|
|
Post by tqstokie on Feb 24, 2015 10:54:26 GMT
IMHO Matic was rightly sent off for retaliation. Barnes should also have been sent off for the dangerous challenge. Quite simple really. Atkinson got it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Feb 24, 2015 10:59:39 GMT
There would be an outrage if it were rescinded and rightly so. if there is any justice he should get an extra game for having the temerity to even think about an appeal. Typical arrogant Chelsea another instance of thinking they are bigger than the rules and can get them overruled. Mourinho class act my arse.... arrogant bastard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Birchesheadpotter on Feb 24, 2015 11:04:24 GMT
The lad Barnes left his studs in, just as he did on Ivanovic earlier in the game. He knew full well what he was doing.
For the sake of missing a cup final, he ought to have at least got a right hook out of the 'retaliation'.
Reminds me a little of Wilshire going over the top of Pennant, who jumped straight up and shoved him. I doubt I'd have been reading quite so much understanding agreement had he been shown red.
|
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Feb 24, 2015 14:21:14 GMT
Well done Sean Dyche for pointing out the inconsistencies in Chelsea's behaviour.
Once again an elite London club is rewriting history to protect its position at the top of the food chain and keep the little club in its place, and once again the London media is bending over backwards to do the dirty work. It's pathetically easy to make a villain out of a Burnley player for no reason other than to feed the Chelsea narrative.
I find myself really hoping Burnley stay up this season.
|
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Feb 24, 2015 14:31:07 GMT
Turn this whole thing on it's head and the media and Mourinho would have different agendas
It's total bollocks and those on here defending it and slaughtering Barnes are no different to those Arsenal fans and the media who slaughtered Shawcross and Stoke after that tackle
|
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Feb 24, 2015 14:38:11 GMT
Turn this whole thing on it's head and the media and Mourinho would have different agendas It's total bollocks and those on here defending it and slaughtering Barnes are no different to those Arsenal fans and the media who slaughtered Shawcross and Stoke after that tackle Absolutely right mate. The saddest bit for me is Mourinho raking up vague stuff from Barnes's earlier career. Unfortunately, such is the lazy narrative of football these days, thousands of fans across the country will simply nod their head and assume Barnes is some kind of serial thug, without even beginning to check out what this "grey past" even involves. The truth is the tackle looks worse on the freeze frame than it actually was, just as the severity of Ramsey's injury was worse than Shawcross's tackle actually was. Mourinho, like Wenger, is using that fact to mislead the masses, and the media is lapping it up because it fits their page-filling, comments-grabbing agenda. |
|
Terrybell
Academy Starlet
Keep on Running !
Posts: 179
|
Post by Terrybell on Feb 24, 2015 17:39:00 GMT
Reduced to 2 games but still out Sunday. .
|
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Feb 24, 2015 17:41:10 GMT
The absolute worst decision they could have made.
Either have the balls to say the ref was wrong and rescind the red card or say the ref was right and a red card for violent conduct carries a 3 game ban!
Make the rules up as they go along.
Take it QPR will be putting a similar appeal to get Bartons red reduced to 2 games now then?
|
|
|
|
Post by 2004 on Feb 24, 2015 18:04:01 GMT
What a load of bollocks that is. Really weak from the FA.
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Feb 24, 2015 18:08:14 GMT
The reduction of this ban is just depressing imho
It's either an offence or it isn't
I think Chelsea should be punished for the propaganda they are spouting against Burnley and Barnes. It's very similar to the Arsenal offensive towards Shawcross, though much worse really because the guy was not hurt at all. They are trying to rewrite history and it is working.
The propaganda offensive by Chelsea is way over the top.
If they has rescinded the red card that would be like saying that players could retaliate to anything they perceive as a bad tackle without any punishment. It would be ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Feb 24, 2015 18:10:59 GMT
The absolute worst decision they could have made. Either have the balls to say the ref was wrong and rescind the red card or say the ref was right and a red card for violent conduct carries a 3 game ban! Make the rules up as they go along. Take it QPR will be putting a similar appeal to get Bartons red reduced to 2 games now then? Well Barton reacted to provocation, so surely with this ruling QPR have a good chance. They've opened a can of worms. Either rescind or don't. They've flapped like they always do. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 18:15:19 GMT
Matic's reaction says it all really...
In the sense that he'd gone down in a crumpled heap in agony holding his leg, then magically healed enough for him to jump up and run at Barnes. Should be done for simulation too
|
|
Moosehead
Youth Player
Posts: 307
Location: Nottingham
|
Post by Moosehead on Feb 24, 2015 18:15:17 GMT
So what is the two game ban for then 'not too severe violent conduct'?
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Feb 24, 2015 18:20:11 GMT
So what is the two game ban for then 'not too severe violent conduct'? Looking at the FA website, that's exactly their argument! |
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Feb 24, 2015 18:25:11 GMT
Oh dear ....The Mourinho plan is slowly starting to bear fruit
Gutless bastards
|
|
Moosehead
Youth Player
Posts: 307
Location: Nottingham
|
Post by Moosehead on Feb 24, 2015 18:25:33 GMT
So what is the two game ban for then 'not too severe violent conduct'? Looking at the FA website, that's exactly their argument! I'd be interested if that is now used across the board, and what constitutes to a 2 game or 3 game ban for violent conduct. Almost any other club, the appeal would've been turned down. |
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Feb 24, 2015 18:25:57 GMT
Ridiculous decision.
The lunatics are running the asylum
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 18:31:02 GMT
Dear me. What a lopsided precedent being set here.
The FA don't half make a rod for their own backs do they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Feb 24, 2015 18:32:43 GMT
Weak FA hiding behind the 'rules' then making a lilly livered decision to reduce the ban. He's either guilty or not, so remove the ban or keep it as is.
The facts are
1. The Barnes challenge was a disgrace and he should have been done retrospectively.
2. The sending off of Matic is pathetic - yellow card all day.
Those comparing it to Shawcross are totally wrong. There was no malice in Ryan's challenge but the Barnes one had a sinister edge to it. He's a dirty bastard who's already put his knee in the back of Ivanonic in the same game. Weak FA, WEAK.
|
|
|
|
Post by mywaydesolzan on Feb 24, 2015 18:35:41 GMT
I really don't like Mourinho. Classless tosspot, but he certainly knows how to spin a yarn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 18:50:58 GMT
Would they have reduced it had it been one of our players. No! Load of bollocks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 18:56:50 GMT
What happens when a player gets sent off for a head butt when he just touches foreheads with an opponent? Is that just a 2 game ban because he did not give him the full force of a full on head butt?
|
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Feb 24, 2015 18:58:56 GMT
I think what makes it even more farcical is that the referees assessor at the game has stated that Atkinson got EVERY decison RIGHT...OMG...  |
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Feb 24, 2015 21:01:48 GMT
There's something about the threatening tone of Chelsea's statement that goes beyond football. This isn't the kind of moaning about biased refereeing, dodgy penalties or boring hoofball that has gone hand in hand with football for generations. This is a mega-rich club aggressively throwing its weight around to get its own way.
It echoes the way they hounded Mark Clattenburg with those false claims of racism a couple of years ago, and the obscene way John Terry and Ashley Cole acted during the race trial.
This club is attempting to bully the football authorities on a consistent basis and the worrying thing is they are succeeding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 21:07:00 GMT
There's something about the threatening tone of Chelsea's statement that goes beyond football. This isn't the kind of moaning about biased refereeing, dodgy penalties or boring hoofball that has gone hand in hand with football for generations. This is a mega-rich club aggressively throwing its weight around to get its own way. It echoes the way they hounded Mark Clattenburg with those false claims of racism a couple of years ago, and the obscene way John Terry and Ashley Cole acted during the race trial. This club is attempting to bully the football authorities on a consistent basis and the worrying thing is they are succeeding. You'd have to imagine the owner isn't someone you'd cross lightly. |
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Feb 24, 2015 21:12:32 GMT
There's something about the threatening tone of Chelsea's statement that goes beyond football. This isn't the kind of moaning about biased refereeing, dodgy penalties or boring hoofball that has gone hand in hand with football for generations. This is a mega-rich club aggressively throwing its weight around to get its own way. It echoes the way they hounded Mark Clattenburg with those false claims of racism a couple of years ago, and the obscene way John Terry and Ashley Cole acted during the race trial. This club is attempting to bully the football authorities on a consistent basis and the worrying thing is they are succeeding. They need pulling into line mate The whole club is becoming too powerful and the FA and premier league seem petrified of them |
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Feb 24, 2015 21:16:51 GMT
Would they have reduced it had it been one of our players. No! Load of bollocks! An appeal by Stoke for such an incident would have resulted in an extra game's suspension. |
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Feb 24, 2015 21:37:45 GMT
Would they have reduced it had it been one of our players. No! Load of bollocks! An appeal by Stoke for such an incident would have resulted in an extra game's suspension. Of this there can be absolutely no doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 21:38:52 GMT
Retaliation - straight red - three games
what on earth was there to discuss ?
extreme provocation perhaps ?
rules is rules - then, there's chelsea scum
|
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 24, 2015 22:06:21 GMT
Well a precedent has been set.
If, for argument's sake, Victor Moses is cleaned out on Saturday, gets up and shoves a Hull player in the chest and is given a red card and a three match ban, it would have to be reduced to two matches if we appeal.
But that's the point, we'd have to appeal.
How many clubs have seen players sent off for similar incidents, but have just taken the punishment on the chest and not bothered to appeal?
The only way we'll see if the FA truly are incompetent, corrupt on just plain shit scared of Chelsea is if a Stoke, West Brom or Swansea are in the same situation and they dismiss an appeal.
|
|
