Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[Colin Bells Boots]

More to the point, surely we have some footage of our own that proves mariner was looking directly at it, and couldn't possibly, as he's claimed, have "missed the incident"

Might not help Sergio in this instance, but it would prove Marriner to be a total liar, and surely call into severe question his credibility to do the job in the future, as a result

It wouldn't matter as the FA prefer their referees to be " compliant " , as it helps them to get the decisions that they want.

Incompetency is not a flaw for the FA - Clattenburg's performances ( and many others ) prove that.

 

[Bigga]

This is dumb, but it's the "talking point" that Blatter and his dirty ilk craved.

If we had VR, the ref would have seen all the angles, including the ones showing Kun barely making contact with his hand, and Sergio would have got a yellow and we'd have moved on.

This has turned into a circus.

 

[Rolee]

@Ric @Moderating Team the title of this thread is misleading. He's not appealing, appeal only happens if found guilty. He is contesting the charge.

 

[sboroMCFC]

If you look at the incident, Reid pushes Aguero before the elbow. The retrospective action should be a free kick to City on the West Ham half!

 

[mekonmcfc]

@Ric @Moderating Team the title of this thread is misleading. He's not appealing, appeal only happens if found guilty. He is contesting the charge.

Oh my god !!!

 

[Rolee]

Oh my god !!!

What's the matter?

 

[Chi-town blues]

Good! Got to make a strong case and fight these cunts.

 

[franksinatra]

I agree,but this one happened right before the ref's eyes and IMO,he's thought nothing of it,he's then since seen footage of the incident and thought "oh fuck,I dropped a bollock with that one.....I know,I'll say I dint see it and cover my arse"
Lying bastard.

I think you have hit on the crux of the issue and probably the point City are arguing.

If the ref views/sees the incident, sees nothing ontoward, but then retrospectively views the incident and notes, in his opinion, Aguero looked at the man and threw an elbow which he did not see at the time does this constitute 'not seeing' an incident?

I dont know the answer to this and the rule change in november 2013 is a bit 'grey' to interpret.

Its impossible the ref can state he did not view the incident, he can only state he did not see the finer details.

The Fa have charged him based on this and must conclude this is covered under the rule (secondary action) but City clearly think if the ref has seen he has seen it and as the time lapse is so minimal between the challenge and the elbow it cannot be considered a 'secondary' or off the ball incident.

 

[Chi-town blues]

Oh my god !!!

Navas or Gabriel ?

 

[We're not really here]

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.

BUT. Does that now mean unless a game is covered by Sky with numerous cameras the ref only has his view and has to make a decision on that? So we can only have re referring on certain games. It makes a mockery out of the game. The fact is he saw it and you can't go back and re ref it.