Page 1 of 10 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 91
  1. #1

    "Barton to face no retrospective action"


    0 Not allowed!
    From local Burnley reporter...

    The Albion Roar

    Join Ady & Al for your mildly intelligent fix of Albion-related punditry every Saturday at 12pm on Radio Reverb 97.2FM, online at www.radioreverb.com or on DAB. Listen to the podcast via AudioBoom - https://audioboom.com/channel/albion-roar

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #2
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Haywards Heath
      Posts
      71,968


      3 Not allowed!
      How did they deal with it by taking no action either for or against it. Obviously they thought it didnt warrant sny action which is the whole point of the FA possibly taking action.
    • #3
      Members Nixonator's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2016
      Location
      Shoreham Beach
      Posts
      6,420


      1 Not allowed!
      Couldn't really give a shit whether he faces action. The damage was done already.
    • #4
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Posts
      11,894


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by BensGrandad View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      How did they deal with it by taking no action either for or against it. Obviously they thought it didnt warrant sny action which is the whole point of the FA possibly taking action.
      For FA to take action the officials must admit that they did not see what happened, if they saw it and did not seem any action to be taken that is the end of it
    • #5
      Muslamic Infidel
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Posts
      5,898


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by BensGrandad View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      How did they deal with it by taking no action either for or against it. Obviously they thought it didnt warrant sny action which is the whole point of the FA possibly taking action.
      It means it was in the match report that they saw the incidents and didn't think they were worthy of cards, therefore no retrospective action can be taken. If the ref had put in the report that he'd not seen the incidents properly/not mentioned them at all then they could be reviewed. We may not agree with the ref but those are the rules. I am guessing the limit on characters on twitter means he can't explain it in that depth.
      Artist formerly known as joey_jo_jo_jr_shabadoo
    • #6
      Members
      Join Date
      Aug 2006
      Location
      Worthing
      Posts
      13,091


      4 Not allowed!
      If they see it and didn't act, I think the officials can expect a very poor rating from the assessor.
    • #7
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Haywards Heath
      Posts
      71,968


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      It means it was in the match report that they saw the incidents and didn't think they were worthy of cards, therefore no retrospective action can be taken. If the ref had put in the report that he'd not seen the incidents properly/not mentioned them at all then they could be reviewed. We may not agree with the ref but those are the rules. I am guessing the limit on characters on twitter means he can't explain it in that depth.
      If any council member from a county fa saw it on tv he could still report it and they would act on it.
    • #8
      Mod writer Guinness Boy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
      Posts
      16,923


      14 Not allowed!
      Much as I loathe Barton the letter of the law protects him for all the reasons stated above. Hopefully retrospective action is taken against Pawson - like sending him back to referee the Stafforshire Sunday Under 12s League (fifth division) which is about his level. Not only for the numerous times he should have booked or sent off Barton but for missing their clear goal, getting the Dunk free kick that led to the equalizer wrong (Dunk got the ball). missing the foul they committed in scoring that goal, not booking Kayal for his tackle on Barton, booking Stockdale for breathing and the perplexing foul he gave after Knockaert's amazing piece on control in front of the WSU.

      Barton will always be a thug but at least he was doing what Dyche told him. That was a refereeing display dripping with the highest levels of incompetence.
      Brighton But Only At Home

      It's a blog. About home games. And some other stuff.
    • #9
      Ex-Gibseagull Surf's Up's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2011
      Location
      Here
      Posts
      7,831


      3 Not allowed!
      It happened right under the referee's nose so the officials saw it alright. They just didn't have the bottle to deal with Barton who was taking the piss, challenging them, whinging to them and generally dominating them totally all game.
      برايتون حتى أموت
    • #10

      1 Not allowed!
      From memory, the elbow was on the blind side of the ref, so I could understand if he didn't see it - though that doesn't make the linesman (who wasn't on the blind side) blind too.

      Fact is - Barton received treatment for an elbow he never got. Therefore, how could the referee have seen it and dealt with it?
      The Albion Roar

      Join Ady & Al for your mildly intelligent fix of Albion-related punditry every Saturday at 12pm on Radio Reverb 97.2FM, online at www.radioreverb.com or on DAB. Listen to the podcast via AudioBoom - https://audioboom.com/channel/albion-roar

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •