so i'll ask again........

[Bill]

I will keep this as simple as i can.


THERE IS NO AGENDA AGAINST US.

This kind of paranoia is embarrassing frankly. We are turning into scousers. Shall we have a minutes silence, or a candlelight vigil?

Mario was a grade A tool. He did try and stamp on Parker. As much as i love the guy, he was an idiot. And we really can have no complaints if/when he gets banned.

The end.

you and others are missing the point completely. had webb sent him off fine, although i find it "odd" that we are now losing a player a game it seems. anyway, my beef is the sluaghtering of balo and our club, they are still digging up old footage as we speak.
where are the lampard re runs, shrek, johnson, crouch and so on.


just for the deluded on here and the media that tune in every day.

we dont want favours, we dont mind red card that are just, we dont want you sucking up to us,

we just want a level playing field and at the moment it is far from it.

Did you think balo deserved a red de niro?

Yep

 

[bernabias home shirt]

you and others are missing the point completely. had webb sent him off fine, although i find it "odd" that we are now losing a player a game it seems. anyway, my beef is the sluaghtering of balo and our club, they are still digging up old footage as we speak.
where are the lampard re runs, shrek, johnson, crouch and so on.


just for the deluded on here and the media that tune in every day.

we dont want favours, we dont mind red card that are just, we dont want you sucking up to us,

we just want a level playing field and at the moment it is far from it.

Did you think balo deserved a red de niro?

Yep

Well i'm glad you are not blinkered like others regarding that incident ..

I do think webb seen it & bottled it so in a way he gifted us 3 points.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Not for me. I do think if you remove Mario from the equation then that incident wouldn't have garnered as much attention. He simply sells copy. Edin/Sergio don't.
The Kompany incident had the media to a man out in support of him.

 

[Chris in London]

If we put aside the 'incident', the issue is: have the FA and Howard Webb caved in to media pressure? Clearly seen, within the VT evidence used to charge the player, is Webb looking at the incident and waving play on. Therefore, he's either running blind or he's changed his report. That being the case we may as well let the media run the FA. Oh, perhaps they do!

Good question.

The video footage looks reasonably damning, in slo-mo, from the right angle, but as Lee Dixon said only Mario knows whether he intended a stamp or not. So let's imagine this scenario: the FA receive Howard Webb's report. In a nutshell, he says ' I saw it out of the corner of my eye, at the time I didn't think it was anything more than an accidental collision, but having seen the replays I'm not so sure.'

The FA committee who decide on charging look at it and think 'it may have been accidental but it looks malicious in slo-mo. There's a case to answer, let Mario answer it. If he persuades us there was no malice and it was accidental, he walks. But if it was deliberate, he has to be banned.' I can understand that: or at least, I can see the logic of that.

What I don't get is this.

During the VK appeal, an interesting little statistic popped up on the FA website which was that about 99% of misconduct charges that they bring (including violent conduct) result in the charge being upheld. There are however plenty of cases where you have to make a judgment on whether an action is intended maliciously or not. That overwhelming statistic suggests to me that where there is doubt, they give the player the benefit of the doubt by the FA simply not bringing the charge: they don't in general, say 'well there's a case to answer, let the commission decide one way or the other'. They only charge where there is overwhelming evidence.

Then there is Lescott. I simply don't see how it can possibly be said that the Balotelli stamp (if it was) discloses more of a case to answer than the Lescott elbow. The evidence is no more conclusive about alotelli, and no less conclusive about Lescott. As with Balotelli, only Lescott knows whether he intended to 'do' Kaboul. Yet the FA has decided to charge Balotelli but not Lescott.

Why is this?

Two realistic possibilities occur to me (I do not consider the 'because Lescott is English' argument).

The first is that the FA have decided that they can't charge Lescott as well because (a) it looks like an anti-City witchhunt to charge for two separate incidents from the same game when you stack it up alongside Kompany's ban, the soft red cards for Barry & Balotelli previously, when compared with the lack of charges over say Rooney's elbow, Huth's elbow in the Final, Huddlestone's stamp etc, and (b) because it makes Webb look like a real twat for missing two red card incidents in the same 10 minute period.

The second is that the Balotelli thing has been all over every sports news outlet far more than than Lescott's, presumably because it is Mario, perhaps also that he scored the winning goal.

Personally, I lean towards the latter. The outcry which followed Rooney's tirade at the camera led to the charge against him (which I'm sure was nothing at all to do with Sky being angry receiving thousands of complaints from angry parents whose young kids have just witnessed Roopney's outburst) because the FA would have looked weak if they hadn't charged him: likewise Adebayor's stamp on van Persie. I don't remember the same sort of outcry over Huddlestone's stamp, I don't remember the same sort of outcry over Huth's elbow, I don't remember the same outcry over Rooney's elbow against Wigan. The ones where the media goes beserk, however, are the ones where the charge is brought.

Funny, that.

 

[Balti]

Trial by biased medja

Pathetic

Why bother letting the ref make any decisions bless him?

Wouldn't rescind Vinny's card (medja storm) or do Johnson (no medja storm)

No consistency at all and for MCFC in particular

Cheats

 

[samharris]

If we put aside the 'incident', the issue is: have the FA and Howard Webb caved in to media pressure? Clearly seen, within the VT evidence used to charge the player, is Webb looking at the incident and waving play on. Therefore, he's either running blind or he's changed his report. That being the case we may as well let the media run the FA. Oh, perhaps they do!

Good question.

The video footage looks reasonably damning, in slo-mo, from the right angle, but as Lee Dixon said only Mario knows whether he intended a stamp or not. So let's imagine this scenario: the FA receive Howard Webb's report. In a nutshell, he says ' I saw it out of the corner of my eye, at the time I didn't think it was anything more than an accidental collision, but having seen the replays I'm not so sure.'

The FA committee who decide on charging look at it and think 'it may have been accidental but it looks malicious in slo-mo. There's a case to answer, let Mario answer it. If he persuades us there was no malice and it was accidental, he walks. But if it was deliberate, he has to be banned.' I can understand that: or at least, I can see the logic of that.

What I don't get is this.

During the VK appeal, an interesting little statistic popped up on the FA website which was that about 99% of misconduct charges that they bring (including violent conduct) result in the charge being upheld. There are however plenty of cases where you have to make a judgment on whether an action is intended maliciously or not. That overwhelming statistic suggests to me that where there is doubt, they give the player the benefit of the doubt by the FA simply not bringing the charge: they don't in general, say 'well there's a case to answer, let the commission decide one way or the other'. They only charge where there is overwhelming evidence.

Then there is Lescott. I simply don't see how it can possibly be said that the Balotelli stamp (if it was) discloses more of a case to answer than the Lescott elbow. The evidence is no more conclusive about alotelli, and no less conclusive about Lescott. As with Balotelli, only Lescott knows whether he intended to 'do' Kaboul. Yet the FA has decided to charge Balotelli but not Lescott.

Why is this?

Two realistic possibilities occur to me (I do not consider the 'because Lescott is English' argument).

The first is that the FA have decided that they can't charge Lescott as well because (a) it looks like an anti-City witchhunt to charge for two separate incidents from the same game when you stack it up alongside Kompany's ban, the soft red cards for Barry & Balotelli previously, when compared with the lack of charges over say Rooney's elbow, Huth's elbow in the Final, Huddlestone's stamp etc, and (b) because it makes Webb look like a real twat for missing two red card incidents in the same 10 minute period.

The second is that the Balotelli thing has been all over every sports news outlet far more than than Lescott's, presumably because it is Mario, perhaps also that he scored the winning goal.

Personally, I lean towards the latter. The outcry which followed Rooney's tirade at the camera led to the charge against him (which I'm sure was nothing at all to do with Sky being angry receiving thousands of complaints from angry parents whose young kids have just witnessed Roopney's outburst) because the FA would have looked weak if they hadn't charged him: likewise Adebayor's stamp on van Persie. I don't remember the same sort of outcry over Huddlestone's stamp, I don't remember the same sort of outcry over Huth's elbow, I don't remember the same outcry over Rooney's elbow against Wigan. The ones where the media goes beserk, however, are the ones where the charge is brought.

Funny, that.

"The ones where the media goes beserk, however, are the ones where the charge is brought".

Sorry Chris but the De jong tackle on Ben Arfa didnt lead to owt..

 

[LittleStan]

City has changed the status quo of the premier league and there can be no doubt about this. City plays really nice football and has come through the ‘testing’ period when most people expected them to crumble, the doubters have been shown to be wrong.

Here’s a thought.

People are uncomfortable with change, especially if they have no control over it and people generally hate to be proven wrong.

Couple this with an inefficient organisation that is the FA and we have inconsistent decisions and people open to outside influence.

Is this an agenda? I don’t think so, just people reacting to a situation they cannot control.
The media, fans, FA, UEFA and everybody else who are uncomfortable will be used to it next year and our position will be part of the norm.

I suspect our owners know this and I wholly expect them to make the right decisions.

 

[Kaiser Soze]

If we put aside the 'incident', the issue is: have the FA and Howard Webb caved in to media pressure? Clearly seen, within the VT evidence used to charge the player, is Webb looking at the incident and waving play on. Therefore, he's either running blind or he's changed his report. That being the case we may as well let the media run the FA. Oh, perhaps they do!

Good question.

The video footage looks reasonably damning, in slo-mo, from the right angle, but as Lee Dixon said only Mario knows whether he intended a stamp or not. So let's imagine this scenario: the FA receive Howard Webb's report. In a nutshell, he says ' I saw it out of the corner of my eye, at the time I didn't think it was anything more than an accidental collision, but having seen the replays I'm not so sure.'

The FA committee who decide on charging look at it and think 'it may have been accidental but it looks malicious in slo-mo. There's a case to answer, let Mario answer it. If he persuades us there was no malice and it was accidental, he walks. But if it was deliberate, he has to be banned.' I can understand that: or at least, I can see the logic of that.

What I don't get is this.

During the VK appeal, an interesting little statistic popped up on the FA website which was that about 99% of misconduct charges that they bring (including violent conduct) result in the charge being upheld. There are however plenty of cases where you have to make a judgment on whether an action is intended maliciously or not. That overwhelming statistic suggests to me that where there is doubt, they give the player the benefit of the doubt by the FA simply not bringing the charge: they don't in general, say 'well there's a case to answer, let the commission decide one way or the other'. They only charge where there is overwhelming evidence.

Then there is Lescott. I simply don't see how it can possibly be said that the Balotelli stamp (if it was) discloses more of a case to answer than the Lescott elbow. The evidence is no more conclusive about alotelli, and no less conclusive about Lescott. As with Balotelli, only Lescott knows whether he intended to 'do' Kaboul. Yet the FA has decided to charge Balotelli but not Lescott.

Why is this?

Two realistic possibilities occur to me (I do not consider the 'because Lescott is English' argument).

The first is that the FA have decided that they can't charge Lescott as well because (a) it looks like an anti-City witchhunt to charge for two separate incidents from the same game when you stack it up alongside Kompany's ban, the soft red cards for Barry & Balotelli previously, when compared with the lack of charges over say Rooney's elbow, Huth's elbow in the Final, Huddlestone's stamp etc, and (b) because it makes Webb look like a real twat for missing two red card incidents in the same 10 minute period.

The second is that the Balotelli thing has been all over every sports news outlet far more than than Lescott's, presumably because it is Mario, perhaps also that he scored the winning goal.

Personally, I lean towards the latter. The outcry which followed Rooney's tirade at the camera led to the charge against him (which I'm sure was nothing at all to do with Sky being angry receiving thousands of complaints from angry parents whose young kids have just witnessed Roopney's outburst) because the FA would have looked weak if they hadn't charged him: likewise Adebayor's stamp on van Persie. I don't remember the same sort of outcry over Huddlestone's stamp, I don't remember the same sort of outcry over Huth's elbow, I don't remember the same outcry over Rooney's elbow against Wigan. The ones where the media goes beserk, however, are the ones where the charge is brought.

Funny, that.

so to summarise.. Balotelli = crash TV

 

[Henry Chinaski]

I will keep this as simple as i can.


THERE IS NO AGENDA AGAINST US.

This kind of paranoia is embarrassing frankly. We are turning into scousers. Shall we have a minutes silence, or a candlelight vigil?

Mario was a grade A tool. He did try and stamp on Parker. As much as i love the guy, he was an idiot. And we really can have no complaints if/when he gets banned.

The end.

How the fuck do you know whether he did try or not ? Parker was right fuckin behind him if he wanted to stand on the twat im sure he could of done it for real and not in a half arsed way !

There can be no doubt that Mario tries to stamp on him. He does have a history of doing this type of thing.

He should have been sent off.

He wasnt.

He was brought down.

He scored the penalty.

Agenda my arse.

 

[Eds]

Garth Crooks went mad on Saturday over a two footed tackle from Larssonand said City fans will want to watch it on MOTD. Oh it wasn't shown so we can't and no media outcry.....