Alex Song

I always think it's wrong.

Bedshammer wrote:I always think it's wrong.

Wish Lion was still around, i'm sure he's have an angle on this statement

QBVILLA wrote:

Bedshammer wrote:I always think it's wrong.

Wish Lion was still around, i'm sure he's have an angle on this statement

I was thinking something similar as I pressed submit....

Avfc_4eva_Sotc wrote:Like I said the problem here is the fact its Barton.

I'll wait for the week where someone is stamped on and complains and everyone says "he had a right to complain he had been stamped on" and for when players grab each other shirts in an argument and get yellows which no one will think is wrong, and if someone has a go at a diver it will be "good on him telling that diving tnuc what he thinks of him".

You wait and see you hypocrites

Not cut and pasted your version of the rules yet?

QBVILLA wrote:

Bedshammer wrote:I always think it's wrong.

Wish Lion was still around, i'm sure he's have an angle on this statement

Bedshammer wrote:It's not a fair point. He shouldn't have reacted like that.

well i think it is so ner ner the ner ner

jak wrote:

Yes. You can't beat a decent discussion, can you?

Bedshammer wrote:

jak wrote:

Yes. You can't beat a decent discussion, can you?

whats to discuss,,,you think not i think yes in it

jak wrote:

Avfc_4eva_Sotc wrote:Like I said the problem here is the fact its Barton.

I'll wait for the week where someone is stamped on and complains and everyone says "he had a right to complain he had been stamped on" and for when players grab each other shirts in an argument and get yellows which no one will think is wrong, and if someone has a go at a diver it will be "good on him telling that diving tnuc what he thinks of him".

You wait and see you hypocrites

Not cut and pasted your version of the rules yet?

Not my version jak, it's just the rules. We wont see anyone red carded for grabbing someone by their shirt this season.

There is some way of solving this you know,,,every players to have their skin spray painted the clubs colours...

Avfc_4eva_Sotc wrote:

jak wrote:

Avfc_4eva_Sotc wrote:Like I said the problem here is the fact its Barton.

I'll wait for the week where someone is stamped on and complains and everyone says "he had a right to complain he had been stamped on" and for when players grab each other shirts in an argument and get yellows which no one will think is wrong, and if someone has a go at a diver it will be "good on him telling that diving tnuc what he thinks of him".

You wait and see you hypocrites

Not cut and pasted your version of the rules yet?

Not my version jak, it's just the rules. We wont see anyone red carded for grabbing someone by their shirt this season.

Joey Barton grabbed him by the scruff of the neck. You're being ridiculous in trying to pass it off as a bit of shirt pulling. What he did can only be construed as violent conduct, that is a red!!
If the referee had actually seen what happened, I have no doubt that he would have been sent off.

You say it's the rules. Show me the rule that says it's OK for a player to scroof another player in the way Barton did.

Barton's view of the incident:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14519151.stm

He's a real tough guy ain't he.
Against women and kids!!!!
My only regret is that Gervinho didn't do the job properly, the punishment would have been the same.
It's only a matter of time before Barton gets sorted, one way or the other.

Can't believe Arsenal have decided to appeal the red card to Gervinho, whatever the circumstances he raised his hand to another players face which everyone knows is a red regardless, whats Wenger thinking.

Avfc_4eva_Sotc wrote:Can't believe Arsenal have decided to appeal the red card to Gervinho, whatever the circumstances he raised his hand to another players face which everyone knows is a red regardless, whats Wenger thinking.

Still can't find that rule then?

Jak I'm not going round in circles on the subject with you all the time. It comes down to what you and I consider to be violent conduct, I've heard officials say that the type of thing Barton did while not on (yellow card remember) isn't considered violent conduct.

You have decided it is, your not changing your mind, I'm not changing mine there you go.

Now what do you think of the pointless appeal against the red? will it result in an extra games ban as a frivolous appeal?

Avfc_4eva_Sotc wrote:Jak I'm not going round in circles on the subject with you all the time. It comes down to what you and I consider to be violent conduct, I've heard officials say that the type of thing Barton did while not on (yellow card remember) isn't considered violent conduct.

You have decided it is, your not changing your mind, I'm not changing mine there you go.

Now what do you think of the pointless appeal against the red? will it result in an extra games ban as a frivolous appeal?

Yellow card cos the referee didn't have a Danny what had gone on, his back was turned!!!!!!!!
As far as the appeal goes we'll have to wait and see but justice was not done at St.James's Park on Saturday. The person who started the fracas did not get his just desserts. Perhaps this will provide the opportunity to make that case. Although, ridiculously, Barton's case can't be reviewed because he was, quite wrongly, given a yellow card.
The Football Authorities have made some feck ups and that situation is one of them.

Well I guess thats one thing we can agree on, I also think its rather ridiculous that a red card can be reviewed but someone awarded a yellow can't be. Not that I'm saying it wasn't a yellow that is

Avfc_4eva_Sotc wrote:Well I guess thats one thing we can agree on, I also think its rather ridiculous that a red card can be reviewed but someone awarded a yellow can't be. Not that I'm saying it wasn't a yellow that is

I believe that Arsenal are not appealing against the red card given to Gervinho but against the 3-match ban which they are claiming is too severe. If the FA in their wisdom (?) look at the whole story - ball in play, Gervinho assaulted by Barton (unseen by the ref), girly slap to Barton's head (compared to the elbow that his captain, Taylor explained to the ref which he probably swallowed) - they may well decide that Newcastle got off very lightly in an incident started by one of their players (which could have been punished by a penalty as the ball was in play, again, had the ref seen what was going on) and reduce the ban on Gervinho. I would like to believe that some sense of justice will prevail but, TBH I don't hold out much hope.

And sure enough the FA have upheld the 3-match ban. Well, you wouldn't really expect anything else, would you?

Violent conduct is a three match ban no matter what the circumstances. Correct decision IMO.

Ezekiel 25:17 wrote:Violent conduct is a three match ban no matter what the circumstances. Correct decision IMO.

Of course but wasn't Barton guilty of violent conduct?

jak wrote:

Ezekiel 25:17 wrote:Violent conduct is a three match ban no matter what the circumstances. Correct decision IMO.

Of course but wasn't Barton guilty of violent conduct?

I think it depends on interpretation of the rules. Dragging someone up after a blatant dive I don't think is a red card offense, definitely a yellow. But holding on to his scruff and screaming in his face after warranted another booking on top IMO.

Ezekiel 25:17 wrote:

jak wrote:

Ezekiel 25:17 wrote:Violent conduct is a three match ban no matter what the circumstances. Correct decision IMO.

Of course but wasn't Barton guilty of violent conduct?

I think it depends on interpretation of the rules. Dragging someone up after a blatant dive I don't think is a red card offense, definitely a yellow. But holding on to his scruff and screaming in his face after warranted another booking on top IMO.

It should have been a yellow. Which I think would have seen him sent off for a second bookable offence as he'd picked up a yellow earlier in the game.