Nasri Appeal (merged).

[mancunial]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

For me it was bassongs actions after he followed through on nasri with his arms outstretched, what have I done or should I say look what did, their is not one guy I on his site who wouldn't wanted to do the Cnut after that, if you say no then their is something wrong, he purposely did nasri definetly tried to take him out, city should make a big stink out of this,

 

[Bigga]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

It was a clear red card and he deserved to go.

Take the sky blue tinted specs off and deal with it.

What Nasri did was not an act of violence (red card offence), it was an act of aggression or inflammatory behaviour which could have escalated to violence (cautionable offence) but it didn't escalate.

It was a yellow card offence, not red.

He shouldn't have done it, he was silly to do what he did, but that was not violent conduct.

For fucks sake give it a rest.I showed you on two occasions last night that Law 12 covered this act of stupidness,something which his own manager is now saying merited a sending off.

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.

 

[NorCalBlue]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

What Nasri did was not an act of violence (red card offence), it was an act of aggression or inflammatory behaviour which could have escalated to violence (cautionable offence) but it didn't escalate.

It was a yellow card offence, not red.

He shouldn't have done it, he was silly to do what he did, but that was not violent conduct.

For fucks sake give it a rest.I showed you on two occasions last night that Law 12 covered this act of stupidness,something which his own manager is now saying merited a sending off.

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.

 

[sergiokun]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

We have had some bad decisions in the past few months and if we appeal we won't win! Just glad we got the result

 

[Bigga]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

For fucks sake give it a rest.I showed you on two occasions last night that Law 12 covered this act of stupidness,something which his own manager is now saying merited a sending off.

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.

So when Van Persil does his usual cnut's trick of grabbing at the throat of the one who hath displeased him, what law does that come under?? These pics don't capture his natural throat grab reaction, but help me out here...

 

[shakermaker85]

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.

So when Van Persil does his usual cnut's trick of grabbing at the throat of the one who hath displeased him, what law does that come under?? These pics don't capture his natural throat grab reaction, but help me out here...

To be fair, he's lucky to be alive

 

[kippax boy]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

Appeal why we wont win
For me the injustice is the fact that he will get the same 3 match ban as Fellani for his actions against Shawcross now thats a disgrace

 

[shakermaker85]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

Appeal why we wont win
For me the injustice is the fact that he will get the same 3 match ban as Fellani for his actions against Shawcross now thats a disgrace

It's a joke!

 

[The Future's Blue]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

The case we put forward would not lead to a frivolous appeal so it stays as 3 games with the chance of getting it rescinded.

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

For fucks sake give it a rest.I showed you on two occasions last night that Law 12 covered this act of stupidness,something which his own manager is now saying merited a sending off.

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".