing got reviewed - as an example, the RFL disciplinary website lists all the charges/arguments brought and the decisions made and why. Something like that would be great.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
It's not an appeal. Think of it as being charged by the police and being told you can accept a caution/fine or how to court. You go to court and can be found guilty or not guilty. If the former, you can appeal.
He's been charged and told he can accept (and presumably suffer a 3 match ban) or go to a hearing, where we'll presumably contest the circumstances of the charge.
Put another way PB, has anybody successfully contested one of these charges in the past? I can't for the life of me think of a single example
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,147
People are questioning what 'seeing' an incident means it is quite clear it is off the ball incidents that the ref is not looking at and therefore doesn't see.
If you can now say the referee is looking directly at an incident be it a potential foul, penalty or violent conduct but the ref is looking at it but does nothing at the time effectively every club can present video evidence on pretty much anything where they disagree with a referees judgement at the time.
Mariner was looking directly at the incident and didn't judge it worthy of any punishment, free kick, booking, sending off. That should be the end of it under the FA's own rules...,,
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.