How on earth has he done that!? The FA are ****ing clueless. It was a deliberate two footed stamp on someone on the floor!! I'm honestly lost for words. The FA are a ****ing disgrace.
Aguero escapes ban
- Thread starter Bucks Blue
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Paulpowersleftfoot
Well-Known Member
Very poor from the FA looking after the ****wit Foy
Terrible challenge from Aguero can't be defended and how we didn't concede a penalty when Vincent raped the phantom lord alone knows
Just once it would be nice to have the football alone as the talking points the day after rather than some autistic clown with a whistle
Terrible challenge from Aguero can't be defended and how we didn't concede a penalty when Vincent raped the phantom lord alone knows
Just once it would be nice to have the football alone as the talking points the day after rather than some autistic clown with a whistle
This is by no means aimed at Aguero - to name but 2 off the top of my head the Rooney elbow a few years ago and the Mcmanaman challenge a few weeks ago are 2 that immediately spring to mind, but they are the just the publicised ones, there will be hundreds.
It is an utterly, utterly farcical rule and the first rule I would bin if I ran football. There is zero purpose in the ruling as it stands.
What is more undermining for the refereeing profession on the whole?
a) The FA and the referee taking the human approach, apologising to Chelsea (in this particular case), acknowleding that Chris Foy clearly didnt see the full incident in all its glory and that had he, he would have shown the red card, and therfore imposing a sufficient ban to Aguero (in this case).
b) Refusing to intervene, and therefore implicitly suggesting that Chris Foy saw the incident in full and dealt with it in a manner which he deemed appropriate.
Option B will lead to inevitable questions about Chris Foy's competence as a referee and ability to manage a game correctly. Option A is the common sense decision, as everybody and his dog and cat knows that the referee didnt see that incident in full - otherwise he obviously would have shown the red card.
Whats the problem with option A? Nobody is asking the FA to intervene in matters concerning a referee's general management of a football match. That would undermine the ref without question.
But this nit picking, technicality of a god awful rule is really starting to do my head in, and is quite literally sending out the message to the footballers of tomorrow that assault is fine, as long as it is disguised in a challenge the ref has 'kind of' seen....
It is an utterly, utterly farcical rule and the first rule I would bin if I ran football. There is zero purpose in the ruling as it stands.
What is more undermining for the refereeing profession on the whole?
a) The FA and the referee taking the human approach, apologising to Chelsea (in this particular case), acknowleding that Chris Foy clearly didnt see the full incident in all its glory and that had he, he would have shown the red card, and therfore imposing a sufficient ban to Aguero (in this case).
b) Refusing to intervene, and therefore implicitly suggesting that Chris Foy saw the incident in full and dealt with it in a manner which he deemed appropriate.
Option B will lead to inevitable questions about Chris Foy's competence as a referee and ability to manage a game correctly. Option A is the common sense decision, as everybody and his dog and cat knows that the referee didnt see that incident in full - otherwise he obviously would have shown the red card.
Whats the problem with option A? Nobody is asking the FA to intervene in matters concerning a referee's general management of a football match. That would undermine the ref without question.
But this nit picking, technicality of a god awful rule is really starting to do my head in, and is quite literally sending out the message to the footballers of tomorrow that assault is fine, as long as it is disguised in a challenge the ref has 'kind of' seen....
Whats the point of retrospective justice when the FA doesn't act on what the officials missed? Surely that's the whole point! I think the smarmy oil haired Argentinian **** should have been kicked heavily in the Malvina's to see if there was any oil forthcoming. 
Another classic example of the uselessness of the FA, and the hopelessness of the referees.
How is it possible Foy saw "some" of the incident, but not the 2 footed stamp ??? Beggers belief, and simply confirms his shortcomings at this level, to say nothing of the Linesmen.
The FA then, have simply made the Rule an escape route for poor referees, so they are deemed blameless when they make mistakes,or deliberately don't act for whatever reason.
Either way, the rule is totally ridiculous. If the ref "didn't see all the incident" then the cameras sure did, and are there to fill in the gaps. The player should be charged, irregardless of the refs competence.
How is it possible Foy saw "some" of the incident, but not the 2 footed stamp ??? Beggers belief, and simply confirms his shortcomings at this level, to say nothing of the Linesmen.
The FA then, have simply made the Rule an escape route for poor referees, so they are deemed blameless when they make mistakes,or deliberately don't act for whatever reason.
Either way, the rule is totally ridiculous. If the ref "didn't see all the incident" then the cameras sure did, and are there to fill in the gaps. The player should be charged, irregardless of the refs competence.
100%
Either the ref saw the incident 'properly' or he didn't. If he did, why hasn't he sent Aguero off (ditto the Wigan fella)???!?! If he didn't see it, surely that's the whole point of retrospective action?!!?
FA make themselves look bloody stupid again. I want to hear from Chris Foy why he thinks that a 2 fooded stamp on the back of a fallen opponent isn't even a booking.
Here's the one Lescott got away with last season, if we're making a list.
[video=youtube;43EZsEWdlNQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43EZsEWdlNQ[/video]
I think Webb said he saw this one and took appropriate action which is just mad as he didn't give anything.
The stupid rule stopping decisions from being "re-reffed" should've disappeared after they had to charge Ben Thatcher with "serious foul play" to get around their own rules and ban him when he was booked by the ref at the time. Even serious foul play is in the rule book as a red card so it wasn't even like their own loop-hole worked, they were just lucky that no one in their right mind would complain about Thatcher getting a long ban. Anyway, if retrospectively adding a ban for violent conduct is re-reffing the game then what is allowing an appeal against a sending off? It'd be great if Greg Dyke came in and put an end to this nonsense, which seems to allow such a flimsy law of the game overrule everyother law in the game, even serious ones like violent conduct. If that kind of action is a serious enough offence to warrant a minimum of a 3 game ban then it that ban should be applied where ever necessary as it's more important to ensure players aren't getting away with such behaviour than it is to give the impression that the FA won't allow decisions to be re-reffed.
Oh and apologies to any City fans(if there are any on Not606) I didn't mean to use only examples of City players
[video=youtube;43EZsEWdlNQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43EZsEWdlNQ[/video]
I think Webb said he saw this one and took appropriate action which is just mad as he didn't give anything.
The stupid rule stopping decisions from being "re-reffed" should've disappeared after they had to charge Ben Thatcher with "serious foul play" to get around their own rules and ban him when he was booked by the ref at the time. Even serious foul play is in the rule book as a red card so it wasn't even like their own loop-hole worked, they were just lucky that no one in their right mind would complain about Thatcher getting a long ban. Anyway, if retrospectively adding a ban for violent conduct is re-reffing the game then what is allowing an appeal against a sending off? It'd be great if Greg Dyke came in and put an end to this nonsense, which seems to allow such a flimsy law of the game overrule everyother law in the game, even serious ones like violent conduct. If that kind of action is a serious enough offence to warrant a minimum of a 3 game ban then it that ban should be applied where ever necessary as it's more important to ensure players aren't getting away with such behaviour than it is to give the impression that the FA won't allow decisions to be re-reffed.
Oh and apologies to any City fans(if there are any on Not606) I didn't mean to use only examples of City players
Exactly. Clearly he didn't.
I am all for a system that defends and protects a referee's right to make subjective calls without being undermined by a higher power. I am all for the FA not changing the ref's decision with regards to the minute by minute running of a game, refusing to replay matches, refusing to discredit goals that shouldnt have stood etc. The ref is the ref and what he says goes. But for reasons already disected there should be an entirely different set of rules when it comes to serious foul play.
EVERY other sport has a citing comissioner who deals with incidents of serious foul play, whether the ref has seen it or not. And it is easy-no ref will ever admit to 'seeing' something like that - as any ref who 'saw' that challenge and didnt deem it red card worthy should be sacked on the spot as they are completely incompetent and incapable of comanding respect from players who will not feel safe in their hands.
It really should be that simple. The ref saw it (throw the book at the ref) or he didnt (as is the case in 99.9999% of these challenges - throw the book at the player). not neither.
Only thing I'm glad about all this is other teams don't benefit from that decision. That would have been so unfair. He should definitely be made to miss the FA final though so lets hope Karma works.