But that is how it works, you get charged and either accept it or appeal (with risk of 1 game if frivolous - although someone on here said it doesn't apply anymore??).Mystery wrote:I don't believe it's an appeal. They are contesting a charge that has not yet been applied so there's no risk of an extra game as far as I know.
Which is calling the referee a liar. I doubt the FA would take too kindly to that.blahblah wrote:They may try to argue the Technicality that the ref had to have seen it, so Kun should not be charged?
The truth is that the ref has lied though, as there is video footage showing him looking at the incident.foxinthebox2001 wrote:Which is calling the referee a liar. I doubt the FA would take too kindly to that.blahblah wrote:They may try to argue the Technicality that the ref had to have seen it, so Kun should not be charged?
More likely they could argue Reid's part in the incident, he does make contact himself, therefore Aguero is protecting himself, which what I said the moment I saw it.
Then again I cant imagine him being found innocent with the panel saying "look at what Reid is doing? why didn't we think of that?"
Trying to elbow someone in the face = deserves to score. Gotcha.Football Hero wrote:The truth is that the ref has lied though, as there is video footage showing him looking at the incident.foxinthebox2001 wrote:Which is calling the referee a liar. I doubt the FA would take too kindly to that.blahblah wrote:They may try to argue the Technicality that the ref had to have seen it, so Kun should not be charged?
More likely they could argue Reid's part in the incident, he does make contact himself, therefore Aguero is protecting himself, which what I said the moment I saw it.
Then again I cant imagine him being found innocent with the panel saying "look at what Reid is doing? why didn't we think of that?"
He's lied to stitch Aguero and cover for his own mistake of not interpreting what he saw correctly; and I don't think that's right. Hopefully Aguero gets off the hook on this one, and then the FA should re-evaluate their rules on how they investigate these incidents in the future.
It would then be fitting for Aguero to score the winner against Man Utd.
It's for the greater good of the game. If Aguero gets let off, hopefully the FA then change their rules and don't require the referee not to have seen the incident before they can act retrospectively.Huxley wrote:Trying to elbow someone in the face = deserves to score. Gotcha.Football Hero wrote:The truth is that the ref has lied though, as there is video footage showing him looking at the incident.foxinthebox2001 wrote:Which is calling the referee a liar. I doubt the FA would take too kindly to that.blahblah wrote:They may try to argue the Technicality that the ref had to have seen it, so Kun should not be charged?
More likely they could argue Reid's part in the incident, he does make contact himself, therefore Aguero is protecting himself, which what I said the moment I saw it.
Then again I cant imagine him being found innocent with the panel saying "look at what Reid is doing? why didn't we think of that?"
He's lied to stitch Aguero and cover for his own mistake of not interpreting what he saw correctly; and I don't think that's right. Hopefully Aguero gets off the hook on this one, and then the FA should re-evaluate their rules on how they investigate these incidents in the future.
It would then be fitting for Aguero to score the winner against Man Utd.
Fellaini must be due a shit load of goals.
They already have, it changed a few years ago. Players can now be retrospectively banned for violent conduct whether the referee saw the incident or not.Football Hero wrote:It's for the greater good of the game. If Aguero gets let off, hopefully the FA then change their rules and don't require the referee not to have seen the incident before they can act retrospectively.
The extra game ban for frivolous appeals apply when a club is appealing against a red card already issued during a match.murf wrote:But that is how it works, you get charged and either accept it or appeal (with risk of 1 game if frivolous - although someone on here said it doesn't apply anymore??).Mystery wrote:I don't believe it's an appeal. They are contesting a charge that has not yet been applied so there's no risk of an extra game as far as I know.
Pointless appealing IMO as the kangaroo court has over a 95% conviction rate. You get charged and you are, effectively, convicted and banned.
I read somewhere that the FA were waiting for the referee's report to see if Andre Marriner had seen the incident or not before deciding whether to take action against Aguero. Why were they waiting for the referees report if they don't need to see it in order to charge Aguero?Tall Paul wrote:They already have, it changed a few years ago. Players can now be retrospectively banned for violent conduct whether the referee saw the incident or not.Football Hero wrote:It's for the greater good of the game. If Aguero gets let off, hopefully the FA then change their rules and don't require the referee not to have seen the incident before they can act retrospectively.
I don't know, but the rules were changed as I said.Football Hero wrote:I read somewhere that the FA were waiting for the referee's report to see if Andre Marriner had seen the incident or not before deciding whether to take action against Aguero. Why were they waiting for the referees report if they don't need to see it in order to charge Aguero?
Ah, in that case I can't see him getting off then.Tall Paul wrote:I don't know, but the rules were changed as I said.Football Hero wrote:I read somewhere that the FA were waiting for the referee's report to see if Andre Marriner had seen the incident or not before deciding whether to take action against Aguero. Why were they waiting for the referees report if they don't need to see it in order to charge Aguero?
Already appealed the charge, why would he appeal the sentence.. He's gone, sell him.Paulista wrote:Is he allowed to appeal?
I think Kun will have SomeRemorse about his behaviour.ZeroRemorse wrote:Already appealed the charge, why would he appeal the sentence.. He's gone, sell him.
Gray has till Monday to appealGeri wrote:What about Gray? When will we hear about him?
I can swallow up the -8 I've already made, but if he gets banned too I'll wildcard.
), I figure he'll have to serve his remaining 3rd game ban on the next occurring match, that is Sep 24 PL, by coincidence again @swa 
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 23771.htmlblahblah wrote:2 Match ban, SSN - who again said that officials didn't see it. Has that rule been changed back?
So the link about this not being necessary must have been overturned?foxinthebox2001 wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 23771.htmlblahblah wrote:2 Match ban, SSN - who again said that officials didn't see it. Has that rule been changed back?
Mark Halsey throws in a theory.
