Matic red-card

Kirby

Macavity. wrote: »

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.

Assault? Didn't you just read my post about Hyperbole? It was a push.

Macavity.

Kirby wrote: »

Assault? Didn't you just read my post about Hyperbole? It was a push.

Yup, I read your post about hyperbole. Beautifully constructed, well done to you.

A push that knocks someone to the ground may be considered assault. Hardly qualifies as hyperbole.

Quazzie

Kirby wrote: »

Assault? Didn't you just read my post about Hyperbole? It was a push.

You do realise that a push is legally assault yea?

A straight red is three games. Always has been... until Mourinho starts his moaning.

RasTa

This is a very strange thread. Hopefully pushing is stamped out of football.

Guy:Incognito

Kirby wrote: »

Assault? Didn't you just read my post about Hyperbole? It was a push.

If you want to get technical, he lifts his knee as hes going in too.

DVDM93

Whoever answers this question; if for example your Granny was ran at physically shoved and knocked to the ground would you like the person responsible to be charged with assault?

TimRiggins

DVDM93 wrote: »

Whoever answers this question, if your Granny, Mum or other half was ran at physically shoved and knocked to the ground would you like the person responsible to be charged with assault?

Jesus Christ. Being taken just slightly out of context now.

DVDM93

TimRiggins wrote: »

Jesus Christ. Being taken just slightly out of context now.

Who's to say Barnes isn't a granny and had grand kids watching?

Quazzie

DVDM93 wrote: »

Who's to say Barnes isn't a granny and had grand kids watching?

He isn't.


If he was Rooney would've shagged him.

hullaballoo

Are we going to start using legal definitions because if that's where we're going, I'm in.

DVDM93

hullaballoo wrote: »

Are we going to start using legal definitions because if that's where we're going, I'm in.

Harvey Spector in the house.

Quazzie

hullaballoo wrote: »

Are we going to start using legal definitions because if that's where we're going, I'm in.

Kirby

You just got Litt up! :P

blueser

Kirby wrote: »

Assault? Didn't you just read my post about Hyperbole? It was a push.

So; a push in the back on an unsuspecting victim isn't assault then?

theoneeyedman

DVDM93 wrote: »

Whoever answers this question; if for example your Granny was ran at physically shoved and knocked to the ground would you like the person responsible to be charged with assault?

Jesus Wept!
#prayforashley

DVDM93

DVDM93 wrote: »

Whoever answers this question; if for example your Granny was ran at physically shoved and knocked to the ground would you like the person responsible to be charged with assault?

I've asked my granny not to play another match in the Premier League until this mess is sorted, and I've told clubs not to select her.

ebbsy

So Chelsea make false racist claims against a ref, and are now having a little cry about a few decisions ?

DVDM93

The fact that my 'granny' comment has been taken seriously highlights that some people will clutch at anything to make their argument seem more plausible.

Speaking of lawyers, I'd throw in the expertise of Lionel Hutz to add to this mess.

Demosthenese

Don't see the big deal being made out of this ... Barnes wasn't even watching as Matic approached from the side, flung out a leg, did not come off his feet or lunge, caught Matic and gave away a foul. Run of the mill stuff that you would see a couple times a season - he obviously didn't hurt Matic enough cos the guy was like Lazarus after the incident and jumped up to get his revenge. So no biggie. They are professionals and are going to get hit with a few bad challenges from time to time it's an occupational hazard.

Yes it was a bad challenge more so from the way it could have gone rather than how it actually occured.
Matic was fine but then stupidly reacted and should know better.
Matic is a man playing a mans game so less of the sympathy towards him it's not like he got injured.
Massive deal being made out of this because he misses the cup final - only himself to blame.

As for Barnes, his tackle on Ivanovic was worse in the first half cos he did mean it ... although Ivanovichs response was embarrassing too. Seems to be a thing with Chelsea this season, whatever is in the Water that makes Hazard lose his balance everytime he is touched - should be addressed. Obviously it is rehearsed - Foul on Hazard, roll over and everyone surround the Ref asking for cards ... lead by JT.

Ulysses Gaze

ebbsy wrote: »

So Chelsea make false racist claims against a ref, and are now having a little cry about a few decisions ?

Don't you know.....

There is only one authority higher than the FA, only one option open to Chelsea now.

The other players should wear Matic teeshirts. Afair it got the FA to back down over Suarez.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

There is only one authority higher than the FA, only one option open to Chelsea now.

The other players should wear Matic teeshirts. Afair it got the FA to back down over Suarez.

Did they back down.

Sanity_Saviour

ebbsy wrote: »

So Chelsea make false racist claims against a ref, and are now having a little cry about a few decisions ?

So Liverpool have a racist player who bites anyone and now they think they can play black players?

This is where we talk about things that happened which are irrelevant isnt it

kev1.3s

Macavity. wrote: »

Yup, I read your post about hyperbole. Beautifully constructed, well done to you.

A push that knocks someone to the ground may be considered assault. Hardly qualifies as hyperbole.

Do me a favour, a push on a football pitch constitutes assault? Just like the assault on Costa by shackell in minuite 43 then?
I'm not denying Matic deserved some form of punishment for his retaliation but to call a push that knocks someone over on a football assault is beyond rediculus.

Macavity.

kev1.3s wrote: »

Do me a favour, a push on a football pitch constitutes assault? Just like the assault on Costa by shackell in minuite 43 then?
I'm not denying Matic deserved some form of punishment for his retaliation but to call a push that knocks someone over on a football assault is beyond rediculus.

Calling it hyperbole is ridiculous. Are we really reaching a point where any non literal description of an event is going to be called out as hyperbole? Obviously I did not mean it in the legal sense of the word. Jesus Christ.

Iused2likebusts

Great result for burnley all the same a draw at the etihad and Stamford Bridge playing 4 4 2 with more or less the same team that got promoted. The biggest financial mismatch in premier league history.

asdfgh86

DVDM93 wrote: »

Whoever answers this question; if for example your Granny was ran at physically shoved and knocked to the ground would you like the person responsible to be charged with assault?

These comparisons make no sense.

If someone slide-tackled your granny at the bus stop they'd be charged for assault, it'd be perfectly legal on a football pitch though.

Bridge93

I hope Burnley go down after the way they've reacted to the incident be it players, coach, fans whoever. Yes I'm overreacting but I don't care. I hope they go the same way as Wigan.

As a Newcastle fan i still can't stand Wigan after what that scumbag McManaman did to Haidara. Very similar to this in that he stayed I the pitch and Wigan pinched an equaliser (a deliberate handball if I remeber right) and as Newcastle were fighting relegation to it could have been very costly to a rival.

LeBash

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.

Are you agreeing with me or didn't read what I posted.

I understand why he reacted but his reaction warranted the red card. My hard cases......line is in relation to reducing the ban. Why should he have one match reduction? He got a justified red card so it should be an automatic 3 match ban or more for violent conduct.

Shanotheslayer

asdfgh86 wrote: »

These comparisons make no sense.

If someone slide-tackled your granny at the bus stop they'd be charged for assault, it'd be perfectly legal on a football pitch though.

I lol'd imagining a full kit Wnker running around public slide tackling people

DVDM93

asdfgh86 wrote: »

These comparisons make no sense.

If someone slide-tackled your granny at the bus stop they'd be charged for assault, it'd be perfectly legal on a football pitch though.

ffs will you take the time it took you to quote and post to read back and you'll clearly see that it was a joke, Christ!

Iused2likebusts

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Great result for burnley all the same a draw at the etihad and Stamford Bridge playing 4 4 2 with more or less the same team that got promoted. The biggest financial mismatch in premier league history.

Really?

Did it officially beat off the Man City 2 Burnley 2 a few weeks ago?

How about the 2010 Burnley side? Or Barnsley? Or Oldham? Or Bradford?

DVDM93

DVDM93 wrote: »

ffs will you take the time it took you to quote and post to read back and you'll clearly see that it was a joke, Christ!

You use the word "joke" loosely.

COYVB

Deleted User wrote: »

Really?

Did it officially beat off the Man City 2 Burnley 2 a few weeks ago?

How about the 2010 Burnley side? Or Barnsley? Or Oldham? Or Bradford?

You could look at some of the Villa sides in the last 18 months too, we put out a team against liverpool that cost around 5m afaik

corny

It all leaves a sour taste. All of it.

The cowardly tackle. Matic rolling around before realising he's angry. The red card for gently pushing a grown man. The automatic three game ban for gently pushing a grown man. Mourinho's indigence, even though you know his reaction would be completely different had Matic been the person making the tackle. Sean Dyche. Etc

No party involved has any character. Typical of football these days.

Iused2likebusts

COYVB wrote: »

You could look at some of the Villa sides in the last 18 months too, we put out a team against liverpool that cost around 5m afaik

Villa have a much bigger wage bill than burnley

grumpymunster

ebbsy wrote: »

So Chelsea make false racist claims against a ref, and are now having a little cry about a few decisions ?

That is news to me just when did this happen? I remember an occasion when as an employer Chelsea had a duty of care to an employee, once an allegation had been made, to report the issue to the correct authorities.

That is the law but when it comes to the FA the law of the land does not apply to Chelsea it seems.

COYVB

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Villa have a much bigger wage bill than burnley

Don't bet on it.

Iused2likebusts

COYVB wrote: »

Don't bet on it.

Obviously villa have had cutbacks but their wage bill would be massive compared to burnleys.

DVDM93

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You use the word "joke" loosely.

?

Nerdlingr

Awful tackle from Barnes, but when Ramires did an even worse one against Villa last year Mourniho blamed the ref!!! Double standards as usual.

grumpymunster

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Awful tackle from Barnes, but when Ramires did an even worse one against Villa last year Mourniho blamed the ref!!! Double standards as usual.

I think you will find that he blamed the ref in the sense he had let the game get so out of hand Ram was frustrated and reacted badly. Basically he did what every good manager does he tries to protect his player even when really he can't.

The actual quote was ‘I am angry with Ramires, but you know, in football, it’s difficult to keep control of the emotions,’ said Mourinho.



The Burnley manager is a classic example of this protecting his player (mind you he did also say that he expected Ramires to be less stupid this year also).

I have no issue with a manager protecting his players they have to but the FA are supposed to be impartial and administer the rules to protect the players whilst allowing the game to flourish. Ram rightly got banned for his actions no one has protected Matic which is a disgrace.

Lucas Hood

Quazzie wrote: »

You do realise that a push is legally assault yea?

A straight red is three games. Always has been... until Mourinho starts his moaning.

A straight is not Automatically a 3 game ban. Pull someone back when they're through on goal and get a straight red you'll miss one game. Two foot someone and get a straight red and you'll miss 3 games.

Can't believe this crap is still peddled about.

Nerdlingr

grumpymunster wrote: »

I think you will find that he blamed the ref in the sense he had let the game get so out of hand Ram was frustrated and reacted badly. Basically he did what every good manager does he tries to protect his player even when really he can't.

The actual quote was ‘I am angry with Ramires, but you know, in football, it’s difficult to keep control of the emotions,’ said Mourinho.



The Burnley manager is a classic example of this protecting his player (mind you he did also say that he expected Ramires to be less stupid this year also).

I have no issue with a manager protecting his players they have to but the FA are supposed to be impartial and administer the rules to protect the players whilst allowing the game to flourish. Ram rightly got banned for his actions no one has protected Matic which is a disgrace.

You're right, managers will do anything and twist it in a way to fit their own agenda. But I didnt hear Paul Lambert coming out and saying the tackle was criminal etc etc.

Why should Matic be protected though, he reacted violently to a tackle, that the ref saw, and got a red card. Violent conduct is 3 game ban no? They appealed and got it down to two. Mourinho's on a crusade now just to gloss over a poor result. He always does it. Chelsea have the squad to suck it up and move on.

grumpymunster

Nerdlingr wrote: »

You're right, managers will do anything and twist it in a way to fit their own agenda. But I didnt hear Paul Lambert coming out and saying the tackle was criminal etc etc.

Why should Matic be protected though, he reacted violently to a tackle, that the ref saw, and got a red card. Violent conduct is 3 game ban no? They appealed and got it down to two. Mourinho's on a crusade now just to gloss over a poor result. He always does it. Chelsea have the squad to suck it up and move on.

Everyone knows the word criminal was used in response to the way over the top coverage by Sky of the Costa incident, where he was asking quite correctly if the Costa challenge was criminal so was Barnes and where was the clamour and banner headlines associated with that challenge. Is that unreasonable?

Why should Matic be protected are you for real, why should any player be protected then lets just get rid of referees and let it be afree for all.

NukaCola

asdfgh86 wrote: »

These comparisons make no sense.

If someone slide-tackled your granny at the bus stop they'd be charged for assault, it'd be perfectly legal on a football pitch though.

When your Granny is in the opponents' half of the pitch and closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-to-last opponent is she offside?

Nerdlingr

grumpymunster wrote: »

Why should Matic be protected are you for real, why should any player be protected then lets just get rid of referees and let it be afree for all.

You were on about the FA protecting players. Which I commented on. What makes Matic so special that he should be protected by the FA??
He reacted violently to a horrible tackle and was rightly sent off. On review his ban was shortened to 2 games. What were Chelsea expecting... just an admonishment?

grumpymunster

Really are you serious? Do you really think the FA have no part to play in the protection of players? It should be incumbent on the FA to ensure laws are applied fairly Vertongen did on Sunday exactly what Matic did against Burnley but with no personal provocation. No booking no red card no suspension is that protection of a player and the game?

Let me draw you a picture then by allowing the foul to go unpunished the FA are saying yes this is fine you can do that. You protect players by administering the law have you ever heard of citing and the citing commission in rugby, have you ever head of a TMO in rugby? This is an attempt by the rugby unions to have the game played in the manner it should, not infallible but a good honest effort.

But whilst people like you believe the FA should not be at the forefront of player protection then you can only despair for the game.

Nerdlingr

So you think he should got off scott free so. Nice. Stick to the rugby then.

GavRedKing

Nerdlingr wrote: »

So you think he should got off scott free so. Nice. Stick to the rugby then.

He should of if Vertonghen and more importnatly Barnes got away with it.