Chelsea

[john316]

I think that reducing the ban from the manditory 3 games (for violent conduct which it was) to 2 games sets a dangerous precedent, as I imagine most players could claim some level of provocation so where do you draw the line? (Incidentally the Barnes challenge and punishment / lack of it is a seperate issue)

Guarantees we'll be seeing everyone appealing in the future.

[Exiled_red]

But they're not looking upon it favourably, he's getting a 2 game ban not a free pony. They've just took into account mitigating circumstances.

Isn't that a normal part of sentencing?

I thought 3 games for violent conduct was a mandatory ban

Things is though, it was only a shove in the back. A punch, elbow, kick or headbutt is violent, but I honestly don't think a shove is. Had he booted him in the back of the knee or launched a Cantona Kung Fu style lunge then I'd agree wholeheartedly.

While I agree to some extent with what you are saying I think that there are numerous incidents where players have been given a 3 match ban for similar offences, usually such incidents occur because the player feels aggrieved about something which could count as provokation. The referee (presuably) deemed it violent conduct, which has a mandatory 3 game ban.

I don't think I can recall occasions where a player has had a 2 game ban for a sending off, usually they are 1 game for 2 yellows, and 1 for anything non-violent, but straight reds for violent conduct are 3 games (or more).

[Vermilion]

But they're not looking upon it favourably, he's getting a 2 game ban not a free pony. They've just took into account mitigating circumstances.

Isn't that a normal part of sentencing?

Not in football for such an offence, no, i don't think so.

Reducing the ban isn't looking on it favourably ? They are almost agreeing he had reason to attack the player no ? as you say mitigating circumstances, in which case; every bad tackle made, and the response to it...can be deemed to have mitigating circumstances.

The mesage on such things for me has to be.....it's not for players to take the law into their own hands, no mitigating circumstances, no excuses.

Bad precedent imo.

[Exiled_red]

Not in football for such an offence, no, i don't think so.

Reducing the ban isn't looking on it favourably ? They are almost agreeing he had reason to attack the player no ? as you say mitigating circumstances, in which case; every bad tackle made, and the response to it...can be deemed to have mitigating circumstances.

The mesage on such things for me has to be.....it's not for players to take the law into their own hands, no mitigating circumstances, no excuses.

Bad precedent imo.

My personal view is that it should have been a red card each (Barnes for the challenge, Ivanovic for the reaction). I can understand the frustration that Ivanovic got sent off and Barnes didn't, but as far as I was concerned the rules on this were very clear: A 3 match ban for Ivanovic for violent conduct. And as Barnes wasn't sent off it was up to the FA to ask if the referee had seen the challenge from Barnes, if the answer was yes then the FA can't take action, if the answer was no then he would have been charged and almost certainly also have got a 3 match ban.

The fact that he (Ivanovic) has appealled and got the ban reduced is as far as I can see setting a precident for everyone to appeal such cards due to the almost inevitable provokation that they will feel occured. I would have thought it was a clear open and shut case, if anything I thought the ban might have been extended because it was a somewhat frivolous appeal (IMO).

[rudedog]

I'm not sure that it was just a simple 'follow through' by Barnes - his standing leg comes off the ground and it looks like he's pushing all his weight into the leg that connected with Matic. Doesn't look like a natural 'pendulum' action of playing the ball to me.

Also, as others have said - the way Barnes walks off as if nothing happens is a bit strange.

[Maxiedge]

A bit off the point but I have to say that Matic has always come across as a good, honest player. He's tough but not dirty.

I think these things should be taken into account. If a player plays the game the right way (e.g not diving, swearing at ref, feigning injury etc...) then they should be merited in such circumstances.

[Doc_Piptorious]

A bit off the point but I have to say that Matic has always come across as a good, honest player. He's tough but not dirty.

I think these things should be taken into account. If a player plays the game the right way (e.g not diving, swearing at ref, feigning injury etc...) then they should be merited in such circumstances.

I wonder if Matic had gone to ground and stayed there, basically feigning injury, would Barnes have been carded.

[RedReet]

A bit off the point but I have to say that Matic has always come across as a good, honest player. He's tough but not dirty.

.

But he's got an annoying face, so that should have been taken into account and at least 1 match added to his ban.

[fidget]

Should be increased to 5 games for knocking about with cunts

[Maxiedge]

I wonder if Matic had gone to ground and stayed there, basically feigning injury, would Barnes have been carded.

Good point

But he's got an annoying face, so that should have been taken into account and at least 1 match added to his ban.

[Vermilion]

I wonder if Matic had gone to ground and stayed there, basically feigning injury, would Barnes have been carded.

But he's got an annoying face, so that should have been taken into account and at least 1 match added to his ban.

Should be increased to 5 games for knocking about with cunts

[ChesterDave]

Matic's defence of provocation is somewhat mitigated by the fact he had to chase after the player to throw him to the floor. Its not a retaliatory punch after a tussle or shove. He has got up, ran 5 yards to 10 yards and shoved him.

Its not a heat of the moment reflex action. Pretty much every perceived bad challenge can now be responded to by the player on the pitch with the FA seemingly justifying it by reducing a ban by 33%.

[Roboklopp]

Absolute cuntery.

[Assassin]

Absolute cuntery.

Cuntery of absolute proportions

[Vermilion]

Matic's defence of provocation is somewhat mitigated by the fact he had to chase after the player to throw him to the floor. Its not a retaliatory punch after a tussle or shove. He has got up, ran 5 yards to 10 yards and shoved him0.

Its not a heat of the moment reflex action. Pretty much every perceived bad challenge can now be responded to by the player on the pitch with the FA seemingly justifying it by reducing a ban by 33%.

Good point. I don't hold with the theory that he was so incenced at the tackle that he reacted because he worried his career could have been over.

I think he reacted because Maureen has instilled the usual Chav attitude of 'we are better than them', and Matic's reaction was more of a ...'how dare YOU do that to ME! dont you know who i play for, do you realise who my manager is!...WE do things like that to our opponents! they DO NOT do it to us!'.....type thing.

You know, the way Maureen changes all players, gets them under his vile spell, even ones like Alonso! ( thankfully he's back in the light now. )