Nasri Appeal (merged).

[LoveCity]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

Fergie sycophant Graham Poll has spoken and said Nasri deserved to be sent off and called it "textbook refereeing". LOL!

 

[Edin’s header]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

No-one but me seems to be mentioning that the 'flick' or 'butt' that Nasri's sent off for is actually just 2 sweaty heads sliding off each other!

Absolutely spot on. linesman miss-read it completely. We can only assume that both would have been yellow cards if Nasri's head hadn't slid off to the side, making it look like a 'butting attempt' to the linesman at that side.

Common sense should prevail, but you do get the feeling that any appeal is like pissing in the wind.

 

[Bigga]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

I'm typing as I catch up, so this may have already been answered. 'Law 12'? 'Law 12' determines 'violent conduct' as the reason for a sending off decision. So, here's the question; is 'violent conduct' a decision made by the referee under interpretation or under a guideline of specific action determining that 'violent conduct'??

Van Persil's lunge and grab at Swansea defender Ashley Williams was FAR and away more the intent of violence to an opponent. I am not comparing Van Persil's non carding, but the action of reaction, in itself. I see this as a reasonable way to argue against the red card received.

Secondly, although I haven't heard, for myself, what Mancini said about the 'fine', I would hazard a guess that he was NOT in agreement that it was a sending off, but that the fine consisted of Nasri's reaction to GET sent off and not that he deserved it.

Law 12 defines violent conduct and serious foul play in pretty much the same way in regards to the Nasri incident - it requires "excessive force or brutality". I posted this last night, but oakiecokie seems to have forgotten. This obviously doesn't guarantee we'll win an appeal, but if you want to make the argument that we'll lose, you should base it on the premise that the FA will support it's refs, or that head-to-head contact has become accepted as a red card offense. Posters can't keep referring to Rule 12, because a strict reading of Rule 12 clearly exonerates Nasri.

I hadn`t forgotten mate as I also posted this from Rule 12 :

LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT


Sending-off offences


A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:


•serious foul play
•violent conduct
•spitting at an opponent or any other person
•denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
•denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
•using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
•receiving a second caution in the same match


A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

So it could be deemed that it was an act of Serious Foul Play. It in no way exonerates Samir as its down to what info the linesman passed to the referee,who then made his judgement based on that.
However,if you look at the stupididty of Samir after his dying swan act and HIS admission to Bobby that he touched the player,then he clearly aint going to get away with it on an appeal.
Disregard what happens to the other player at the moment.The FA will not be interested as Bobby IMO has dropped a bollock by telling all and sundry what Nasri has said to him.
He should have kept it to himself until after receiving notification from the FA and on what charge,which I`m assuming is that of violent conduct.
IMO both should have walked or none and a yellow card issued to both,which is something Bobby has already stated.I thought we all hated feigning injury ???
Guess we should look at our own players first and formost,before being critical of others and yes I to had a right go at RVP last week after he held his head and then jumped up.Bit like Nasri yesterday,don`t you agree ?
He should have stayed down and not got wound up,by whatever name calling made him suddenly lose his "injury".

Fook me! Are you seriously reading the word 'touch' as the open and shut case behind this incident??

Why would Samir lie to his manager and risk RM seeing different on video??

Secondly, 'touch' does not admit 'head butt'. 'Touch' means 'contact' in this case, which is what Samir Nasri concedes happens to his boss!!

Please tell me you're not a lawyer, by trade...

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

Law 12 defines violent conduct and serious foul play in pretty much the same way in regards to the Nasri incident - it requires "excessive force or brutality". I posted this last night, but oakiecokie seems to have forgotten. This obviously doesn't guarantee we'll win an appeal, but if you want to make the argument that we'll lose, you should base it on the premise that the FA will support it's refs, or that head-to-head contact has become accepted as a red card offense. Posters can't keep referring to Rule 12, because a strict reading of Rule 12 clearly exonerates Nasri.

I hadn`t forgotten mate as I also posted this from Rule 12 :

LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT


Sending-off offences


A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:


•serious foul play
•violent conduct
•spitting at an opponent or any other person
•denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
•denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
•using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
•receiving a second caution in the same match


A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

So it could be deemed that it was an act of Serious Foul Play. It in no way exonerates Samir as its down to what info the linesman passed to the referee,who then made his judgement based on that.
However,if you look at the stupididty of Samir after his dying swan act and HIS admission to Bobby that he touched the player,then he clearly aint going to get away with it on an appeal.
Disregard what happens to the other player at the moment.The FA will not be interested as Bobby IMO has dropped a bollock by telling all and sundry what Nasri has said to him.
He should have kept it to himself until after receiving notification from the FA and on what charge,which I`m assuming is that of violent conduct.
IMO both should have walked or none and a yellow card issued to both,which is something Bobby has already stated.I thought we all hated feigning injury ???
Guess we should look at our own players first and formost,before being critical of others and yes I to had a right go at RVP last week after he held his head and then jumped up.Bit like Nasri yesterday,don`t you agree ?
He should have stayed down and not got wound up,by whatever name calling made him suddenly lose his "injury".

Fook me! Are you seriously reading the word 'touch' as the open and shut case behind this incident??

Why would Samir lie to his manager and risk RM seeing different on video??

Secondly, 'touch' does not admit 'head butt'. 'Touch' means 'contact' in this case, which is what Samir Nasri concedes happens to his boss!!

Please tell me you're not a lawyer, by trade...

I`m repeating what Bobby has told the media,nothing more,nothing less.However Bobby has already said that Samir was wrong and will pay the fine.
WTF does that tell you then ? Not my words but the bossman.

 

[Bigga]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

I hadn`t forgotten mate as I also posted this from Rule 12 :

LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT


Sending-off offences


A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:


•serious foul play
•violent conduct
•spitting at an opponent or any other person
•denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
•denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
•using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
•receiving a second caution in the same match


A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

So it could be deemed that it was an act of Serious Foul Play. It in no way exonerates Samir as its down to what info the linesman passed to the referee,who then made his judgement based on that.
However,if you look at the stupididty of Samir after his dying swan act and HIS admission to Bobby that he touched the player,then he clearly aint going to get away with it on an appeal.
Disregard what happens to the other player at the moment.The FA will not be interested as Bobby IMO has dropped a bollock by telling all and sundry what Nasri has said to him.
He should have kept it to himself until after receiving notification from the FA and on what charge,which I`m assuming is that of violent conduct.
IMO both should have walked or none and a yellow card issued to both,which is something Bobby has already stated.I thought we all hated feigning injury ???
Guess we should look at our own players first and formost,before being critical of others and yes I to had a right go at RVP last week after he held his head and then jumped up.Bit like Nasri yesterday,don`t you agree ?
He should have stayed down and not got wound up,by whatever name calling made him suddenly lose his "injury".

Fook me! Are you seriously reading the word 'touch' as the open and shut case behind this incident??

Why would Samir lie to his manager and risk RM seeing different on video??

Secondly, 'touch' does not admit 'head butt'. 'Touch' means 'contact' in this case, which is what Samir Nasri concedes happens to his boss!!

Please tell me you're not a lawyer, by trade...

I`m repeating what Bobby has told the media,nothing more,nothing less.However Bobby has already said that Samir was wrong and will pay the fine.
WTF does that tell you then ? Not my words but the bossman.

Sometimes, with RM, you have to read the words not spoken.

'Wrong [to REACT in the WAY he did]'. This is NOT an indication that RM agrees with the decision for a RED CARD!!

FFS, I'm baffled why you don't know our manager after 3 years in charge!!

 

[dadnlad]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

No-one but me seems to be mentioning that the 'flick' or 'butt' that Nasri's sent off for is actually just 2 sweaty heads sliding off each other!

Absolutely spot on. linesman miss-read it completely. We can only assume that both would have been yellow cards if Nasri's head hadn't slid off to the side, making it look like a 'butting attempt' to the linesman at that side.

Common sense should prevail, but you do get the feeling that any appeal is like pissing in the wind.

pissing in the wind ? playing into their hands extra game added

 

[andrewmswift]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

gotta say i think the whole "frivolous appeal" thing is total bullshit. like the FA can't be bothered to do their job.

there is so, so much wrong in the FA rulebook it blows my mind.

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

Fook me! Are you seriously reading the word 'touch' as the open and shut case behind this incident??

Why would Samir lie to his manager and risk RM seeing different on video??

Secondly, 'touch' does not admit 'head butt'. 'Touch' means 'contact' in this case, which is what Samir Nasri concedes happens to his boss!!

Please tell me you're not a lawyer, by trade...

I`m repeating what Bobby has told the media,nothing more,nothing less.However Bobby has already said that Samir was wrong and will pay the fine.
WTF does that tell you then ? Not my words but the bossman.

Sometimes, with RM, you have to read the words not spoken.

'Wrong [to REACT in the WAY he did]'. This is NOT an indication that RM agrees with the decision for a RED CARD!!

FFS, I'm baffled why you don't know our manager after 3 years in charge!!

I`ve never stated that he does agree with the red card and thats why the club are appealing.However if as Bobby has stated and I quote "I am disappointed with Samir.He made a mistake and he will be fined.He said that he touched him,but the other player did the same.We will appeal but I don`t know if we have a chance.I want the same rule for everyone.If Samir is sent off,why not their player ? I hate two rules for different teams and different players" then he seems to have already dug a hole for Samir,as I bet the FA use that quote to pass a ban on.
So he`s stated that Samir will be fined.But what for ,if he`s innocent ??
Everyone would be baying for blood if the shoe was on the other foot.Look at last weeks war at Swansea and read back.
Any difference ? Of course there was.Its called a difference of opinion on how that law was perceived,by two different referees,which we call inconsistency and rightly so.
Nasri was stupid IMO to even think about getting up after the tackle and it made him a twunt of the highest order for feigning injury.Had he stayed down we would have still had a full quota of men on the pitch.
By the way,I am a very big fan of Nasri and I sincerely hope he and the Club are successful in getting the sending off rescinded.However I aint wearing my Blue Specs.

 

[MSP]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

What a load of shite:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2255009/Graham-Poll-Samir-Nasri-deserved-sent-off.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... t-off.html</a>

So, refereeing was textbook one and both Nasri and Bassong should be booked for head to head but Nasri should be sent off a it's a rule when you pull your head back and then return it as that counts as headbutt.

First of all, he did not pulled it back and returned, he pushed it while they were head-to-head in hardly dangerous manner and second if Bassong had to be booked for it why he was not sent off on 2nd booking rule as referee without any doubt puts his arm on the pocket to book him for initial tackle when he did not even realize that Nasri got involved with him in incident. In either way he has to be sent off.

He basically let Bassong to run away with either booking for head to head stuff or what is even worse booked him for that but changed his decision to book him for tackle that was as strong bookable tackle as you could find one.

So, no Mr. 3 cards twat, it was not textbook refereeing, it was appalling piece of refereeing.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

I`ve never stated that he does agree with the red card

Really?

I don`t understand Mancini ref an appeal !! He claims that BOTH players should have walked

It doesn`t matter one iota what you or I think as Bobby is admitting that it was a sending off

So even Bobby agrees that it WAS a sending off

I was really pointing this out to all those Blue Moaners who have repeatadly stated on this thread,that it WASN`T a sending off. With Bobby now claiming it was,.......................

.........something which his own manager is now saying merited a sending off.

That's five separate occasions where you have quite explicitly stated that Mancini believes it was a red card.

You can debate the merits of Mancini making his comments at this time, and I agree that he should have kept his mouth shut by hiding behind the "we're appealing so can't comment" line.

But his comments are quite clear cut to me: i.e., "Nasri was stupid for jumping up and getting involved. He should have either stayed on the floor or simply walked away, and he will be disciplined for ignoring my repeated instructions not to get involved in situations like this. That said, his actions never merited a red card, and even if they did, surely the other player should have been sent off too. As such, we'll be appealing."