Sergio Aguero is a naughty boy, isn't he?
For the second time this season, the Argentine faces a lengthy suspension for violent conduct. If his vicious elbow on West Ham's Winston Reid wasn't bad enough, he then tried cutting David Luiz in half last weekend when Man City played Chelsea.
As it was his second dismissal for violent conduct this term, Aguero now has four Premier League games to sit in the naughty corner and think about his actions.
But is four games long enough? Does he deserve more for that horror challenge? It's certainly dividing opinion throughout fans across the globe, and it's also got our office divided.
Here's what our top writers think...
Josh Challies - No
Yes, the challenge was appalling and warranted punishment but it's nothing we haven't seen before. The red card was deserved, as was the additional punishment, but that should be the end of it - after all, Aguero did keep himself out of the melee that followed.
Had the FA issued a longer ban, they'd be setting a precedent that's difficult to follow. With Luis Suarez' cases of racism and biting, it was easy to assess- racism is a ban for x games, biting is a ban for x games. With Aguero's challenge, what's the underlying factor that you can call upon with further cases down the line?
In truth, the problem with the discipline issued to Aguero isn't related to that at all, instead it's the FA's reluctance to issue further punishments to the likes of Michy Batshuayi, who pushed the Argentine to the floor, Cesc Fabregas, who slapped Fernando in the face, and everyone else involved in the fracas.
The FA needs to scrap the law that if a referee sees the incident and doesn't take action, further punishment cannot be issued. Things will always be missed, those found guilty should be punished.
Christy Malyan - Yes
Sergio Aguero’s horror tackle was one of the most dangerous and unprofessional acts I’ve seen from a Premier League footballer for some time. This wasn’t just getting the timing disastrously wrong or coming in at an unsavoury angle; two things that can be accepted as somewhat accidental given the pace of the Premier League nowadays.
He went high and studs up to hurt David Luiz purely out of frustration as the scoreline went beyond Man City’s reach. Aguero wouldn’t have produced that tackle when the scores were level, which tells all about the Argentine’s intentions.
Furthermore, this isn’t Aguero’s first incident involving Luiz - stamping on the Chelsea defender back in 2013. There’s clearly a lasting tension between the two players but Aguero overstepped the mark.
The FA should really be making a stand against this kind of behaviour; a four-game ban doesn’t seem enough for a pre-meditated act that could’ve have a huge impact on Luiz’s career. I put this in the same category as Mousa Dembele’s eye-poke at the end of last season, which saw the Tottenham midfielder suspended for six games.
Alex Hams - Yes
Imagine the outrage had it been Diego Costa putting in such a ‘tackle’ on, say, John Stones. Aguero’s actions could be put down to frustration, but given his horrid, and cowardly, elbow on Winston Reid earlier this season, he has previous.
Okay, that’s taken into account with the four-game ban, but when you see Mousa Dembele get six games for an eye gouge and Luis Suarez have the book thrown at him for biting an opponent, it’s a worry.
Had the Argentine really connected with Luiz he could have done some serious damage, while his actions showed no respect for a fellow player and his career. He somewhat gets away with his action as he falls into the category of ‘not that sort of player’, but that really shouldn’t matter.
Shane Burns - No
Absolutely not. There's no denying that what Aguero did to David Luiz was horrendous, inexcusable, but it wasn't as bad as people are claiming. The challenge was completely unnecessary and, being honest, could have done some serious damage to the Brazilian.
The striker would have faced the wrath of Pep Guardiola when he returned to the dressing room as, whatever angle you look at it, not even the Spaniard could condone the Argentine's actions. He has received the extra game he deserves from his suspension that occurred after elbowing West Ham's Winston Reid.
However, Aguero has been punished by the FA appropriately. Never in Premier League football has someone received a longer ban for a shockingly outrageous tackle. Once again, there's no excusing the challenge, but nowadays, people are becoming far too worked up on challenges these days that were perhaps acceptable twenty years ago.
The art of tackling is dying clearly, but despite this, there was nothing artist about Aguero's actions. Can someone say Aguero's challenge was as bad as Roy Keane's on Alf-Inge Haaland in April 2001, or Callum McManaman's tackle on Newcastle's Massadio Haidara in 2013, which escaped punishment.
Aguero has received his punishment, and nothing further was deserving.
Chris McMullan - No
Let me rephrase the question: what possible cause would the FA have to ban Sergio Aguero for more than four games?
Rules are rules and they’re rules for a reason: that is, they outline the parameters of the game of football within the bounds of reasonable expectation. In other words, the rules of football prohibit, say, cycling or using a cricket bat, because, if it were allowed, then it wouldn’t be football any more. It would be cycling. Or cricket. And cycling is outside of the bounds of reasonable expectation when it comes to engaging in a game of football.
Tackling isn’t like cycling. Bad tackles, like good ones, fall into the bounds of reasonable expectation. Therefore they are taken into account by the rules - Aguero’s tackle was a bad one and subject to a three game suspension, plus an extra game as it was his second offence. That’s what the rules say the punishment is. And that's what the punishment is.
What other things are like cycling in that they are totally alien to the reasonable expectations of what one should expect on a football pitch and would therefore give the FA a chance to ban him for longer? Well, biting (for which Luis Suarez was banned for ten games), spitting (for which Jonny Evans and Papiss Cisse were banned for six and seven games respectively), racial abuse (for which Luis Suarez was banned for eight games), kung-fu kicking an opponent (for which Eric Cantona was banned for nine months) and eye gouging (for which Mousa Dembele was banned for six games) are all examples of things that don’t come under what is reasonable in the course of a football game. And all of those things gave the FA cause to ban the perpetrators for longer.
None of these things are the same as a bad tackle.
Sam Cox - Yes
Yes, at least an extra game
Tackles like Aguero’s are thankfully rare. The question football should ask itself is, ‘Is a deliberate tackle as vulgar as that worse than ‘raising your hands’?’. Yes, yes it is. Players receive bans for ‘violent conduct’ for rather minor – albeit ugly – incidents. Aguero could have severely damaged David Luiz’s career and it was not through misjudgement, he set out to make a tackle that poor. Fighting on the football pitch must be punished, but tackles as intentional as this deserve at least as much retribution.
Seldom do we see players make a challenge quite so obviously not playing the ball as that. This was not a misjudgement, it was not even clumsy. If Aguero had not already had a ban, this would have been for only three games. Considering the other offences that warrant a three/four game ban, Aguero has got off lightly.
Barnaby Lane - No
I think a four game ban is about right. At the most, it should be five.
Yes, the tackle from the Argentinian was reckless, and incredibly dangerous but I think it was more out of frustration than malice and it was clear that Aguero knew the error of his ways almost directly after the incident.
Considering that Luis Suarez got eight games for biting Branislav Ivanovic a few seasons back, four missed games for a what can be described, at best, as a poor challenge is right.
Start banning people for too long and in the future, players will be too scared to even make a challenge.