Aguero banned for three games (updated)

[franksinatra]

Simple question really, where did you view the original incident? I will offer some choices. From your home, via MOTD, live from the ground, three days later on Sky or maybe some other answer

I saw it on Sky as I gave this match a miss.

Have you got a point, because this is an interesting topic and I would prefer to be debating it, rather than responding to childish digs about me being on the three man Fa panel which is all you have added to a decent discussion.

 

[We're not really here]

Of course it could all be very easily sorted. Rugby League, a ref isn't 100% sure so it goes on report. It then gets looked at and a decision is made. Easy. Then the biggest game in the world has been backward for it's entire history.

 

[Eds]

I saw it on Sky as I gave this match a miss.

Have you got a point, because this is an interesting topic and I would prefer to be debating it, rather than responding to childish digs about me being on the three man Fa panel which is all you have added to a decent discussion.

I have plenty of points and I have made myself clear throughout this thread. There is no case to answer and this should never have been taken this far. It is only due to Sky, Quinn, press etc that it has. End of...

 

[marco]

Of course it could all be very easily sorted. Rugby League, a ref isn't 100% sure so it goes on report. It then gets looked at and a decision is made. Easy. Then the biggest game in the world has been backward for it's entire history.

that's the same near enough as it is now ,the incidents been reported or the FA have picked up on it and now we are waiting for a decision, i think they do ok with football what we don't want is the game stopping every five minutes while some clown looks at a video and a game taking 2hrs to complete

 

[cibaman]

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.

If you asked 10 people to look at the incident from Clattenberg's view and in real time and then describe Aguero's actions, you would get up to 10 different descriptions, depending on what they were primarily focusing on.

A ref's training means that they should be better than most at identifying all of the relevant actions during this sort of incidents. But even so it seems to me that would be almost impossible for City to successfully challenge Clattenberg's version of what he did or didn't see.

 

[We're not really here]

that's the same near enough as it is now ,the incidents been reported or the FA have picked up on it and now we are waiting for a decision, i think they do ok with football what we don't want is the game stopping every five minutes while some clown looks at a video and a game taking 2hrs to complete

You are wrong. It wasn't even in his report. In RL the ref has to ask for it to go on report there and then. Not go back days later after watching it on TV. That's like a kid failing an exam then seeing the answers and saying I'll re sit it now!

 

[franksinatra]

O

I have plenty of points and I have made myself clear throughout this thread. There is no case to answer and this should never have been taken this far. It is only due to Sky, Quinn, press etc that it has. End of...

And my take is very similar if you have read my comments. I dont think he should be charged either and it was a something and nothing incident.

The rest is a discussion on the reasons why he has been charged and within the Fa Laws on what basis are they charging him? So what was the reason for the comment about me being on the FA panel? It seems to be an inferrence Im not a blue, which I do not appreciate or have I misunderstood?

 

[mekonmcfc]

What's the matter?

possibly the most anal post i've ever read

 

[cibaman]

You are wrong. It wasn't even in his report. In RL the ref has to ask for it to go on report there and then. Not go back days later after watching it on TV. That's like a kid failing an exam then seeing the answers and saying I'll re sit it now!

In RL a player can be charged whether or not the ref has put the incident on report.

 

[Eds]

O


And my take is very similar if you have read my comments. I dont think he should be charged either and it was a something and nothing incident.

The rest is a discussion on the reasons why he has been charged and within the Fa Laws on what basis are they charging him? So what was the reason for the comment about me being on the FA panel? It seems to be an inferrence Im not a blue, which I do not appreciate or have I misunderstood?

You just seemed very clued up, although you are a WUM and not a believer in any agenda