symyjym
Banned
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.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Aye Aye Ashley
- Thread starter Mackenzie
- Start date
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
Banned
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
#Brighton-Nil
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
English & European
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
New member
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..
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.
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.
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
Banned
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
#Brighton-Nil
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
New member
That is said just to save face and not criticize the officials, that is most obvious.
Yoda
English & European
But if that's the case, then they would've banned Barnes. You really don't get it do you.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I think he does. He just likes to argue.
BensGrandad
New member
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
Banned
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."
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."
That all sounds correct.
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
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,195
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
New member
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.
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
Banned
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
New member
- Jan 10, 2014
- 540
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.
Pass