DWelbz19
Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2012
- Messages
- 34,280
Wow.
Reduced due to his reaction. They didn't feel the push was worthy of the full 3 matches.Why was it reduced? If it's reduced due to the nature of The tackle then surely it's a ban for Barnes. It should either have stayed at 3 or 0.
Give them few days,he wont miss a game,hell he might even play few extra.What games does he miss?
If there was any justice in the world, that would happen.Give them few days,he wont miss a game,hell he might even play few extra.
The death threats will be after that, too.Chelsea are a fecking joke It's always them. They have zero class whatsoever. They're rotten all the way through, from the board to the players to the fans.
Give it a couple of days and they'll be accusing Atkinson of racism.
2 is about right. It was stupid from Matic to react like that, and it never ceases to annoy me how people paid so much cannot control themselves for a few seconds. But anyone with a brain cell can se Barnes tackle was terrible, and that he had reason to be angry, the FA agree that's why they reduced it.Why the feck is that ban reduced? Moo on Sky. feck right off.
He won't be able to rest then. It's a conspiracy i say.Give them few days,he wont miss a game,hell he might even play few extra.
Spurs and West Ham.What games does he miss?
Reducing a Matic`s ban is not justice for him,Barnes being banned it is but you dont fight for that,you dont see any interest in that,whats important is to be able and use Matic as player as soon as possible.If there was any justice in the world, that would happen.
It's not - Roger Burden, chairman of the FA's regulatory commission, said the panel had "rejected the mitigation advanced by Nemanja Matic in respect of the provocation and tackle he received which led to his act of violent conduct".2 is about right. It was stupid from Matic to react like that, and it never ceases to annoy me how people paid so much cannot control themselves for a few seconds. But anyone with a brain cell can se Barnes tackle was terrible, and that he had reason to be angry, the FA agree that's why they reduced it.
Ok fair enough. Point still stands regarding Barnes though.It's not - Roger Burden, chairman of the FA's regulatory commission, said the panel had "rejected the mitigation advanced by Nemanja Matic in respect of the provocation and tackle he received which led to his act of violent conduct".
It was only reduced because they accepted Matic's case regards the level of force he used, and where the contact was made.
Agree with that.Makes no sense to reduce the ban.
Read what the FA have said. The ban has been reduced because they do not feel Matic's push to be worthy of a 3-match ban. They did not take into account the tackle by Barnes.Agree with that.
Since when was retaliation acceptable dependant on provocation?
Why can't Barton now say his cheeky little balls tap to Huddleston isn't worth a game reduction?
Being shoved over from behind has to be more violent than that
They've opened a real can of worms with this one then.Read what the FA have said. The ban has been reduced because they do not feel Matic's push to be worthy of a 3-match ban. They did not take into account the tackle by Barnes.
Of course it doesn't make sense, it's the FA after all, remember?Makes no sense to reduce the ban.
Except he wasn't tackling Matic.2 is about right. It was stupid from Matic to react like that, and it never ceases to annoy me how people paid so much cannot control themselves for a few seconds. But anyone with a brain cell can se Barnes tackle was terrible, and that he had reason to be angry, the FA agree that's why they reduced it.