Costa Charged with Violent Conduct

He has no right of appeal.

 

I was going to say it depends whether the FA allow a appeal but want site so didn't

 

So, Costa said it was accidental, the FA therefor have called him a liar by giving him a 3 game ban.

That means they'll take his word as fact next time if he gets into a race row

 

Graeme Le Sux also had a rant about tackling.

Former Chelsea player Graeme Le Saux believes only Costa can know if he meant to to tread on Can during Chelsea's cup win against Liverpool at Stamford Bridge.

Le Saux said: "It's important that the FA show fairness and transparency and consistency and that's hard because in some situations, and I've been in that situation myself, only I know if I've actually gone in to hurt someone in a tackle, to foul someone intentionally.

"Only I know that, so when somebody is looking at a tackle that I've put in and thought that was verging on violent conduct, they have to decide whether I meant it or not.

"That's the grey area."

Me Sux's brain is bigger grey area due to it being a stamp not a tackle.

 

It all seems like Costa's general mentality is not a factor for these douche bags.

And Scholes, he obviously wants to be different by disagreeing with everyone else, as if he's not weird enough already

 

i hope you are all happy now... justice is seen to be done unlike spain.....

 

i must say paul scholes is a complete numpty who seems to try now to court controversy be it by slagging off his own team or defending stupidity like this.

basically its very silly to say that a deliberate... i see your ankle let me just drop my full weight down on it move is low end and its justified cos somebody else wound him up in a different game... its like saying premeditation is fine once someone is on your list

 

He's been correctly banned and will rightly miss three matches as a result. However, he should have already missed at least seventy minutes of football!

 

True that. Lucky Oliver didn't see it. There is a possibility that had he not stamped on Skrtel he may have had a case but I reckon they were always gonna do him for one of them. He meant both though, the one on Skrtel was more obvious than the one on Can. He jumped into the air for nothing and made sure he landed on Skrtel

 

Bbc saying he can't appeal. Not sure if it's becuse it's diff rules for retrospective bans.

In The league cup the ref reviews the footage and makes the decision where as the league is done by independent panel... All different so god only knows.

 

I also think the Skrtel one is more clear to see. He actaully brings his leg down with force. When you watch instead of landing naturally his leg increases speed mid air to deliberately bring IT down on skrtel.

 

We beat your expensively assembled pile of ****. That's all you need to know.

 

Not sure exactly,but it will be a tidy little sum from that rag

 

Maybe Slippy T won't have to take the deciding pen if the Spuds get the draw against you.

 

Total ****ing irony

 

Gibberish as usual.

 

Yet more gibberish.

 

No such thing, Slippy T cost your club a CL trophy, this will more than likely be his last cup final with Chelsea, so he'd be better further up the order.

 

But how would he take the glory then...?

PS...they also won the CL when he wasn't allowed to play

 

Something tells me this young fellow won't be so noisy after the city game