bumbleblue
Well-Known Member
I'd piss my sides if he doesn't get a ban and then we rest him for the scum match.
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
jimharri
Moderator
No chance. He's toast. The PL are not going to charge him, and then find him not guilty. They'd only be making themselves look even more foolish than they already appear.I'd piss my sides if he doesn't get a ban and then we rest him for the scum match.
Tricky_Trev
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 32,343
Won't his injury keep him out of it anyway?I'd piss my sides if he doesn't get a ban and then we rest him for the scum match.
Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
Am I right in thinking he has to contest it otherwise it is automatically a ban now he has been charged? And if he contests it then he could get an extra match added to the ban?No chance. He's toast. The PL are not going to charge him, and then find him not guilty. They'd only be making themselves look even more foolish than they already appear.
Vienna_70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 40,767
- Location
- 100, 32, 106, +79, 19
- Team supported
- Treble Winners 2022/23.
At least he will get a rest (clutching at straws). Panel though has to be unanimous! The panel is Danny Mills, Niall Quinn and Paul Scholes
Isn't camelgob on it too?
Sir peace frog
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,521
- Location
- stalking the canals and rivers
- Team supported
- Manchester City Football Club
they were told to rough us up try and disturb our play, we cant retaliate we need to get on with it Sergio reacted and its not the first time
yes to the first part, and not nessassacillysausage(sp) unless his appeal is deemed friviouslsillysausage (sp)Am I right in thinking he has to contest it otherwise it is automatically a ban now he has been charged? And if he contests it then he could get an extra match added to the ban?
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
this is why the game is wrong for wanting video evidence its a fast game and mistakes happen and in fairness its the talking points that are life blood of the sport. so bringing up something the ref seen in play and let go is wrong for the game and video evidence does not show the speed and weight and intent and can be made to look like anything you want it. so if the FA are using video evidence can it be legal in today's world of technology we all how it can but cropped photshop slowdown change just watch monday night football and when they use there technology they can move players over the pitch i would not trust skysports
I think there are two distinct issues there.
1) The use of any technology than can improve the gathering of factual evidence (including video replays)
2) How subjective evidence (also including video replays) is interpreted in a retrospective manner
I think Rugby does a great job with video evidence, and the referee spells out all the factors he's looking at - I don't think it detracts from the game, and it's every bit as fast as football.
I don't think technology has detracted from Rugby, Tennis or Cricket. I'm happy with the progress.
But then there's this issue of subjective evidence. Intent is hard to prove, and we have commentators making assumptions like 'if he forms a fist, then it's an intentional elbow' - and yet lots of people form a fist when exerting energy - like a short sprint or jumping, or bracing themselves. We have so much footage, it would be almost impossible to review everything - which begs the question, how did the FA come to review Aguero? what was the process? Did they look at every match and make a list of incidents to investigate? Did they receive a complaint from West Ham? Or did the media shove it in their faces and force the issue?
I would like to see a 'on report' style system where a ref can signal that an incident needs to be looked at at the earliest opportunity. The entire crowd should know this during the game. Whilst the game continues, a 3 man panel review the evidence and decide if the ref needs to review it. If he does, at the next break in play, he reviews the footage and makes a final decision. Otherwise, that's the end of the matter. Basically the panel are checking if there's anything at all to seriously review - but the ref still has the final say. It happens there and then, not days later after the media have gone to town.
jimharri
Moderator
Re. the first part of your post, I think so, yes. If he doesn't contest the charge, it's more or less seen as a tacit admission of guilt. In that scenario, there'd be no hearing as such; the ban would just be handed out to him. As for the extra game as a result of a failed appeal, doesn't the appeal have to have been judged as "frivolous" for that to kick in?Am I right in thinking he has to contest it otherwise it is automatically a ban now he has been charged? And if he contests it then he could get an extra match added to the ban?
That's my understanding of those two point anyway. I'm sure I'll be corrected PDQ if I'm wrong!
Hoghead
Well-Known Member
Did they look at every match and make a list of incidents to investigate? Did they receive a complaint from West Ham? Or did the media shove it in their faces and force the issue?
I think we all know the answer to these questions, and for those who are hard of hearing it has been highlighted. It has probably been raised previously, but if the match had not been televised live and was played at the normal time of 3pm on a Saturday, would we be debating this now? would there have been a charge?