Matic red-card

Guy:Incognito

thebaz wrote: »

whatever, i remember some **** nearly broke my leg with a reckless late challenge, i went mad , decked him with a dig , got a red - no regrets

Theres a lot of "nearly" broken legs in this thread.

Sheepy99

sabat wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks it wasn't even a foul by Barnes? The first angle in the video looks pretty bad but from other views it just looks like his normal leg shape for a pass which Matic threw himself into.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YolPm2FPo4w

It is his normal leg shape for a pass but there's no need to lean into it as hard as he does, hence the bit of bend you see in Matic's leg.
That's what his standing leg is for, to put most of the weight on.

Sheepy99

If he was running full speed then the force on the follow through of his passing foot would make sense, but he's not so he definitely put a bit extra into it knowingly.

thebaz

to me he follows through - when there was no need - thats what caused the danger

Sheepy99

Either way, the red will stand and it'll all be forgotten about in a week or two. Perhaps those of us that havn't should just get on with it.

TimRiggins

Not only does he follow through he makes no attempt to apolgise to Matic after the challenge. He knew well what he was doing.

Arghus

Can't understand the debate about the tackle. It's looks like a completely deliberate foul to me. A bad one at that.

I understand that given the side foot pass that Barnes had just played and his proximity to the other player it was highly likely that his foot was going to come down in close contact with Matic, once he'd finished the motion. This is the "where else was his foot going to go" argument. I understand this, but only up to a point. What I don't get is how those who see this as not even a foul don't concede that Barnes was,at best, extremely clumsy.

In a situation like that Barnes standing foot should have taken most of his weight and even if his foot did come into contact with the leg of Matic through momentum alone, it shouldn't have resulted in such a bend in Matic's. The bend indicates that Barnes used force when he planted his leg and, given his position and stance, that's unnatural and the only way he could have done it is with intent in the follow through. A red card all day long.

BMJD

Arghus wrote: »

Can't understand the debate about the tackle. It's looks like a completely deliberate foul to me. A bad one at that.

I understand that given the side foot pass that Barnes had just played and his proximity to the other player it was highly likely that his foot was going to come down in close contact with Matic, once he'd finished the motion. This is the "where else was his foot going to go" argument. I understand this, but only up to a point. What I don't get is how those who see this as not even a foul don't concede that Barnes was,at best, extremely clumsy.

In a situation like that Barnes standing foot should have taken most of his weight and even if his foot did come into contact with the leg of Matic through momentum alone, it shouldn't have resulted in such a bend in Matic's. The bend indicates that Barnes used force when he planted his leg and, given his position and stance, that's unnatural and the only way he could have done it is with intent in the follow through. A red card all day long.

So you really think that in the split second that the incident happened, Barnes was able to weigh up his options - "hmm do I get the ball, quickly withdraw my leg from this oncoming opposition player in case one of us gets hurt - or will I be a nasty cnut and follow through and maybe BREAK (Daily Mail'ed for extra sensation/outrage) his stupid leg, I'm just a nobody from Burnley lolol??" Did he ****, it happened in the blink of an eye. Good work from Mourinho in getting the Paris train thing downgraded though, it's his longtime modus operandi - take the pressure off other matters by making sure he is centre stage in the media.

DVDM93

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theres a lot of "nearly" broken legs in this thread.

Nearly never bulled a cow.

TimRiggins

BMJD wrote: »

So you really think that in the split second that the incident happened, Barnes was able to weigh up his options - "hmm do I get the ball, quickly withdraw my leg from this oncoming opposition player in case one of us gets hurt - or will I be a nasty cnut and follow through and maybe BREAK (Daily Mail'ed for extra sensation/outrage) his stupid leg, I'm just a nobody from Burnley lolol??" Did he ****, it happened in the blink of an eye. Good work from Mourinho in getting the Paris train thing downgraded though, it's his longtime modus operandi - take the pressure off other matters by making sure he is centre stage in the media.

He clearly could have pulled out. Anyone can see that he could have. It was clearly deliberate, if it wasn't he would have stopped and apoligized to Matic straight after it.

As for the latter part of your post, The Paris incident was already old news at that stage. It happened, the club responded with bans and the world moves on.

Gringo180

Just seeing this tackle now. Absolutely outrageous tackle by Barnes. Matic blessed he didnt have a compound fracture there. Forget about a ban thats assault by Barnes.

Guy:Incognito

Just when you think posts can't get any more tabloid.

Chucky the tree

Gringo180 wrote: »

Just seeing this tackle now. Absolutely outrageous tackle by Barnes. Matic blessed he didnt have a compound fracture there. Forget about a ban thats assault by Barnes.

:pac:

Chancer3001

I was at the game. Matic would have pucked the head off Barnes if it wasn't for terry and big zouma man handling him away.

He's lucky they were there. As is Barnes

noodler

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I was at the game. Matic would have pucked the head off Barnes if it wasn't for terry and big zouma man handling him away.

He's lucky they were there. As is Barnes

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Its like Matic is your mate or something!!

DaveSuarez

It's amazing how few careers are actually ended by "career ending tackles"

BarcodeMuncher

DaveSuarez wrote: »

It's amazing how few careers are actually ended by "career ending tackles"

Lucky is another word you could use

Ridiculous tackle.

It's understandable what Matic did but you can't do it.

Both should be banned

Lukker-

Matic ban reduced from 3 to 2.

They take into account the mitigating circumstances of Matic's response due to the nature of Barne's tackle.

http://www.thefa.com//news/governance/2015/feb/nemanja-matic-chelsea-burnley-red-card-suspension-reduced-two-matches?

GavRedKing

Lukker- wrote: »

Matic ban reduced from 3 to 2.

Misses Spurs and West Ham, back for Southampton.

Kristopherus

Lukker- wrote: »

Matic ban reduced from 3 to 2.

And Chelski still fuming !!!!!!!!

Lukker-

Kristopherus wrote: »

And Chelski still fuming !!!!!!!!

Chelsea*

Probably? Wasn't exactly violent conduct from Matic was it?

GavRedKing

Lukker- wrote: »

Chelsea*

Probably? Wasn't exactly violent conduct from Matic was it?

I expected it to stay as a 3 game ban, at least hes back for Southampton, would have preferred him back for West Ham too but not to be.

We might get Burnely in one of the cups next year so we can get revenge and beat them then.

Arghus

BMJD wrote: »

So you really think that in the split second that the incident happened, Barnes was able to weigh up his options - "hmm do I get the ball, quickly withdraw my leg from this oncoming opposition player in case one of us gets hurt - or will I be a nasty cnut and follow through and maybe BREAK (Daily Mail'ed for extra sensation/outrage) his stupid leg, I'm just a nobody from Burnley lolol??" Did he ****, it happened in the blink of an eye.....

I think Barnes left his leg in, knowing that at the very least Matic was going to "know he was there". Whether he meant to do serious damage I don't know. Probably not, everyone involved was seriously lucky, but when you go in like that the consequences can be disastrous.

That fact that it happens in a blink of an eye doesn't change my initial point about intent. A great deal of decisions on the field are made in split seconds and I don't think we can say they're all unconscious automatic responses without self awareness. This isn't a case of a ball hitting a hand at 60mph from a distance of two feet, where the player couldn't have been physically quick enough to get out of the way. He had the wherewithal to play a pass in the millisecond before. I think he was conscious of being late. I don't think he seriously wanted to maim the other player, but you know....whoops- these things can happen.

Let's not forget that Barnes did his best to injure Ivanovic earlier in the game and has had more fouls given against him in the league this season.

eagle eye

I don't get how it goes from 3 to 2? Like there is no 2 game ban that I'm aware of, a reduction surely should have meant it became a 1 game ban. He didn't deserve anymore than 1 game anyways.

GavRedKing

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't get how it goes from 3 to 2? Like there is no 2 game ban that I'm aware of, a reduction surely should have meant it became a 1 game ban. He didn't deserve anymore than 1 game anyways.

Thats what I thought would happen on the off chance of getting reduced as I fully expected them to f**k out but you only get a two game ban for accumlating 10 yellows before April, not for a straight red so dont know why they didnt just reduce it to 1 game.

The FA's logic is hard to understand.

blueser

It'll be interesting to see what the FA/PL do the next time a player reacts to what he thinks is a bad tackle.

BarcodeMuncher

It'll be interesting to see what the FA/PL do the next time a player makes such a bad tackle I think

Shanotheslayer

Shouldn't have been a reduction at all.

Why was it a reduction?

GavRedKing

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Shouldn't have been a reduction at all.

Why was it a reduction?

They havent give their reason yet, just said its reduced.

Should be published soon enough though.

NomadicGray

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Shouldn't have been a reduction at all.

Why was it a reduction?

Guess Mourinho cried enough to get it done

niallo27

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Shouldn't have been a reduction at all.

Why was it a reduction?

The constant whinging and moaning worked. It sets a bad example to other managers.

BarcodeMuncher

I thought this thread would be people moaning about the awful tackle, but rather Matic getting a reduction is an issue, fair enough by the law its three games but the FA have clarified

"The violent response of Mr. Matic to the nature of the tackle cannot be condoned and does not vindicate his subsequent actions. The members of the Commission did, however, accept the mitigation in respect of the level of force used by Mr. Matic and the nature of the contact he made with Mr. Barnes of Burnley FC.

"Having made those considerations we determined that the standard punishment of a three-match suspension would be clearly excessive and, therefore, ordered that the suspension be reduced to two matches.”

Instead lets be happy a top player isn't out for months rather than a game by what was deliberate or not an awful tackle

Lukker-

Lukker- wrote: »

Matic ban reduced from 3 to 2.

They take into account the mitigating circumstances of Matic's response due to the nature of Barne's tackle.

http://www.thefa.com//news/governance/2015/feb/nemanja-matic-chelsea-burnley-red-card-suspension-reduced-two-matches?

That seems fair enough.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

The constant whinging and moaning worked. It sets a bad example to other managers.

You mean they'll all start moaning about decisions that go against them while overlooking the conduct of their own players?

Not one if them will need to learn this from Mourinho.

mayordenis

I think all sides won't like my argument here.

But I think it's fair that it was reduced, his reaction had very mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account.

I also think (this should be equally unpopular), that it wasn't even really a tackle at all by Barnes, it looks like an attempt at a pass to me, and that he misses the ball, as is natural with any attempt at a pass your foot doesn't slide along the ground it goes up and inevitably comes back down. I think it was just unfortunate, and can still understand why Matic was upset even if it's in my opinion misguided.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean they'll all start moaning about decisions that go against them while overlooking the conduct of their own players?

Not one if them will need to learn this from Mourinho.

He has taken it to a new level and shown it works.

DVDM93

Rumours flying about Twitter that this negotiation came from unnamed 'decision makers' within the FA agreeing with Chelsea to reduce the ban in exchange for oral sex in which Mourinho provided himself. The unnamed apparently demanded he continued crying, whinging and begging while he carried out the act also.

Madness, the stuff ya do see on Twitter.

Guy:Incognito

mayordenis wrote: »

I think all sides won't like my argument here.

But I think it's fair that it was reduced, his reaction had very mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account.

I also think (this should be equally unpopular), that it wasn't even really a tackle at all by Barnes, it looks like an attempt at a pass to me, and that he misses the ball, as is natural with any attempt at a pass your foot doesn't slide along the ground it goes up and inevitably comes back down. I think it was just unfortunate, and can still understand why Matic was upset even if it's in my opinion misguided.

He didn't miss the ball, he makes a good contact and knocks it forward onto Matic who knocks it out to the side.

If anything it was a tackle by Matic, Barnes had the ball.:)

LeBash

The tackle along the lines Parker on Bullard (in terms of how bad tackle it was/could have been and not in terms of the actual tackle). Didnt look like he was out to get him but it could have been a career ender. Luckily for Matic, it wasnt. In fact he clearly wasnt badly injured if he was able to dash over to Barns.

If i remember correctly Parker didnt get a card for what he did to Bullard.

I can see why Matic reacted the way he did and would go as far as saying he restrained himself but its a clear red for retaliation.

Hard cases make bad law. 3 game suspension and it shouldnt be recinded or it will create cases for silly appeals.

mayordenis

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

He didn't miss the ball, he makes a good contact and knocks it forward onto Matic who knocks it out to the side.

If anything it was a tackle by Matic, Barnes had the ball.:)

Yea that's a better way to put it.

Guy:Incognito

LeBash wrote: »

Hard cases make bad law. .

Cards and bans for retaliation is good law though. You cant have people going off on one and attacking players on the pitch. You red card the player for retaliation and then deal with the first incident as its own standalone issue if theres any punishment to give out.

Panthro

niallo27 wrote: »

The constant whinging and moaning worked. It sets a bad example to other managers.

What a load a Ballaaaaaaccckkks

super_furry

Sets a dodgy precedent now. Should all red cards in which a player reacts violently to a bad tackle be a two-match ban now?

theoneeyedman

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Cards and bans for retaliation is good law though. You cant have people going off on one and attacking players on the pitch. You red card the player for retaliation and then deal with the first incident as its own standalone issue if theres any punishment to give out.

You'd swear matic boxed him in the head, not just pushed him in the back. Lads would want to man to fcuk up as the game is going to hell. Given the nature of the tackle(deliberate or not) matic was well entitled to be upset but while he reacted, there was no violence in it really.
I'm no Chelsea fan BTW, would love to see him out for a couple of months, but fair is fair, he doesn't deserve a long ban for pushing a lad in the circumstances like he did.

blueser

BarcodeMuncher wrote: »

I thought this thread would be people moaning about the awful tackle, but rather Matic getting a reduction is an issue, fair enough by the law its three games but the FA have clarified

"The violent response of Mr. Matic to the nature of the tackle cannot be condoned and does not vindicate his subsequent actions. The members of the Commission did, however, accept the mitigation in respect of the level of force used by Mr. Matic and the nature of the contact he made with Mr. Barnes of Burnley FC.

"Having made those considerations we determined that the standard punishment of a three-match suspension would be clearly excessive and, therefore, ordered that the suspension be reduced to two matches.”

Instead lets be happy a top player isn't out for months rather than a game by what was deliberate or not an awful tackle

I look forward to seeing what punishment the next player sent off for pushing an opponent gets, especially if he was retaliating to what he saw as a bad challenge.

Panthro

super_furry wrote: »

Sets a dodgy precedent now. Should all red cards in which a player reacts violently to a bad tackle be a two-match ban now?

You're right it does set a precedent.
Players will look at it and think they can go around and nearly end the career of a fellow player and somehow get away with it.
Insult of a decision to reduce to two games.

Kirby

Panthro wrote: »

You're right it does set a precedent.
Players will look at it and think they can go around and nearly end the career of a fellow player and somehow get away with it.
Insult of a decision to reduce to two games.

I think you need to calm down and not get carried away. It was an awful challenge but nobody goes out to try and end somebodies career so put the hyperbole away. Even guys like Vinnie Jones and Roy Keane who tried to hurt the opposition......unsavoury as that may be, it's not trying to end somebodies career.

BarcodeMuncher

blueser wrote: »

I look forward to seeing what punishment the next player sent off for pushing an opponent gets, especially if he was retaliating to what he saw as a bad challenge.

Precedent is foreign to the FA, and while they may get appeals based on this decision when has precedent ever forced their hand, I have seen blatant headbutts and tackles go unpunished, it was the media that forced their hand here, I see your point though, it sets a precedent that will see more appeals but should Matic given the circumstances suffer because the rules are so constricted.

A complete overhaul in how they work would be a good precedent, for the biggest league in the world they are so backward.

Macavity.

Two matches isn't enough IMO. Terrible tackle no question, but that does not detract from his assault. The whole "defending himself" argument is laughable as the incident was over.