Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Louis Suarez's ban was partly based on Ashley Barnes' ban



Craig4004

Craig4004

New member
Aug 30, 2011
489
Peacehaven
Just on SSN, one of the FA's decisions was to look at other 'exceptional circumstances' bans, and Barnes' ban was the one that they based the 10 game ban on. They said that normally it would have been 3 games had he not done it before, but because he has re-offended they have added on the standard 3 games to the same length of Barnes' 7 games. Seems a bit strange to me as they were completely different incidents. The FA really do make some strange decisions.
 




Mowgli37

Mowgli37

Enigmatic Asthmatic
Jan 13, 2013
6,371
Sheffield
Terry gets 4 games for calling someone an "f@cking black c#nt" and barnes gets 7 for tripping someone. I know which is worse...
 


Tricky Dicky

Tricky Dicky

New member
Jul 27, 2004
13,558
Sunny Shoreham
10 games - a quarter of a season, give-or-take, is a lot for an offence that didn't cause any damage and didn't threaten anyone's career. There was a tackle the other day, the West Ham / United game, I think, that went completely unnoticed, deliberately over the ball, and very dangerous - nothing. I guess if it had been Joey Barton, I would have been happy with 10 games, but there you go.
 










the wanderbus

the wanderbus

Well-known member
Dec 7, 2004
2,943
pogle's wood
Programme_Seller said:
One is just words and the other is a physical assault.

For me it's the assault.
Click to expand...

But to modern footballers, sensitive souls that they are, just words are extremely painful....especially if those words get a player from your rivals a lengthy ban.

And although Barnes offence was technically assault it was just playground stuff, you make him sound like some sort of gangland enforcer. Physical assault ? my fat arse.
 


Wozza

Wozza

Shite Supporter
Jul 6, 2003
23,613
Online
Barnes got 4 games extra for the trip, no? The other 3 were standard for red card/violent conduct,

Gave him the break he needed anyway...
 




F

Farehamseagull

Solly March Fan Club
Nov 22, 2007
13,951
Sarisbury Green, Southampton
Suarez and Barnes deserve everything they got. If they didn't do the idiotic things they did in the first place they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

Neither biting an opponent or tripping a ref are normal or natural reactions of a player so I can see why the FA compared the two incidents. Whilst I think Terry was under punished for what he did I don't think you can compare the incidents as they are totally different issues.
 




Skaville

Skaville

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2004
10,100
Queens Park
The Suarez incident is insignificant compared to Terry and Barnes. 10 games is ridiculous when Lewis Dunk didn't even get a booking for ending Billy Sharp's career.
 








JBizzle

JBizzle

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2010
5,816
Seaford
Wozza said:
Barnes got 4 games extra for the trip, no? The other 3 were standard for red card/violent conduct,

Gave him the break he needed anyway...
Click to expand...

It was three games extra apparently. Three for the initial red, one for his previous red and three extra for the seriousness.

So I assume it would have been 6 matches had he not been sent off v Sheff Weds.
 




Icy Gull

Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
I'd rather be tripped up or bitten than have a career threatening tackle with intent. May go against the grain but I reckon Barnes and Suarez were harshly treated when I think of some tackles that have gone unpunished.
 












SeagullSongs

SeagullSongs

And it's all gone quiet..
Oct 10, 2011
6,937
Southampton
Barnes would've only got a booking or a red if he'd tripped a player, but because he tripped the ref it was a 7 game ban. Seems harsh, but the FA need to get the message across that it won't be tolerated at all, they've used the same reasoning for Suarez's ban.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here