|
Post by Pugsley on Feb 24, 2015 22:08:16 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 will 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 the same situation and they dismiss an appeal. Danny Rose last season at Stoke got a yellow for the same offence i.e. reacting to a challenge and pushing someone in the chest. Why wasn't he sent off?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 24, 2015 22:15:08 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 will 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 the same situation and they dismiss an appeal. Danny Rose last season at Stoke got a yellow for the same offence i.e. reacting to a challenge and pushing someone in the chest. Why wasn't he sent off? I don't know. Maybe it's to do with Rule 12 as mentioned by Malcolm above? Some referees may think that certain offences are unsporting behaviour and others are violent conduct. Who knows what goes on in their heads?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Feb 24, 2015 22:22:27 GMT
So let me get this right. Atkinson forgets the script in the Burnley game and gives Chelsea nothing. The F.A. in total disgust at Atkinson decide to reduce Matics' ban and ensure the big club receives favourable treatment, have I got this right?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Feb 24, 2015 22:28:20 GMT
I wonder what will happen to the Worcester lad who did the body slam to the opponent who practically cut him in half?
No prizes for guessing.
A ludicrous decision by the FA who have now dug themselves an almighty hole while Jose congratulates himself for making sure absolutely nobody is talking about his mighty Chelsea being humiliated in the FA Cup and dropping two home points to one of the Premier League strugglers in the matter of a couple of weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 24, 2015 22:28:27 GMT
So let me get this right. Atkinson forgets the script in the Burnley game and gives Chelsea nothing. The F.A. in total disgust at Atkinson decide to reduce Matics' ban and ensure the big club receives favourable treatment, have I got this right? You get nothing right Geoff.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Feb 24, 2015 22:40:36 GMT
Officials make mistakes, the F.A. make mistakes, we all make mistakes in our own jobs, for heavens sake let's get this subject of referees in some sort of perspective. I couldn't give a toss whether Matic gets a 3 game ban or a 2 game ban, what has any of this got to do with corruption, it's just people making decisions too the best of their ability.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 24, 2015 22:48:10 GMT
Ridiculous decision - pleases nobody, but will create problems going forward as they seem to have invented a new offence; understandable retaliation.
Or maybe the new category of offence for which a reduced penalty applies is "retaliation by a player playing for Chelsea"!
|
|
|
Post by shipshape on Feb 24, 2015 22:53:35 GMT
Officials make mistakes, the F.A. make mistakes, we all make mistakes in our own jobs, for heavens sake let's get this subject of referees in some sort of perspective. I couldn't give a toss whether Matic gets a 3 game ban or a 2 game ban, what has any of this got to do with corruption, it's just people making decisions too the best of their ability. Officials do indeed make mistakes. They have split seconds to come to a decision. The FA on the other hand have had three days to think about this and the impact it would have on their already rock-bottom credibility. Despite that they've still come up with the worst one possible.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Feb 24, 2015 22:56:39 GMT
Why?
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Feb 24, 2015 23:01:12 GMT
Officials make mistakes, the F.A. make mistakes, we all make mistakes in our own jobs, for heavens sake let's get this subject of referees in some sort of perspective. I couldn't give a toss whether Matic gets a 3 game ban or a 2 game ban, what has any of this got to do with corruption, it's just people making decisions too the best of their ability. Okay Geoff Gary Cahill kicks Harry Kane in the back then stamps down his ankle both red card offences, okay Phil Dowd might say he didn't see both these incidents they happened seconds apart and his vision may of been impared (it wasn't but he's full of shit) so after seeing this after the game he or the FA should act yes? Well that's their job yes? What happened? NOTHING! The FA are corrupt full stop!
|
|
|
Post by shipshape on Feb 24, 2015 23:04:48 GMT
Predominantly because they've unneccessarily created yet another grey area in the game. They should have fully rescinded the ban or upheld it. This half-arsed approach has set a precedent. When similar incidents occur - and they will, they run the risk of being accused of bias, and cowardice when challenged by powerful men at rich clubs.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Feb 24, 2015 23:06:55 GMT
The F.A. can act on an incident if the referee has not seen it, but if he has seen it and taken no action then the F.A. can't act ( I think ), I'm not sure what the referee in this case Squeekster has actually said.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Feb 24, 2015 23:17:14 GMT
Matic has been the victim of a dangerous tackle even if it was mistimed shipshape. He has reacted in anger, broken the rules and been sent off. The F.A. has decided that there were mitigating circumstances and reduced his ban by one game, although I think he still misses the Cup Final.
Surely if such a foul was committed in future and a player reacts like Matic the F.A. has the brains to come to the same decision.
|
|
|
Post by shipshape on Feb 24, 2015 23:19:41 GMT
Matic has been the victim of a dangerous tackle even if it was mistimed shipshape. He has reacted in anger, broken the rules and been sent off. The F.A. has decided that there were mitigating circumstances and reduced his ban by one game, although I think he still misses the Cup Final. Surely if such a foul was committed in future and a player reacts like Matic the F.A. has the brains to come to the same decision. You have a lot more confidence in their brains than I do. We'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by markytcd on Feb 24, 2015 23:24:02 GMT
I wonder what will happen to the Worcester lad who did the body slam to the opponent who practically cut him in half? No prizes for guessing. A ludicrous decision by the FA who have now dug themselves an almighty hole while Jose congratulates himself for making sure absolutely nobody is talking about his mighty Chelsea being humiliated in the FA Cup and dropping two home points to one of the Premier League strugglers in the matter of a couple of weeks. I think it was mentioned earlier and although you are right, what about the racist behavior of fans in Paris???? It is like it never happened!!!! Very clever media work and I don't even think they cared about whether it would be rescinded or given an extra game for a frivilous appeal. It was a smoke and mirrors exercise. To get a one game reduction is a bonus and I think Chelsea/"The Special One" will be pissing themselves laughing over how successful it has all gone down.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Feb 24, 2015 23:27:15 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 will 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 the same situation and they dismiss an appeal. Danny Rose last season at Stoke got a yellow for the same offence i.e. reacting to a challenge and pushing someone in the chest. Why wasn't he sent off? Even Tim Sherwood made it quite clear at the time that he was amazed he stayed on the pitch - goodness knows. There's no consistency in the application of the rules from one game to the next.
|
|
|
Post by robinplumpton on Feb 24, 2015 23:32:23 GMT
Let's just assume that there is logic and parity to all of this. A couple of seasons ago there was a player called Jonathan Walters, who just happens to ply his trade at a club called Stoke City. Stoke City played a game in London aagainst a team called Chelsea. During the course of this game, Jonathan Walters was subjected to a challenge from a Chelsea player called David Luiz. This challenge could have broken his leg. This challenge could have resulted in retaliation, it didnt. This challenge could have been the focus of a football highlights programmes, it wasn't. This challenge could have provoked the Stoke manager into being a part of a football highlights programme it wasn't. Presumably, the referee was quite comfortable with his interpretation of this challenge, thus there was no media furore, no further action, it was conveniently forgotten and Chelsea got the result they wanted in several ways Conclusion, shame on you Jonathan Walters, instead of keeping to the laws of the game, you should have got up and decked the mop headed twat and then been a proper victim and hero in standing up for the forces of good against sheer thuggery. If there is logic and parity, then surely this gives all clubs players the licence to react like Matic and all clubs managers the licence to respond like Moanrhino? This then should lead to a replication of response from the FA. As FA delicions are entirely judged on logic and merit, then Twatkinson will be kept away from refereeing Chelsea games, meaning he will be available to referee more Stoke games with his usual logic and parity, what could be fairer than that?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 24, 2015 23:38:10 GMT
The F.A. can act on an incident if the referee has not seen it, but if he has seen it and taken no action then the F.A. can't act ( I think ), I'm not sure what the referee in this case Squeekster has actually said. Correct
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 25, 2015 0:10:04 GMT
Let's just assume that there is logic and parity to all of this. A couple of seasons ago there was a player called Jonathan Walters, who just happens to ply his trade at a club called Stoke City. Stoke City played a game in London aagainst a team called Chelsea. During the course of this game, Jonathan Walters was subjected to a challenge from a Chelsea player called David Luiz. This challenge could have broken his leg. This challenge could have resulted in retaliation, it didnt. This challenge could have been the focus of a football highlights programmes, it wasn't. This challenge could have provoked the Stoke manager into being a part of a football highlights programme it wasn't. Presumably, the referee was quite comfortable with his interpretation of this challenge, thus there was no media furore, no further action, it was conveniently forgotten and Chelsea got the result they wanted in several ways Conclusion, shame on you Jonathan Walters, instead of keeping to the laws of the game, you should have got up and decked the mop headed twat and then been a proper victim and hero in standing up for the forces of good against sheer thuggery. If there is logic and parity, then surely this gives all clubs players the licence to react like Matic and all clubs managers the licence to respond like Moanrhino? This then should lead to a replication of response from the FA. As FA delicions are entirely judged on logic and merit, then Twatkinson will be kept away from refereeing Chelsea games, meaning he will be available to referee more Stoke games with his usual logic and parity, what could be fairer than that? If you read the Commission's reasons, the appeal against the red card was rejected, as was the mitigation based on retaliation for Barnes' tackle. The reason for the reduction was the amount of force used by Matic. They will have done this after viewing the video many times from all available angles.The above neck/below neck issue which I explained above may also have been a factor. There was a relatively recent change which gives a Commission power to do this. To quote from the rules "In truly exceptional circumstances a player and their club can now seek a reduction in the standard punishment for dismissal offences where this is a two or three match suspension. In all cases, even when such a claim succeeds, a minimum suspension of al least one match will always remain When we talk about "The FA" deciding this, it is in fact a 3 person independent commission drawn from quite a large panel of members ( of which I am one, but I didn't sit on this case). As in any legal or regulatory process which involves a degree of subjective judgement, it is possible that a Commission comprised of different members might not have reached exactly the same conclusion. There is obviously no way of ever knowing that. I am not making any comment on whether I think this decision was correct (I'm not allowed to), just explaining the process.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Feb 25, 2015 0:59:54 GMT
Let's just assume that there is logic and parity to all of this. A couple of seasons ago there was a player called Jonathan Walters, who just happens to ply his trade at a club called Stoke City. Stoke City played a game in London aagainst a team called Chelsea. During the course of this game, Jonathan Walters was subjected to a challenge from a Chelsea player called David Luiz. This challenge could have broken his leg. This challenge could have resulted in retaliation, it didnt. This challenge could have been the focus of a football highlights programmes, it wasn't. This challenge could have provoked the Stoke manager into being a part of a football highlights programme it wasn't. Presumably, the referee was quite comfortable with his interpretation of this challenge, thus there was no media furore, no further action, it was conveniently forgotten and Chelsea got the result they wanted in several ways Conclusion, shame on you Jonathan Walters, instead of keeping to the laws of the game, you should have got up and decked the mop headed twat and then been a proper victim and hero in standing up for the forces of good against sheer thuggery. If there is logic and parity, then surely this gives all clubs players the licence to react like Matic and all clubs managers the licence to respond like Moanrhino? This then should lead to a replication of response from the FA. As FA delicions are entirely judged on logic and merit, then Twatkinson will be kept away from refereeing Chelsea games, meaning he will be available to referee more Stoke games with his usual logic and parity, what could be fairer than that? If you read the Commission's reasons, the appeal against the red card was rejected, as was the mitigation based on retaliation for Barnes' tackle. The reason for the reduction was the amount of force used by Matic. They will have done this after viewing the video many times from all available angles.The above neck/below neck issue which I explained above may also have been a factor. There was a relatively recent change which gives a Commission power to do this. To quote from the rules "In truly exceptional circumstances a player and their club can now seek a reduction in the standard punishment for dismissal offences where this is a two or three match suspension. In all cases, even when such a claim succeeds, a minimum suspension of al least one match will always remain When we talk about "The FA" deciding this, it is in fact a 3 person independent commission drawn from quite a large panel of members ( of which I am one, but I didn't sit on this case). As in any legal or regulatory process which involves a degree of subjective judgement, it is possible that a Commission comprised of different members might not have reached exactly the same conclusion. There is obviously no way of ever knowing that. I am not making any comment on whether I think this decision was correct (I'm not allowed to), just explaining the process. Thanks Malcolm for some good information on the process. However even taking all that into account, I still find it impossible not to believe that Chelsea are very successfully bullying the footballing authorities into getting favourable treatment. There's a very consistent message that if you cross this club there will be hell to pay. Right now we're seeing Chelsea's deliberate and calculated hysterical outcry followed very swiftly by an unprecedented backing down on a punishment by whichever people made today's decision.
|
|
|
Post by robinplumpton on Feb 25, 2015 1:04:19 GMT
I look forward to a similar incident, being dealt with in a similar way, involving any 3 member panel., and look forward to a consistent approach and therefore a similar result. The same consistency that was applied to Gary nevilles challenges and Wayne Rooneys elbows at the Brit. Surely if there was greater consistency,of approach, of scrutiny and of treatment, then there would less questions of integrity ? I do not question your integrity or those of any other 3 "person" panel, but the perceptions of justice/injustice can be clouded when certain incidents are hyped/highlighted, certain individuals/clubs have greater access/ influence over the media that either adds focus or chooses to ignore an incident. Everybody loves a conspiracy theory, but they are easier to undermine if actions are deemed to be consistent, even if they are not deemed to be fair. Like Michael Oliver's, penalising Ryan, even when I didn't see it as fair, I have been reassured by the consistent approach by him and his colleagues to all similar incidents since and the same way that the Daily Mail and similar "organs" highlighted, continue to highlight the actions of similar serial offenders like John Terry. Sometimes it is hard not to be cynical when it appears that the tail of the media is wagging the dog of football. In such a climate, the good work you and others do, especially "getting your arse in gear" in supporting Stoke City fans, is not forgotten Malcom, but is compartmentalised in the face of cases such as the poor victims at Chelsea.
|
|
djh
Youth Player
Posts: 309
|
Post by djh on Feb 25, 2015 7:14:27 GMT
The owner, manager, players and fans. Everything about that club is utterly loathsome. I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing them moaning every week. Just give them the trophy now and tell them to fuck off for the rest of the season.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Feb 25, 2015 7:40:42 GMT
The F.A. can act on an incident if the referee has not seen it, but if he has seen it and taken no action then the F.A. can't act ( I think ), I'm not sure what the referee in this case Squeekster has actually said. Correct Phil Dowd on TalkSport yesterday said he thought this rule had been modified in certain circumstances???
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Feb 25, 2015 7:41:44 GMT
At least it diverts all of the media attention from the racism scandal in Paris to poor old Chelsea being the victims. He's off, it's violent conduct see you later. The FA are opening themselves right up if they rescind this. Just don't get it with Man C. That's why I hope they win the title. A proper football team.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 25, 2015 7:52:05 GMT
It's been interesting to watch this whole situation unfold and 2 things jump out at me;
1) there is now an offence known as "not so violent conduct" which will incur a 2 match ban.
Basically, "not so violent conduct" is only applicable to the powerful clubs whose pansy, pampered superstars ate tackled by some criminal who plays for a not so powerful club.
2) the referees assessor/association maintain that Mr. Atkinson made the right decision on each of the 4 controversial incidents that were highlighted by Mr. mourinho.
My conclusion on all this as that "you really couldn't make this shit up".
Everything to do with premier league/fa officialdom absolutely stinks.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 25, 2015 8:26:26 GMT
Let's cut to the chase here. Chelsea wanted Matic's ban completely overturned so he could play at Wembley.
That was never going to happen and now they're going to throw their weight around.
As somebody said a bit further up, they are an utterly loathsome club.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Feb 25, 2015 8:31:36 GMT
There is no difference between Chelsea's behaviour here and any one of Wenger's attacks on us. It's probably most similar to his 2008 'we just lost in the Champions' League and I'm going to cover it up by blaming dirty Stoke, since we'll probably neved play there again'.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Feb 25, 2015 8:49:46 GMT
If you read the post by Malcolm Clarke you see a simple explanation of the process followed by the F.A.. All the emotive views on this thread about Chelsea as a club are not the issue and simply seek to divert attention from the actuals facts concerning this incident.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 25, 2015 9:26:34 GMT
Phil Dowd on TalkSport yesterday said he thought this rule had been modified in certain circumstances??? Not that I'm aware of, but I might be wrong ( it wouldn't affect a Commission which just makes a decision on a case put before it). Phil Dowd ought to know.It may possibly be something to do with incidents which the referees "sees" but doesn't see the totality of. As we see on TV quite often, sometimes you can see something in an incident from one camera angle which you can't see from another, and of course the ref. only has one angle. But that's just speculation on my part.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Feb 25, 2015 9:41:13 GMT
Phil Dowd on TalkSport yesterday said he thought this rule had been modified in certain circumstances??? Not that I'm aware of, but I might be wrong ( it wouldn't affect a Commission which just makes a decision on a case put before it). Phil Dowd ought to know.It may possibly be something to do with incidents which the referees "sees" but doesn't see the totality of. As we see on TV quite often, sometimes you can see something in an incident from one camera angle which you can't see from another, and of course the ref. only has one angle. But that's just speculation on my part. It's a fine line to tread as I, for one, wouldn't want games to be almost "re-refereed" after the game. I think we are almost at the point now of some kind of technological intervention to help refs. The problem of course is money......imagine a team being relegated last match of the season on the back of a wrong decision by the referee....there would be hell to pay, but I fear it will happen.
|
|