Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

Maybe if the ref was looking at it he is deemed to have seen it ?

 

[Gordyola]

Just taking a look at rag cafe..... oh dear

Corrupt Bertie FA doing their best to help him put his argument forward.

Berties and their FA are shit scared of us, dreading playing us on the 10th and want Aguero to be a part of it. They won't let us win the league easy lads, you can me sure of that. It's going to stink, stink like stunk at the end of last season when Berties were given all decisions in their favour to help them qualify for 4th. Can't have baldy in the Europa, can we?

Their having mini meetings in Stockport reading through the rule books and finding out ways to change the rules so elbows can put in a solid appeal and avoid the ban.

Bertie cnuts.

Just shows how thick they are, the FA is polluted with rags the chairman is a rag FA's UEFA rep Gill ex rag CEO

 

[marco]

With regards to the referee seeing or not seeing it, won't they just claim the ref was ball watching and not looking at the elbow? Yeah, that's incompetent refereeing, but it may actually be what happened. Just because his head was pointing in that direction doesn't mean he saw it. If my eyes are focused on a pair of enormous breasts, I certainly did not see the jewellery on her wrist, for example. I just think they have an easy get-out.

if he was ball watching he would have had to be facing the SS and his head would be raised higher than what it is on the video,it cant be argued his head is in line and the trajectory of sight is bang online all he could say to clear himself is that he blinked

 

[mat]

Well this a proper dicks on the table move. Pep had accepted whatever happens happens. If it a principle thing then fair fucks with the funniest part being we could win it and he's injured anyway so will miss it regardless.

 

[Marvin]

Just a quick point as this seems to have been misunderstood: This is not an appeal. We're just putting forward argument in the hearing.

 

[Gordyola]

On the contrary. I could appeal and win this case. The rule (if correctly quoted on here) says they can only review off the ball incidents. This wasn't an off the ball incident, so it should never have gone to a charge.

Quite right.

The regulations also say that they can only review it if the ref didn't see it. He clearly did see it, so in law, there is no case to answer.

Anyone who has spent any time in court will tell you that a lot of defences are based around the police not following procedure.

If this was an independent legal hearing in front of a judge I'm very confident we'd win this appeal. As it is in front of an "independent commission" probably chaired by David Gill, I'm not so sure.

Unfortunately they charged the process rules and are entitled to review even if the ref saw it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/24847724

 

[kaz7]

Just a quick point as this seems to have been misunderstood: This is not an appeal. We're just putting forward argument in the hearing.

We are contesting the charge and it goes to an independent panel possibly tomorrow

 

[Marvin]

We are contesting the charge and it goes to an independent panel possibly tomorrow

Yes I know K9, but some people keep quoting appeal. Which is getting things back to front. You appeal something if a hearing rules against you.

 

[Carlos- the- jackal]

Just a quick point as this seems to have been misunderstood: This is not an appeal. We're just putting forward argument in the hearing.

We could have just accepted the violent conduct charge and taken the ban without any hearing but we're not we're contesting it whatever way you or anyone else wants to word it.

 

[dannybcity]

What exactly is the rule on it? Is it that the referee can see an incident in real time, not make a decision, then change his mind based on a replay from another angle?