persvenality cult
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,855
adrianr said:Could I just clarify something? There is a lot of talk about us 'downgrading' the charge from refusal to play to refusal to warm up, but the official charge from the club itself is refusal to participate. Is this a case of the media thinking its been downgraded when in fact refusal to participate covers both playing or warming up, or that refusal to participate is a fancy way of saying he wouldn't warm up?
The way I see it, there is no clear line between the one and the other. The manager might well feel he simply cannot field a player who isn't warmed up satisfactorily. Or he might think it's impossible to field a player who isn't following instructions. So yes, it could be a way to dress up a refusal to warm up, but it could also be that the club considers that in effect, refusing to warm up is refusing to play.
But that's not the only grey area. Consider that whilst Carlos might have only intended to refuse to warm up, his actions and words might have been ambiguous. It might have been that the coaches didnt understand him, they might reasonably have thought that he was refusing to play. It might have even been his clear intention to refuse to play, but in the cold light of day, proving that explicitly might not have been possible.
Everyone wants a clear version of events but in the heat of the moment things get messy. Even the other players might not have a clue who said what to whom.
Right from the get go, Kia was muddying the waters, talking vaguely about this being a misunderstanding, that being a mistranslation. And City won't go into details less outsiders take them out of context.