He's being charged with it beause it is patently obvious he knew what he was doing. you are telling me this wasn't intentional? he knew axactly where Can's leg was and he even puts force into it, as if he didn't realise he was standing on someone There is a case for the second one not being intentional cos he's in the air and not in control, though he is looking right at Skrtel's leg before he stands on it The Can one, so obvious he meant it, if he was just going for the ball he never even need put his foot where he did.
The stamp is worse, but are you seriously condoning it? I'd quite like to see the reaction of some people if it was Terry elbowing a Liverpool striker.
I'm not condoning it but I don't honestly think he's gone out to 'do' Costa as Costa did to Can. On Terry, I was a bit surprised more wasn't made of the tackle on Sterling.
Seriously? they'd been at each other since that Spain v Slovakia game. Anything they did to each other was with intent. From what I remember it was reckless, but why would anything be made of it after this Costa saga?
So you hate the fact Man United fans say its because its United and now you are here saying Chelsea are being picked on Costa has got away with his dirty play for too long its about time something was done and a 3 game ban is fully deserved, lucky really because he should have been banned a lot more and I'm surprised he has not been because there is suppose to be a campaign against Chelsea right?? Just need to sort out Hazard now, jumping into players should be classed as a dive because that's what it is CHEATING
Ridiculous how referee's have selective sight when deciding what they saw and didn't see. I'm not going to defend Costa, even if he didn't mean it, which nobody knows, it doesn't look like he didn't mean it. But what gets me is that Sergio Aguero got away with a stamp on Noble earlier in the season and scored the winner against United in a game he would have been banned from. And he's also got a bit of history too. But he doesn't play for Chelsea
You are literally the biggest numbskull I've ever ever had the displeasure of exchanging words with. Idiotic ****.
its ridiculous. if i was on the astro at school, and a year seven pushed the ball away from me after i asked for it he'd get pushed over (at least). he'd laugh, i'd laugh we'd all laugh, and we'd carry on playing one bounce. all these people crying foul are just pu55ies. I don't care if that's offensive-it's the truth. Can wasn't hurt, he knew what he was doing and got niggled for it.
Well the media witch hunt has paid off then Having looked at both incidents again, I just can't see how you could say they were definitely deliberate. They probably were knowing Costa's aggressive streak and I think that his rep has definitely counted against him here but the videos are far from conclusive. Someone mentioned the McManamon challenge a couple of years back and its the inconsistency that winds us all up. How can a knee high, potentially career threatening challenge like that go unpunished, but this gathers so much attention? Ditto Aguero's challenge on Luiz in the cup semi a couple of years back. Conspiracy theorists will also say the timing is very convenient with City around the corner, meaning more chance for them to win and keep the title race more open for commercial gain....
Looks like Costa stepped rather than stamped on Can's shin pad and pushed down to run after the ball. If can was out injured because of this I'd understand some of the fan rage, but he isn't. Usually if you get stamped on the bruising is enough to put you out of a game. Costa is a threat to other teams and they feel justified to stop him anyway they can, so he is under a microscope every time he plays. As is Hazard. Ivanovic has made quite a few dirty fouls this season yet as he isn't perceived as a main danger other teams don't harp on about his fouls.
nah Costa's being banned guys, we have to deal with it. Whether he meant it or not, I couldn't say and to be honest, don't give a ****. But he will be banned either way. Remember the FA don't need to prove ****, they just decide on a whim.(or let the press decide) My personal view is that he probably meant to do both, lets not beat around the bush.
