moomba
TheBrownDog
From memory it has to be done by the Tuesday following the game.
Matchday 4
- Thread starter RossFC
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Hopefully will have Payet, Lanzini and Zaza starting which will make a big difference for us, so I'd be expecting 3 points.
Will Mazzari be under the pump already if they lose heavily again I wonder?
Will Mazzari be under the pump already if they lose heavily again I wonder?
moomba
TheBrownDog
Aguero charged. Officials claimed to not see it. 
Well most refs are blindAguero charged. Officials claimed to not see it.
Magma
TheBrownDog
i really can't believe that part. he's looking straight at it. if he can't see it, what the * is he looking at?
patiently waiting for glenn whelan to be charged for trying to punch kun after he scored against stoke.
patiently waiting for glenn whelan to be charged for trying to punch kun after he scored against stoke.
- Apr 8, 2015
- 17,469
- 9,803
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Where's the evidence of the ref not seeing it?
moomba
TheBrownDog
It was in the FA statement.
To be honest, I blame the rules. It just gives the refs too much leeway to determine if someone is going to get charged or not. Shouldn't put them in the position where they have to lie to avoid a controversial/unpopular decision being made.
- Apr 8, 2015
- 17,469
- 9,803
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Yeah I agree - he bottled that decision. West Ham who were sinned against get no benefit.
Magma
TheBrownDog
like for real. what is he looking at? how does he not see it?
sure, it's an elbow. whatever. 3 games. alright. don't care. but how can a referee, in this position, this close, not see such a 'blatant' elbow? an elbow so damaging poor winston couldn't even talk (copyright mark noble productions).
i didnt see it originally cos i was watching originally at 3 frames per second live. but he's right there.
moomba
TheBrownDog
Thought this was also interesting from the FA statement.
http://www.thefa.com/news/governanc...ster-city-west-ham-united#4f0VW6AgM4aTyXGa.99
Could you call it an "off the ball" incident? Not sure how the rules apply, as you'd think the majority of retrospective punishments were for "on the ball incidents", just found the wording a bit odd.
http://www.thefa.com/news/governanc...ster-city-west-ham-united#4f0VW6AgM4aTyXGa.99
Could you call it an "off the ball" incident? Not sure how the rules apply, as you'd think the majority of retrospective punishments were for "on the ball incidents", just found the wording a bit odd.
- Apr 2, 2000
- 74,857
- 25,047
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Chicago Bulls.
So has Aguero gotten a 3 match ban?
Makes United heavy favourites for the Manc Derby.
Makes United heavy favourites for the Manc Derby.
moomba
TheBrownDog
Not yet but he will get one.
- Apr 2, 2000
- 74,857
- 25,047
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Chicago Bulls.
Sucks for you guys.
Yep that's twice now with the Costa decision and now this.
Referees again showing that they're laughing stock.
- Dec 22, 2009
- 62,724
- 36,768
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Aguero charged. Officials claimed to not see it.
Not that difficult to understand. Nobody who was watching the game live saw it because their focus was on the ball. City can't complain because the incident clearly wasn't ruled on during the game - clearly a free kick should have been awarded as well as a red card.
It would have been a travesty if Kun(t) got away with it. It was a vicious elbow - you can tell this by his clenched fist. I have a City fan at my club who claims "he was just trying to shrug off Reid" - I nearly died of laughter.
so I'm gonna expect the next time Fellaini throws his elbows around (that's only a matter of time) that he'll get banned as well... yeah right, who the hell am I kidding!!!
SM
Bigfooty Legend
Aguero charged. Officials claimed to not see it.
Thought you could still be charged even if the official saw it?
- Dec 22, 2009
- 62,724
- 36,768
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
moomba
TheBrownDog
SM
Bigfooty Legend
Ok, seems like the ref might have been focusing on play then and only saw it out of the corner of his eye. That would fall under the category of "partially seen" I suppose.
moomba
TheBrownDog
If that classifies as partially seen you're pretty much saying every foul can be retrospectively punished.
He's lied about it, simple as that. Not the first time it's happened. Won't be the last. We all move on.
Shitty rule anyway. Shouldnt make any difference whether the ref saw it or not.
He's lied about it, simple as that. Not the first time it's happened. Won't be the last. We all move on.
Shitty rule anyway. Shouldnt make any difference whether the ref saw it or not.
Last edited:
- Dec 22, 2009
- 62,724
- 36,768
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Bullshit. The commentators didn't see it initially and neither did anyone who was watching the game. Why? Because the focus is on the ball and the game. Instead of calling the referee a liar how about you look at the actions of your player first. Also you'll find incidents that were ruled upon during the course of the game won't be retrospectively punished. No referee anywhere would not take action after seeing a replay of that incident. City have nothing to complain about in this scenario at all.
SM
Bigfooty Legend
Shouldn't make a difference, you're right. So no point getting worked up over it.
moomba
TheBrownDog
Correct. Thats why I'm not worked up over it.
- Status
