City check FA Rules

[blue b4 the moon]

Thing is they've tried the sneeky press approach etc. to unseattle us

Now they don't even try to hide it. Nobody likes us.

All shitting themselves.


Victory will be all the sweeter.

 

[ncblue]

How is half an inch of snow to blame for them not charging him in time?

Utter bullshit.

However, the FA claim City had been kept fully informed of a processing difficulty that was nothing to do with Monday's heavy snowfall and David Gill is confident the charge will stick.

Well // ..did the Heavy Snow fall stick

 

[u2fme2]

lets take the fuckers to court

 

[Blueto]

Remember the Derby. I think he was deliberately targetted and every card given to
the Scum was on SWP. Totally unprotected on that occasion as at least 2 tackles
deserved red cards and now he faces a 3 match ban for a tap.
The FA are a F***ing joke.

 

[Chippy_boy]

lets take the fuckers to court

Absolutely SPOT ON.

Banning SWP is blatant *cheating* by the FA. They have a simple rule that if the Ref sees an incident and decides not to act, the FA are unable to retrospectively act and ban the player. Thats the rule.

It is 100% blatantly obvious that the ref DID see what happened. He cannot have blinked for 2 whole seconds and he was 20 feet away, running forward, staring directly at the incident. Is he claiming that he was running with his eyes closed? It's utterly ridiculous.

If the ref wants to play silling games (because he realises he's fucked it up and should have sent swp off - which incidentally he should have done) then City should ask a judge to decide. No objective third party - like a judge - could look at that video and agree that the ref probably didn't see it. We would win the case without question.

 

[BoundedCascade]

lets take the fuckers to court

Absolutely SPOT ON.

Banning SWP is blatant *cheating* by the FA. They have a simple rule that if the Ref sees an incident and decides not to act, the FA are unable to retrospectively act and ban the player. Thats the rule.

It is 100% blatantly obvious that the ref DID see what happened. He cannot have blinked for 2 whole seconds and he was 20 feet away, running forward, staring directly at the incident. Is he claiming that he was running with his eyes closed? It's utterly ridiculous.

If the ref wants to play silling games (because he realises he's fucked it up and should have sent swp off - which incidentally he should have done) then City should ask a judge to decide. No objective third party - like a judge - could look at that video and agree that the ref probably didn't see it. We would win the case without question.

You cant though, it is impossible to take the FA to court, or UEFA. According to FIFA the Association itself is irreproachable by the courts. Only individuals can be targeted.

 

[dom]

Remember the Derby. I think he was deliberately targetted and every card given to
the Scum was on SWP. Totally unprotected on that occasion as at least 2 tackles
deserved red cards and now he faces a 3 match ban for a tap.
The FA are a F***ing joke.

Totally agree.

SWP has been exemplary in NOT retailating so far this season ,despite lumps being kicked out of him systematically.

It's a disgrace that he gets punished when that greasy cheating little ladyboy gets away with it all the time.

We need to keep up the pressure on thos corrupt fookers at the (Know) FA

 

[nelsons willie]

over the years we have had managers claiming not to have seen certain incidents now we have the bloody refs doing it now.Where did they do their ref schooling?Henshaws perhaps

 

[CBlue]

CITY are investigating whether the FA fell foul of their own rule book by charging Shaun Wright-Phillips outside the usual 48-hour timescale.

Should that argument have merit, the England winger would escape punishment completely.

However, the FA claim City had been kept fully informed of a processing difficulty that was nothing to do with Monday's heavy snowfall and are confident the charge will stick.

Manager Mark Hughes has attacked the disciplinary system that is likely to hand Wright-Phillips the same three-game ban as his assailant, Rory Delap, picked up following the incident at Stoke on Saturday.

Delap was sent off at the Britannia Stadium for twice kicking Wright-Phillips from behind.

But the Manchester City player's reaction, a petulant swing of the boot reminiscent of David Beckham's sly kick at Argentina's Diego Simeone during the 1998 World Cup, was missed by referee Martin Atkinson.

The Leeds official has since told the Football Association that he would also have dismissed Wright-Phillips had he spotted the reaction, so City are unlikely to win their case even if they do decide to appeal against a violent conduct charge.

It means Hughes will almost certainly have to do without Wright-Phillips for Saturday's Premier League encounter with Middlesbrough, plus matches against Portsmouth and Liverpool later this month.

Delap will be out for a similar period of time but the Welshman feels it is wrong both incidents should be treated equally.

"Yes, what Shaun did was retaliation. But was it violent?" questioned Hughes.

"It was a human reaction to a situation that was not of his making.

"Shaun was hacked down from behind and the guy followed through on him. In my mind that is violent conduct.

"To have the same three-game ban as Rory Delap is incorrect but that is what we are faced with at the moment."

It seems very straight forward - you have 48 hours to bring a charge - this was outside the 48 hour time limit - tell them to fuck off. If they insist that there were extenuating circumstances to not bringing the charges then we'll tell them there are extenuating circumstances on when his ban can take place i.e. when he is injured. Fucking cheating, bent, corrupt twats - fuck off.

 

[M.C.F.C.O.K]

"Shaun was hacked down from behind and the guy followed through on him. In my mind that is violent conduct.quote]

Ha ha, the child in me is still giggling at that comment!

violent conduct? i would see that as serious foul play.