The mancityfans.net football forum

As this ever happened before for a straight red for violent conduct?

Beefymcfc wrote:As this ever happened before for a straight red for violent conduct?

That's even more of a joke. Which game is he back for that the FA didn't him to miss?

That's a hell of a precedent. I imagine Clubs will appeal left right and centre citing 'provocation'.

Slim wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:As this ever happened before for a straight red for violent conduct?

That's even more of a joke. Which game is he back for that the FA didn't him to miss?

Southampton, I think.

Did anyone see thier dossier. Included images of our joe head to head with a ref. fucking jokers

Slim wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:As this ever happened before for a straight red for violent conduct?

That's even more of a joke. Which game is he back for that the FA didn't him to miss?

He misses the LC *final, away to West Ham but is now back for the home Southampton game. Whatever the in's and out's, it was violent conduct and I don't think I've ever seen a club placated like this. In fact, if I was Chelsea I'd be asking for a 2nd appeal as they obviously haven't got the backbone to uphold the values and standards of what they preach.

This is going to open the flood gates.

Edit: *Final - edited from 2nd leg, Matic's ;-)

london blue 2 wrote:Did anyone see thier dossier. Included images of our joe head to head with a ref. fucking jokers

Well if they're accepting things like thatthen we just pull out the Costa, Cahill, Fellaini files and we're scott free!

I think they might drop points against southampton anyways. stunningly bad decision though from those supposed to inforce the regulations.

Fucking disgrace.

Whether Barnes should have been sent off or not is completely irrelevant. Violent conduct=red card=3 match ban.

Should Joey lodge an appeal now, claim Huddlestone was crowding him and provoked him to back him off?

I dont know about precedent but Matic's "challenge" was so weak and hardly violent. So maybe that played a part?

So the Moaning One's Sunday morning performance was worthwhile

Saul Goodman wrote:I dont know about precedent but Matic's "challenge" was so weak and hardly violent. So maybe that played a part?

I dunno, I suppose he ran at him and knocked him on his arse, but whilst he did shove him, no hands above head height which I'm sure used to be the thing which determined these sort of things.

I suppose the question from now on I s what constitutes retaliation? Is there a tariff starting from aggressive walking all the way through to stabbing

Have they given a reason? The fact the burnley guy should have seen red is irrelevant. Chelsea are incensed. idiots. The only sensible solution was a 3 match ban for the Burnley guy and Matics ban upheld. Just shows how hopeless our administrators are to get every issue wrong.

Genuinely shocked at this. Floodgates now open. The FA aren't renowned for their brainpower but this takes the fuckin biscuit.

have you lot seen Chelsea's statement?? what a fucking joke. How haven't we done something similiar in all the years we've been screwed and even more so in Europe

its cos we're the good guys who even put met stop announcements in Spanish! but chelsea are the cunts

Saul Goodman wrote:I dont know about precedent but Matic's "challenge" was so weak and hardly violent. So maybe that played a part?

FA Statememt

"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."

Oh, so that was it. I actually thought it must just be a 1 match red, but i guess 2 is fair

On a positive note, he might shut up about the anti Chavs conspiracy bollix.

branny wrote:On a positive note, he might shut up about the anti Chavs conspiracy bollix.

I very much doubt it, Chelsea's statement says they are appalled at the decision