The mancityfans.net football forum

Chelsea are contesting the red card for Costa's stamp, very interestingly the FA are fast-tracking the appeal hearing to tomorrow, so if necessary he can be banned for our game!!!!!!

http://m.skysports.com/article/football//9686848

Nice one FA, they can see Chelski's tactic, as could everyone!

Mourinho will be furious - everyone's got it in for him, Costa and Chelski!

I think now all red cards if contested are fast tracked so they will if guilty will miss the next three games, b4 if contested it would be a week later so clubs would do this

stevefromdonny wrote:I think now all red cards if contested are fast tracked so they will if guilty will miss the next three games, b4 if contested it would be a week later so clubs would do this

Poo, I thought this was a particular bespoke action, just for Mourinho & Chelski!

Does that mean he can get an extra game if it's deemed frivolous or have they got rid of that rule now?

Even better if they decide to add the second stamp into it "we know the ref says it wasn't, but it was, so let's call it 7 games instead"

Sue Perb wrote:

stevefromdonny wrote:I think now all red cards if contested are fast tracked so they will if guilty will miss the next three games, b4 if contested it would be a week later so clubs would do this

Poo, I thought this was a particular bespoke action, just for Mourinho & Chelski!

If it's regarded as a frivolous appeal by the Cheating Chavs then Costa gets an extra game added to his ban. The bespoke action for the odious one was when Phil 'where's the chippy' Dowd advised mourinho he was being watched by TV cameras when he was berating the ref at half-time during their last game.

Blue Since 76 wrote:Does that mean he can get an extra game if it's deemed frivolous or have they got rid of that rule now?

Even better if they decide to add the second stamp into it "we know the ref says it wasn't, but it was, so let's call it 7 games instead"

Do you sell dodgy, overpriced cars? Ha ha ha loved this comment!

if he gets an extra game then he misses the game against Burnley, I am sure Mourinho wont mind that as long as he gets his afternoon of airplay on SSN

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

Sue Perb wrote:

stevefromdonny wrote:I think now all red cards if contested are fast tracked so they will if guilty will miss the next three games, b4 if contested it would be a week later so clubs would do this

Poo, I thought this was a particular bespoke action, just for Mourinho & Chelski!

If it's regarded as a frivolous appeal by the Cheating Chavs then Costa gets an extra game added to his ban. The bespoke action for the odious one was when Phil 'where's the chippy' Dowd advised mourinho he was being watched by TV cameras when he was berating the ref at half-time during their last game.

It was frivolous, I 'eard him say; "let's put in a frivolous appeal", it was 'yer Honour, honest, and he also said "feck the TV cameras watching me!"

Hes gonna win. You cant prove intent with that video

This is not a criminal trial. You only have to prove on the balance of probabilities. Guilty as charged. What gives him hope is that the match referee found him guilty and a panel is looking at it tomorrow. Normally a panel looks at it and then would assess the appeal.

Rat boy and Lineker supporting Costa. Collymore strongly against. He just got a horrible racist tweet for his pains.

I could be being even more paranoid than normal, but something is way off here.

The fact that oliver said the first stamp was the one that he would have sent him off for was strange enough, in that he could have easily said he didn't see the second one, which he definitely didn't... as well as for the second stamp, costa was looking right where he was stamping iirc?

Now that the second one has been dismissed by the ref and the first goes to a panel, is it more likely that the panel can let him off this, more so than if it had been the second?


I'll say it again, something isn't right.

it makes no sense that they would appeal unless they've been given the heads up on something

If the ref says that he would have sent him off, then the panel must follow. Can't imagine any situation where they would ask a ref after the event, charge a bloke, then let him off.

It would basically mean calling the ref a twat was the whole purpose.

Original Dub wrote:I could be being even more paranoid than normal, but something is way off here.

The fact that oliver said the first stamp was the one that he would have sent him off for was strange enough, in that he could have easily said he didn't see the second one, which he definitely didn't... as well as for the second stamp, costa was looking right where he was stamping iirc?

Now that the second one has been dismissed by the ref and the first goes to a panel, is it more likely that the panel can let him off this, more so than if it had been the second?


I'll say it again, something isn't right.

it makes no sense that they would appeal unless they've been given the heads up on something

Absolutely.

For my money, I can see the FA chickening out and letting him off completely.

They'll merely consider telling him he's been a naughty boy and not to do it again....then again, they might not even do that.

seems like an odd decision.

colour me concerned that jose will get what he wants.

however, costa cannot play against us, i am assuming, unless they decide to completely lift the card, which would be mad.

i cannot believe the skirtel stamp can be seen as anything other than intentional either, still.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

Original Dub wrote:I could be being even more paranoid than normal, but something is way off here.

The fact that oliver said the first stamp was the one that he would have sent him off for was strange enough, in that he could have easily said he didn't see the second one, which he definitely didn't... as well as for the second stamp, costa was looking right where he was stamping iirc?

Now that the second one has been dismissed by the ref and the first goes to a panel, is it more likely that the panel can let him off this, more so than if it had been the second?


I'll say it again, something isn't right.

it makes no sense that they would appeal unless they've been given the heads up on something

Absolutely.

For my money, I can see the FA chickening out and letting him off completely.

They'll merely consider telling him he's been a naughty boy and not to do it again....then again, they might not even do that.

Highly probable, however I do think he has brought attention to himself this time around and he is going to have to deal with that from now on whether he gets a ban this time or not. I think he will be watched for diving and cheating more closely and at some stage he will get his comeuppance.

How many of these retrospective red cards have been overturned, I suspect very few?

They would be seriously undermining the referee if they went to the trouble of asking his opinion on this, then end up telling him he would have been wrong to send Costa off.

The appeal is probably due to Chelsea believing they have sufficient grounds to do so, without it being declared 'frivolous' & getting an extra ban. Thus they can claim they are innocent victims when the punishment is handed out.

They may have been tipped off that they can appeal.

But it would be an outrage to go through this process & not charge Costa unless Chelsea could show that he was dazzled by a lazer beam or shot by a dart when it happened.

The refs' would all go spare.

Ted Hughes wrote:They would be seriously undermining the referee if they went to the trouble of asking his opinion on this, then end up telling him he would have been wrong to send Costa off.

The appeal is probably due to Chelsea believing they have sufficient grounds to do so, without it being declared 'frivolous' & getting an extra ban. Thus they can claim they are innocent victims when the punishment is handed out.

They may have been tipped off that they can appeal.

But it would be an outrage to go through this process & not charge Costa unless Chelsea could show that he was dazzled by a lazer beam or shot by a dart when it happened.

The refs' would all go spare.

The refs would do as they are told.......as they always seem to do.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:They would be seriously undermining the referee if they went to the trouble of asking his opinion on this, then end up telling him he would have been wrong to send Costa off.

The appeal is probably due to Chelsea believing they have sufficient grounds to do so, without it being declared 'frivolous' & getting an extra ban. Thus they can claim they are innocent victims when the punishment is handed out.

They may have been tipped off that they can appeal.

But it would be an outrage to go through this process & not charge Costa unless Chelsea could show that he was dazzled by a lazer beam or shot by a dart when it happened.

The refs' would all go spare.

The refs would do as they are told.......as they always seem to do.

They would have no choice but believe me, they will be up in arms about it.

It would amount to letting everyone know the ref missed the incident, then letting everyone know that had he seen it, he would have got it wrong.

Why would they ask the ref, if they were going to disagree with him afterwards ? It would not make any sense. The only reason to ask him, is so that they can carry out the punishment he missed.