Not a pop John,from what I've seen there is no contact with the elbow,intent was there,IMO.....I've seen various comments from..."in the throat" "nearly smashed his cheekbone" "straight on the Vera",and now yours "on the jaw"......yet someone 5 yards away,seen nothing.
As I've said,not a pop.
You need to look at it the other angle only.his forearm touches his neck
He caught him on the jaw. Plus it's irrelevant if he did or didn't. The fact he went for Reid with his elbow is enough.
Our only reason for appeal for me is that the ref must have seen it and took no action.
Hummmmmm rod n hook here me thinksBut from the angle I've posted you can see the point of contact. Look at reids face. You can't do that with your face unless there is contact.
I'm going off photographic evidence. See my link above. He did catch him. And I personally think there was intent. He should get banned. I don't want him to. But I couldn't argue if he is. I'm hoping we can prove the ref saw it. That's what our argument should be in the hearing. I'd want Marriner to tell us what he did see then seeing how he looked at it and whether all games are going to be retro reffed.
His out will be the he saw it but 'didn't recognise it'. Dermot Gallagher has already tendered this option by proxy.I am pretty sure that we are contesting the charge on the basis that Marriner had a clear and unobstructed view from no more than 6 yards away. In view of this the club will probably argue that as the referee has a clear view he cannot fully justify the "I didn't see it" argument. If the commission believes he may have seen it then there is no case to answer as they cannot re-referee the game because the officials made the wrong call. If that's the case then wether he should or should not have been sent off is irrelevant. However if they decide Marriner did not see it then I think they will ban Kun but the club would have shown the referees they are not taking this sh*t lying down anymore.
To me its clear that Aguero catches him in the throat area. It looks like the ball hit him smack in the face. Intent? It depends how the law is regarding this and the burden of proof-its not a criminal case, so probably easier to prove.But from the angle I've posted you can see the point of contact. Look at reids face. You can't do that with your face unless there is contact.