VectisSaint Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 So will be available for Saints game. Its a conspiracy I tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Matic reacted how many would. Was so lucky not to have his leg broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davefoggy Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Oh ffs. Bloody typical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Bastards 2 Games seems arbitrary, thought they'd either quash it, or, more likely, tell Jose to get f*cked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restark19 Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 F*ck. Another example of the conspiracy to stop us getting top 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericofarabia Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Farcical really..... and this has nothing to do with the fact that he can now play against us. Potentially it could have been a bad injury, but it wasn't. Every tackle could potentially be dangerous if mistimed or wreckless. The FA had already decided no further action needed against Barnes, so how come the retaliation is now deemed to be justified by lowering the 3 match ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Pete Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Don't understand the logic of reducing the ban. Matic was still guilty of violent conduct no matter what the provocation, so it should still be 3 games surely? Whether Barnes should have been punished for his tackle should be a separate matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggles31 Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 The FA again reaffirming that they are utter buffons. They should have really lifted his ban or kept it and Barnes should have been given 3 match ban. Common sense seems to prevail when it comes to the FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersonic Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 People genuinely believe there is a conspiracy against Saints? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 At least we have some consistency. Appalling refereeing backed up by equally bad officiating at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 People genuinely believe there is a conspiracy against Saints? Nope. Just general incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hasper57saint Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Is this why we failed to appeal Ryans red v Swansea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 It doesn't make any sense what so ever. If they've reduced it, then they obviously understand his reaction slightly to what was an horrific tackle. Yet they didn't punish the bad tackle.....so why has it been reduced? what's the reason? Just to keep Jose quiet? Staggering amount of incompetency and inconsistency among the associations and the officials these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 It doesn't make any sense what so ever. If they've reduced it, then they obviously understand his reaction slightly to what was an horrific tackle. Yet they didn't punish the bad tackle.....so why has it been reduced? what's the reason? Just to keep Jose quiet? Staggering amount of incompetency and inconsistency among the associations and the officials these days. totally agree. I really sympathise with Matic. It is horrible tackle and he reacted. He shouldnt have but he did in a way many of us and other players probably would if they were able to (ie, not be on the floor with a broken leg) I do not believe Barnes is a dirty player, just poor tackle from him. Matic should have had the ban completely rescinded or leave it as it is. Just a daft position to take by reducing it by 1 game. The standards we have officiating the premier league (and probably the football league) are an utter disgrace this season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 totally agree. I really sympathise with Matic. It is horrible tackle and he reacted. He shouldnt have but he did in a way many of us and other players probably would if they were able to (ie, not be on the floor with a broken leg) I do not believe Barnes is a dirty player, just poor tackle from him. Matic should have had the ban completely rescinded or leave it as it is. Just a daft position to take by reducing it by 1 game. The standards we have officiating the premier league (and probably the football league) are an utter disgrace this season I know us fans like to have a good old moan and debate about the ref, but it says something when most fans of every team are having the same moans every week.....surely the top bods can see it? the standard is horrific right now. Not just ref's, but even the linesmen. Just basic technical errors such as not staying up with play, not being in line - basics for any referee. And what gets up my goat more than anything is that you can't critisie them, otherwise you get a fine (as Jose has found). I totally get his rant at the weekend, he can see it...and he's not stupid. The fact that 2 ref's have been dropped for this weekend says it all. You should not be in a position where you are dropping 2 top flight referees in a week, it screams that there's a problem right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 24 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 24 February, 2015 People genuinely believe there is a conspiracy against Saints? Of course. Do you have any evidence that there is not a conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 It's time Mourinho received a hefty fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 I know us fans like to have a good old moan and debate about the ref, but it says something when most fans of every team are having the same moans every week.....surely the top bods can see it? the standard is horrific right now. Not just ref's, but even the linesmen. Just basic technical errors such as not staying up with play, not being in line - basics for any referee. And what gets up my goat more than anything is that you can't critisie them, otherwise you get a fine (as Jose has found). I totally get his rant at the weekend, he can see it...and he's not stupid. The fact that 2 ref's have been dropped for this weekend says it all. You should not be in a position where you are dropping 2 top flight referees in a week, it screams that there's a problem right now. It really isn't much of a punishment since they are working as fourth referees at premier league games this weekend and are both working midweek games next week. Kind of makes the whole thing seem silly. (we get Atkinson against Crystal Palace.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Bizarre. Typical of the nonsense one expects though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simo Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 On what grounds? Can't see how after not retrospectively charging barns! If it's a red card it's a 3 game ban ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Pete Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 It doesn't make any sense what so ever. If they've reduced it, then they obviously understand his reaction slightly to what was an horrific tackle. Yet they didn't punish the bad tackle.....so why has it been reduced? what's the reason? Just to keep Jose quiet? Staggering amount of incompetency and inconsistency among the associations and the officials these days. Well, that certainly won't work! He's even more likely to keep ranting now whenever his players get punished. I have sympathy for Matic in his reaction, but the ref was right to send him off as it was violent conduct. The mistake the ref made was not recognising how bad the Barnes tackle was so that was what the FA should have been putting right by punishing Barnes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpsaint Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Probably be on my own here but I actually think the FA have shown a lot of common sense and understanding here. A reduction in the ban says that Matic is still guilty of violent conduct, but that the FA have sympathy with the way he reacted to a potentially career ending challenge. To have rescinded the red card completely would have set a dangerous precedent, and players would be giving OTT reactions to every dodgy challenge on them, then trying to claim it was justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 (edited) Honestly, this season the FA and their referees have lost the plot. The rules are slowly going out the window and it's just "make it up as you go along". Probably be on my own here but I actually think the FA have shown a lot of common sense and understanding here. A reduction in the ban says that Matic is still guilty of violent conduct, but that the FA have sympathy with the way he reacted to a potentially career ending challenge. To have rescinded the red card completely would have set a dangerous precedent, and players would be giving OTT reactions to every dodgy challenge on them, then trying to claim it was justified. And that would make perfect sense and everybody would be applauding them for it...if they had banned Ashley Barnes as well. If it was such a dangerous tackle then why has he escaped scott free? Edited 24 February, 2015 by Saint_clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Seems like a fairly common sense answer to the problem to be honest. Yes the rules say it is either 3 games or none, but in a non-black and white world there is room for discretion and reducing by one for the horrendous mitigating circumstances, while still punishing with missing two games, feels like the right outcome achieved in the end. It's frustrating it's against us that he gets his reprieve, but I wouldn't be crying foul if it meant a suspension against Man U / Arsenal / Liverpool was overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 If it was such a dangerous tackle then why has he escaped scott free? Because he wasn't making a tackle, he was attempting a pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Because he wasn't making a tackle, he was attempting a pass. He actually played the ball some distance away from Matic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Because he wasn't making a tackle, he was attempting a pass. What if he'd broken his leg? He didn't have control at the time he went in and so was challenging for the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 What if he'd broken his leg? He didn't have control at the time he went in and so was challenging for the ball. I'll have to watch it again as its a while since I've seen it but, from memory, he seemed in control at the moment he went to pass the ball. It was only Matic's late arrival on the scene that caused a coming together. As I say, I'll have to have another look at it in case my memory is playing tricks on me but that's my recollection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 Personally I don't think he should get any ban, not after that challenge. It was utterly appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 I'll have to watch it again as its a while since I've seen it but, from memory, he seemed in control at the moment he went to pass the ball. It was only Matic's late arrival on the scene that caused a coming together. As I say, I'll have to have another look at it in case my memory is playing tricks on me but that's my recollection. That's how I saw it. Barnes played the ball (very aggressively) and then Matic arrived late and planted his leg in the path of Barnes's boot. It could have been very nasty and we can only infer Barnes's attitude from his other actions during the game. Either way, Matic's reaction was an undeniable red card and must be a three game ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 The FA are only making it more difficult for themselves, hardly surprising. Our FA is as incompetent as FIFA is corrupt. Shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianC Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 People genuinely believe there is a conspiracy against Saints? Makes ya wonder doesn't it? Before the Liverpool game there were comments going around about Saints being refereed out of the CL places and then there was 'that' display by Kevin Friend. I'm sure I wasn't the only person watching with a sceptical eye. Add the corruption and collusion by FIFA over the world cup farce and we all know it's to do with money, maybe it isn't so far fetched after all. A lot of money is at stake, some of it in brown paper bags...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 Makes ya wonder doesn't it? Before the Liverpool game there were comments going around about Saints being refereed out of the CL places and then there was 'that' display by Kevin Friend. I'm sure I wasn't the only person watching with a sceptical eye. Add the corruption and collusion by FIFA over the world cup farce and we all know it's to do with money, maybe it isn't so far fetched after all. A lot of money is at stake, some of it in brown paper bags...... Does make you wonder.........there should have been 4 penalties (3 for us 1 for them) and mignolet should have been sent off............but its OK Brenda thought he got everything right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cellone Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 WG What is your view on this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6KxIaP6fHr4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericofarabia Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 Matic reacted how many would. Was so lucky not to have his leg broken How about if Fonte as Captain had lamped the Ref as they walked off the pitch at half time? After all it's exactly what most of us would like to have done! Would the review panel come to the conclusion that due to his complete lack of ability as a ref, his decisions could seriously undermine SFC's chances in taking a CL place, and reduce Jose's ban as his actions were totally justifiable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brmbrm Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 So Mourinho's continual bullying gets another result. And that is exactly why he does it. And exactly why he will continue to do it. Small differences add up over the season: a game here or there, the odd flaky decision on the pitch in your favour. He will just keep up the pressure and from his position of power (Chelsea as opposed to Port Vale, for example), people will cave in because they are scared of the bully. That's why bullying works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 (edited) Personally I don't think he should get any ban, not after that challenge. It was utterly appalling. That would send out a message that players can retaliate physically if a challenge is deemed bad enough which can't be right. The rules and bans have to stay in place. Matic (or any other player) can't react like that no matter what the justification or the game will go to pot. As others have said as Barnes tackle wasn't consider worthy of punishment there can be no justification for reducing Matic's (deserved) ban for violent conduct. Edited 25 February, 2015 by doddisalegend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 I'll have to watch it again as its a while since I've seen it but, from memory, he seemed in control at the moment he went to pass the ball. It was only Matic's late arrival on the scene that caused a coming together. As I say, I'll have to have another look at it in case my memory is playing tricks on me but that's my recollection. That's how I saw it. Barnes played the ball (very aggressively) and then Matic arrived late and planted his leg in the path of Barnes's boot. It could have been very nasty and we can only infer Barnes's attitude from his other actions during the game. Either way, Matic's reaction was an undeniable red card and must be a three game ban. FWIW I've just watched the "tackle" again and I wonder why people are saying it was a horror tackle. Barnes was practically stationary, Matic was the one that came in from the side out of control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SOD9SQ6XL0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 That would send out a message that players can retaliate physically if a challenge is deemed bad enough which can't be right. The rules and bans have to stay in place. Matic (or any other player) can't react like that no matter what the justification or the game will go to pot. As others have said as Barnes tackle wasn't consider worthy of punishment they're can be no justification for reducing Matic's (deserved) ban for violent conduct. I disagree. I think he should be able to retaliate to horror tackles like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 I've just seen the tackle. They are professional footballers and know how to control their body. Ashley Barnes knew what he was doing, and I'm even more of that opinion given that he is a particularly nasty piece of work anyway (some of his indiscretions in the past prove that). He should have been sent off. Matic has a right to react like that but it doesn't mean it isn't punishable - the problem is that players will take matters in their own hands if they are not afforded appropriate protection from the Ref and / or retrospective punishment (the latter of which, if appropriately given to the nature of the challenge, should make players think twice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 WG What is your view on this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6KxIaP6fHr4 Me? Serious foul play by the yellow, violent conduct by the blue, both red cards (from what we can see on that video). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceandfriendly Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 Just seen the "tackle" for the first time. Christ what an overreaction from everyone, including Matic. Barnes is practically standing still, and Matic comes flying into him and catches one. Yep, that's what happens in football people. Sometimes players hurt themselves. Doesn't mean every challenge where there is contact is a "horror challenge". Media pundits are doing such a magnificent job of convincing the public that every piece of contact is a foul, a late challenge, or a "shocker". Whereas in fact, Matic ran into his bloody boot and reacted like a moron. And due to the FA being **** scared of Mourinho, Matic's ban is reduced. Makes you wonder why we didn't appeal Bertrand's red card for a challenge whereby he used one foot and won the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 Does make you wonder.........there should have been 4 penalties (3 for us 1 for them) and mignolet should have been sent off............but its OK Brenda thought he got everything right. The only mitigating thing I can say about Mignolet us that perhaps Friend considered the handball 'accidental'. The Assistant on the line may well have seen it clearly but considering their relative positions his only input would have been to confirm that the incident took place outside the area. If Friend doesn't consider it a handball then the Assistant's input is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 I've just seen the tackle. They are professional footballers and know how to control their body. Ashley Barnes knew what he was doing, and I'm even more of that opinion given that he is a particularly nasty piece of work anyway (some of his indiscretions in the past prove that). He should have been sent off. Matic has a right to react like that but it doesn't mean it isn't punishable - the problem is that players will take matters in their own hands if they are not afforded appropriate protection from the Ref and / or retrospective punishment (the latter of which, if appropriately given to the nature of the challenge, should make players think twice). And so does Matic. He arrives late and plants his leg right where he can see a flying boot coming in. He could easily have avoided it. Having said that, Barnes's follow-through was perhaps excessive in that his foot was well off the ground. Red to Matic, yellow to Barnes I would have thought. Still a three match ban though, no reason at all to reduce that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 So Mourinho's continual bullying gets another result. And that is exactly why he does it. And exactly why he will continue to do it. Small differences add up over the season: a game here or there, the odd flaky decision on the pitch in your favour. He will just keep up the pressure and from his position of power (Chelsea as opposed to Port Vale, for example), people will cave in because they are scared of the bully. That's why bullying works. I agree with what you say about this. Managers like Mourinho sense that by this sort of gamesmnaship, even if it results in an additional point over the course of a season, it could make the difference between being champions or second place. Equally at the other end of the table, an extra point could mean the difference between survival or relegation. As well as Mourinho, there are others like BFS who appear to school their players in the art of gamesmanship to gain an advantage. They do this by having their players mob the referee calling for an opponent to be sent off, their players dive or go down easily at the slightest contact to gain penalties. They put themselves about going hard into tackles, risking cards or sendings off, but also injuring key opponents who might be game-changers. We generally don't indulge much in this form of cheating and might have been a place or two higher up had we done so. It is telling that we have only had one penalty all season. Are we the team with the fewest penalty awards? Perhaps we might have succeeded in having a few more had our players mobbed the referee, or Koeman had complained publicly a la Mourinho at the poor refereeing which had cost us the match. I also believe that there has always been a tendency to award penalties to the top teams at their home grounds and to deny penalties to rival teams playing away against those teams. Whether this is because of the larger crowds baying for it, or because the referee is afraid to do it because the stakes are higher if he gets it wrong, who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 And so does Matic. He arrives late and plants his leg right where he can see a flying boot coming in. He could easily have avoided it. Having said that, Barnes's follow-through was perhaps excessive in that his foot was well off the ground. Red to Matic, yellow to Barnes I would have thought. Still a three match ban though, no reason at all to reduce that. I agree he plants his leg in the way of potential harm however he does not make an aggressive move into Barnes he simply places his leg in a way to protect the ball and buy a foul. It happens all the time and I think Suarez is very good at it. You get to a space between the ball and opposition player and the opposition player cannot change his momentum and you get a foul. You may also get a kick (as Matic did) but that is the name of the game. However, Barnes was massively overly aggressive and his follow-through was completely unnecessary and clearly done to harm Matic. I don't think Matic's movements could justify Barnes reacting in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 I agree he plants his leg in the way of potential harm however he does not make an aggressive move into Barnes he simply places his leg in a way to protect the ball and buy a foul. It happens all the time and I think Suarez is very good at it. You get to a space between the ball and opposition player and the opposition player cannot change his momentum and you get a foul. You may also get a kick (as Matic did) but that is the name of the game. However' date=' Barnes was massively overly aggressive and his follow-through was completely unnecessary and clearly done to harm Matic. I don't think Matic's movements could justify Barnes reacting in that way.[/quote'] Barnes didn't react in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 Barnes didn't react in any way. Sorry - I meant in terms of his challenge. Not what happened after the 'tackle'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 I disagree. I think he should be able to retaliate to horror tackles like that. No, the Ref should be the one to apply discipline on the football pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 25 February, 2015 Share Posted 25 February, 2015 Sorry - I meant in terms of his challenge. Not what happened after the 'tackle'. Barnes got to the ball well before Matic. The only bad part of his movements was to leave his foot in the air. Matic got there so late that you couldn't even call it a tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now