I think hes nailed on to get 3 games games having watched it when i got home after the game

Only he knows if he did the first one on purpose or not.

The media campaign though is stupid

The one on Can was daft and probably deserved a red, though it wasn't a stamp, more something he should have avoided. The one on Skretl I have no problem with, he`s a dirty bar steward and I`m guessing it was retribution for the elbow the weird looking, close eyed w**ker put on Costa in the first leg. So f**k him.

Did the ref see the "costa stamp" ,by that i mean was the ref looking at that incedent but did not act on it...if so then the F.A can`t do anything because the ref saw the incedent but let it go.I think if only the ref missed it..i.e was looking in another direction then the F.A can act......that`s my take on it from previous incedents like that in the past from those c**ts.

Did the ref see the "costa stamp" ,by that i mean was the ref looking at that incedent but did not act on it...if so then the F.A can`t do anything because the ref saw the incedent but let it go.I think if only the ref missed it..i.e was looking in another direction then the F.A can act......that`s my take on it from previous incedents like that in the past from those c**ts.

 

You are missing the biggest criteria when it comes to these things, which is 'was he wearing a royal blue shirt?'

Oh right

the law book clearly states  "if it involves a chelsea player.....do the c**t "   

The Skyrtl one definitely isn't. Like Davey says he doesn't change his stride pattern and there's really no way of knowing where the defender's legs are going to be.

 

The Can one is worse looking. I think he knows where the leg is and he could probably avoid it but there is a little doubt there. I just don't reckon he'll get the benefit of it and will probably get a ban of about 3 matches. I'm being pessimistic but I've little reason not to be.

The one on Can was daft and probably deserved a red, though it wasn't a stamp, more something he should have avoided. The one on Skretl I have no problem with, he`s a dirty bar steward and I`m guessing it was retribution for the elbow the weird looking, close eyed w**ker put on Costa in the first leg. So f**k him.

The most bizarre thing is these guys fight it out in every game and then end up hugging each other after it. Both are street fighters but both respect each other a lot I think.

PS I think the one on Can was absolutely deliberate, he knew what he was doing, just because he didn't direct his eyes doesn't mean he didn't know Can's foot was there (he did). A good footballer doesn't look at the ball when they are dribbling with it.

Edited January 28, 201511 yr by Zola

I just don't see how the FA will be able to prove the intent was there.

He doesn't stamp on anyone, he treads on them, it'll be argued that it was accidental.

The Can one probably was intentional but how can you say or prove that 100%?

PS I think the one on Can was absolutely deliberate, he knew what he was doing, just because he didn't direct his eyes doesn't mean he didn't know Can's foot was there (he did). A good footballer doesn't look at the ball when they are dribbling with it.

 

Yeah pretty much this. I play rugby and you can make a pretty f**king good guess that if you put your foot down in a certain place then it's going to land on someone. 

 

Whether or not that's enough for him to land a ban I don't know but to my own mind he's been a little naughty there.

I just don't see how the FA will be able to prove the intent was there.

He doesn't stamp on anyone, he treads on them, it'll be argued that it was accidental.

The Can one probably was intentional but how can you say or prove that 100%?

Davey had a good point earlier that he doesn't direct his foot away from the fluid motion, doesn't stab at a foot and doesn't look near him. For those reasons as you say its very hard to prove. That may not have a bearing though if Sky and Jayymee has his way.

Edited January 28, 201511 yr by Zola

Knowing our luck and history with the FA Costa will be one of the few players retrospectively punished this season and given a 3 game ban.

An organisation that charged our manager for sarcasm no longer surprises me.

I just don't see how the FA will be able to prove the intent was there.

He doesn't stamp on anyone, he treads on them, it'll be argued that it was accidental.

The Can one probably was intentional but how can you say or prove that 100%?

Don't need to prove it 100%, the fact that it could have been avoided is enough to go of.

You said you think he meant it, how did you come to that conclusion? Whatever way you did will be the same thought process used when reviewing even if intent can't be certain.

FA have shot themselves in the foot really by not banning aguero for two of the most obvious stamps i've seen in recent memory but that still doesn't excuse what Costa did. He'll be banned most likely and I really wouldn't have any complaints, it was a silly thing to do.

Costa looks like a baddie from a spaghetti western and the gunslingers at the F.A. will mete out a banning for sure. What bothers me is rival players know he won't back down and can get him at it...Who can tell if he meant it, won't stop him getting punished though.

Don't need to prove it 100%, the fact that it could have been avoided is enough to go of.

You said you think he meant it, how did you come to that conclusion? Whatever way you did will be the same thought process used when reviewing even if intent can't be certain.

FA have shot themselves in the foot really by not banning aguero for two of the most obvious stamps i've seen in recent memory but that still doesn't excuse what Costa did. He'll be banned most likely and I really wouldn't have any complaints, it was a silly thing to do.

The inconsistency is the frustration, just seems the FA charge those that get the most media attention.

I only say Costa probably meant it because it was that sort of game, both teams were being quite snide all game long and there was obviously some ill feelings leftover from the first leg.

Im fully prepared for his 3 match ban

Edited January 28, 201511 yr by Xfaxtor

My two pence, however biased it might sound.

 

Could argue this till the cows come home to be honest,  but I think neither of them you can prove he meant it, In both cases his eyes were not on the player and both cases he did not stamp, at best he trod on the player. 

 

But Jose is 100% correct. You would think he is the dirtiest b*stard to play the game this morning. That is a campaign and some comparing him to Saurez, un-F***ing-believable !

 

Love the player, hope he is not band but we will get over it if he is.

My two pence, however biased it might sound.

 

Could argue this till the cows come home to be honest,  but I think neither of them you can prove he meant it, In both cases his eyes were not on the player and both cases he did not stamp, at best he trod on the player. 

 

But Jose is 100% correct. You would think he is the dirtiest b*stard to play the game this morning. That is a campaign and some comparing him to Saurez, un-F***ing-believable !

 

Love the player, hope he is not band but we will get over it if he is.

 

Totally agree.  To me he was careless.  In my rugby experience most people look down at where they are stamping at some point in the motion.

Unbelievable...

Oliver will be asked by the Football Association on Wednesday whether he or any of his colleagues saw the incident: if the answer is 'no' that will open up the possibility of retrospective punishment.

Under Premier League rules an independent three-man panel assesses video replays before deciding on any action, but League Cup regulations are different and the final decision is the referee's.

That means Oliver would be asked to assess the incident retrospectively. If in his judgement Costa was guilty of a straight red-card offence the Spain forward would be charged with violent conduct.

Costa would have until 6pm the following day to contest the decision, and a hearing would then be fast-tracked. If he accepted it, he would receive an automatic three-game ban missing the fixtures against City, Aston Villa and Everton. Whatever the outcome, there would be a resolution before the visit of Manuel Pellegrini's men.

He'll be banned.

 

Can bet your house on it.

 

City fans up in arms about wanting him banned for this Saturday. Just drag it out and appeal.

Can we get 9 points without Costa for 3 games? I think so.

Not very very rarely at all, Charlie Adam just a couple of games ago being one example. Last season (or was it earlier this season?) it was Yacob, I even remember when Kompany got some stick for it.

I don't think the coverage has been that bad but that's going past my original point really. I'm not disagreeing that Costa gets unfair treatment at times, I'm just saying it gets mentioned when any player does it, coverage and such depends on various factors.

If you go on the sky sports app. The first 7 articles are related to Costa. Like I said, the coverage this is getting, is comparable to suarez biting an opponent.

Anyone seen the picture doing the rounds of all the national papers sports pages this morning?

All of them lead with the Costa "stamp" incidents and not, you know, the game.

Anyone have a link to Agueros stamp earlier this season? Ive searched high and low but it seems to have been removed from the internet.