Jump to content

Matic ban reduced to 2 games


VectisSaint

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I think if you look at the video Barnes was leaning back slightly when he cleared/passed the ball so that may be the reason why his leg was "hanging". He certainly, never once, looked at Matic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

know I now you're on a wind up ......players should be able to act like dicks if they don't like a tackle they were subjected to:lol:

 

I wouldn't be sending bro off for that, it was just a shove! Shoves happen all the time! I would have give him a yellow card for Handbags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be sending bro off for that, it was just a shove! Shoves happen all the time! I would have give him a yellow card for Handbags.

 

To right Mr Frie....Bearsy.

 

Personally I think this sort of thing should be allowed to

 

000494D6-2D03-1224-887180BFB6FA0000.jpg

 

if a player doesn't like a refs decision they should be allowed to give the ref a bit of a shove. In fact we could just get rid of refs and let the players sort out disagreements like real men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

As the video clearly shows Barnes committed no offence. He was not tackling anyone just playing the ball and indeed it was Matic who instigated the whole problem with a wild challenge from the side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

know I now you're on a wind up ......players should be able to act like dicks if they don't like a tackle they were subjected to:lol:

 

I think there should be mitigation as to what happened. Fair enough if he punched someone, but he only pushed him over. Should have been a yellow imo. No windup here.

 

You're the kind of person who would have booked Bille Sharp for lifting his shirt when his kid died. Refs should look at the situation and judge what has happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be mitigation as to what happened. Fair enough if he punched someone, but he only pushed him over. Should have been a yellow imo. No windup here.

 

You're the kind of person who would have booked Bille Sharp for lifting his shirt when his kid died. Refs should look at the situation and judge what has happened.

 

No, there's no argument about this. A shove like that is violent conduct and is a straight red card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the video clearly shows Barnes committed no offence. He was not tackling anyone just playing the ball and indeed it was Matic who instigated the whole problem with a wild challenge from the side.

This.

 

The initial wide angle view on that footage highlights this best because the close-ups don't show the context of what happened. It's simple....Barnes gets the ball in space and then tries to pass it to his team mate up ahead of him. As he goes to pass the ball Matic steams in and plants his leg where Barnes' natural follow through ends up.

 

Nothing to see here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be sending bro off for that, it was just a shove! Shoves happen all the time! I would have give him a yellow card for Handbags.

 

Maybe this should be the case, as long as the shove is above the waist and below the neck, should prob be a yellow. However, if at the moment it's seen as violent conduct and a red card is a 3 match ban, they should stick to that and not reduce to 2 matches such because Jose went on Goal on Sunday and spent the morning being Peter Reid. Otherwise, it looks like they make stuff up as a they go along....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there's an argument, as I think it's wrong. Refs get blamed for not using common sense, this is one of those situations imo.

 

If Barnes had spat in his face, I would also say the same applies.

 

No, according to all the guidelines and instructions that would be classed as violent conduct, whatever you might think it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cant race after someone and push them over and the sending off was correct. Having said that, after watching the vid dozens of times I think Barnes knows what he is doing and makes sure he connects with Matic. He has a glance and sees where he is and does him. Should have been sent off too IMO. Clearly follows through.

Edited by sadoldgit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this should be the case, as long as the shove is above the waist and below the neck, should prob be a yellow. However, if at the moment it's seen as violent conduct and a red card is a 3 match ban, they should stick to that and not reduce to 2 matches such because Jose went on Goal on Sunday and spent the morning being Peter Reid. Otherwise, it looks like they make stuff up as a they go along....

 

Exactly and if any changes are made, they should be announced prospectively, not retroactively and because Ben Shephard crapped his pants and the GoS sofa.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasoning of the FA is as follows

 

Roger Burden, Chairman of the Regulatory Commission, said: “In reaching this decision the members of the Regulatory Commission rejected the mitigation advanced by Nemanja Matic in respect of the provocation and tackle he received which led to his act of violent conduct.

 

"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.”

 

 

Read more at http://www.thefa.com/news/governance/2015/feb/nemanja-matic-chelsea-burnley-red-card-suspension-reduced-two-matches#hbTf2cEHwuDgPK5j.99

 

This would seem to set a precedent that any red card for a push can have the three match ban reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasoning of the FA is as follows

 

 

 

This would seem to set a precedent that any red card for a push can have the three match ban reduced.

 

Its an unedifying mess; all while the FA persists with perverse and arbitrary distinctions such as whether or not the ref saw an incident as a basis for reviewing appalling decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, according to all the guidelines and instructions that would be classed as violent conduct, whatever you might think it should be.

 

But I am saying the guidelines are incorrect. The same as Billy Sharp removing his shirt to show a message to his dead son.

 

I don't think you understand that this is my opinion and at no time I have stated as fact that this is the guidelines currently available to referees.

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Both arms raised ..........how can that be accidental......he intentionally handled the ball outside the area.

Imagine if that was Forster............would have been sent off.

But Scuddy got the result that he wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the issue with the tackle (if at all it can be called a tackle, more of a pass with a follow through)

 

Barnes was the one in possession and he had played the ball. The ball was not Matic's at any point and so I don't see how this can be spoken of as a tackle.

 

OK he followed through but he body was moving forward so there would be momentum and Matic plants his leg in an unfortunate position. I've seen players follow through on a pass many times before and I certianly don't think any of us can be sure of Barnes' intent.

 

IMO it's just an unlucky event.

 

The media are all making a meal of it and unfortunatley I think it's swaying people's opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both arms raised ..........how can that be accidental......he intentionally handled the ball outside the area.

Imagine if that was Forster............would have been sent off.

But Scuddy got the result that he wanted.

 

He didn't handle the ball deliberately, it bounced off his chest and hit his hand, but he could have reasonably expected that this might happen when he ran out to the edge of his area in an attempt to block the ball. Inside his area this is fine, outside it isn't, but from what I remember it hit his chest on the edge of the area and then hit his hand outside. I would have given it, others wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I am saying the guidelines are incorrect. The same as Billy Sharp removing his shirt to show a message to his dead son.

 

I don't think you understand that this is my opinion and at no time I have stated as fact that this is the guidelines currently available to referees.

 

That's fair enough. The trouble is that we need more consistency, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...