Aye Aye Ashley

[symyjym]

Yet more disgusting images of violence in the game. I'm starting to question whether I should continue to watch a sport which has become a barbaric spectacle more at home in the colosseum.

Yep I have seen these, and in both photos their trailing legs are firmly on the ground.

The photo's in your example do not compare to the actual incident and they cannot be used in evidence.

 

[symyjym]

But if he'd been given a yellow for the first, he's more likely to have been more cautious later in the game.

So you are saying he may have possibly avoided the second incident if he had a yellow for the first?

This actually tells me that you believe he went in strong, and if he had a previous yellow, he would have avoided it.

 

[StonehamPark]

It wasnt the pass that caused the problem it was the follow through that was reckless and arguably intentional.

I don't know if you've ever played football GB but I'll give you a quick lesson.

When passing, crossing or shooting the ball, by following through, you increase the power and accuracy of the pass/shot/cross.
I would argue that Barnes' follow through was of course intentional, as he is likely aware of the above fact.

This fact is of course the same with Golf or Cricket, this comparison may help.

Matic arrived a second too late and the collision course between Matic's challenge and Barnes' follow through was very unfortunate.

Now everyone please calm the f**k down.

 

[Yoda]

Yep I have seen these, and in both photos their trailing legs are firmly on the ground.

The photo's in your example do not compare to the actual incident and they cannot be used in evidence.

View attachment 63356

But in your example, Barnes' "trailing leg" has already been taken out by Matic's trailing leg, so too cannot be used in evidence.

 

[BensGrandad]

I dont agree as per the FA. They have reduced Matics ban accepting his mitigation. If they considered it was a legitimate challenge there would be no mitigation also they said that they could take no action as an official saw the incident. Had the ref said he didnt see it they would have issued a 3 match ban it would appear from their statement..

 

[Triggaaar]

Yep I have seen these, and in both photos their trailing legs are firmly on the ground.

But in neither case where they having to stretch for the ball because they were being challenged. In the case in question, your honour, Ash is already leaving his trailing leg before Matic arrives.

So you are saying he may have possibly avoided the second incident if he had a yellow for the first?

This actually tells me that you believe he went in strong, and if he had a previous yellow, he would have avoided it.

I knew you'd jump to the wrong conclusion.

Surely we can agree that there are two possibilities here:
1) Barnes deliberately followed through to hit Matic, and deserved a card.
or
2) Barnes didn't deliberately follow through to hit Matic, and didn't deserve a card.

If the first one is the reality, then I there's a good chance he wouldn't have done so if already on a yellow.
If the second one is the reality, then he would have done the same thing if already on a yellow, but shouldn't have been booked for it.

Either way, we can't say he should have been sent off for two yellows.

 

[Triggaaar]

I dont agree as per the FA. They have reduced Matics ban accepting his mitigation. If they considered it was a legitimate challenge there would be no mitigation

I don't agree. Just because Barnes didn't commit an offense doesn't mean that Matic didn't end up on the wrong side of an accidental collision, that at least slightly mitigates his reaction.

 

[symyjym]

I knew you'd jump to the wrong conclusion.

Surely we can agree that there are two possibilities here:
1) Barnes deliberately followed through to hit Matic, and deserved a card.
or
2) Barnes didn't deliberately follow through to hit Matic, and didn't deserve a card.

If the first one is the reality, then I there's a good chance he wouldn't have done so if already on a yellow.
If the second one is the reality, then he would have done the same thing if already on a yellow, but shouldn't have been booked for it.

Either way, we can't say he should have been sent off for two yellows.

Adam Virgo said last night that Barnes should have been yellow carded. That settles the debate for me.

 

[StonehamPark]

They have reduced Matics ban accepting his mitigation. If they considered it was a legitimate challenge there would be no mitigation also they said that they could take no action as an official saw the incident. Had the ref said he didnt see it they would have issued a 3 match ban it would appear from their statement..

WRONG

You spout as much drivel as you read on the rumour sites.

Read the report, seriously.

They reduced the ban to two games "due to the level of force in the push".
The Barnes tackle/incident leading up to the 'push' did not have any affect on the reduction.

Christ on a bike.

 

[BensGrandad]

That is said just to save face and not criticize the officials, that is most obvious.

 

[Yoda]

That is said just to save face and not criticize the officials, that is most obvious.

But if that's the case, then they would've banned Barnes. You really don't get it do you.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But if that's the case, then they would've banned Barnes. You really don't get it do you.

I think he does. He just likes to argue.

 

[BensGrandad]

But if that's the case, then they would've banned Barnes. You really don't get it do you.

They admitted they couldnt take action against Barnes because an official had seen the incident and taken no action. Retrospective action is not permitted within the rules if the incident has been seen by an official and no action taken at the time. Otherwise I think they would have.

 

[symyjym]

Roger Burden, chairman of the FA's regulatory commission, said "The violent response of Mr Matic to the nature of the tackle cannot be condoned and does not vindicate his subsequent actions.

Obviously they are not going to elaborate on the nature of the tackle. but we can all read into it or not if we want to.

What they are saying is "It doesn’t matter how bad that tackle was, you cannot respond violently."

 

[Triggaaar]

They admitted they couldnt take action against Barnes because an official had seen the incident and taken no action. Retrospective action is not permitted within the rules if the incident has been seen by an official and no action taken at the time.

That all sounds correct.

Otherwise I think they would have.

But now you're just guessing. Their statement that they can't take action against Barnes means they're not even investigating it, it doesn't mean they have investigated it (which would be a waste of their time) and that they wish they could ban him but can't.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The press keep banging on about Barnes' bad tackle, and yet Barnes didn't make a tackle. Barnes was on his feet and played a pass. Matic came in from the side and made a sliding tackle. Even if you believe the whole incident was Barnes' fault, don't say it started with Barnes' tackle. It was Matic who made the tackle.

 

[BensGrandad]

But now you're just guessing. Their statement that they can't take action against Barnes means they're not even investigating it, it doesn't mean they have investigated it (which would be a waste of their time) and that they wish they could ban him but can't.[/QUOTE]

That is open to interpretation as to their meaning and as I said I THINK that if they could they would have given a 3 match ban.

 

[symyjym]

The press keep banging on about Barnes' bad tackle, and yet Barnes didn't make a tackle. Barnes was on his feet and played a pass. Matic came in from the side and made a sliding tackle. Even if you believe the whole incident was Barnes' fault, don't say it started with Barnes' tackle. It was Matic who made the tackle.

The ball was running away from Barnes but he managed to get a touch, however Matic won the ball in the end. They were both trying to win the ball off each other which is called tackling. The FA refered to it as a tackle. How would you describe it in one word?

 

[8th battalion East Lancs]

The ball was running away from Barnes but he managed to get a touch, however Matic won the ball in the end. They were both trying to win the ball off each other which is called tackling. The FA refered to it as a tackle. How would you describe it in one word?

4 days after the event and you've still not seen it.

I'll explain it in words then.....

Barnes receives the ball, Zouma is right behind him, Barnes moves the ball away from Zouma (alright he's not controlling the ball like Messi), Barnes then tries to pass the ball to Jones, in that split second Matic came in from the side and lunged to block the pass, Barnes' leg momentum from the pass hits Matic, Matic's trailing leg hits Barnes' trailing leg, Barnes makes sure that he's not getting hurt (that's if he can think that quickly).

How would I describe it in one word?

Accident.

 

[El Presidente]

How would you describe it in one word?

Pass