By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Dear Sir/ Madam, I am deeply puzzled as to why yourselves, Match of the Day pundits and now the FA continue to dance to the agenda set by Jose Mourinho and Chelsea Football Club. in todays front page article (Angry Chelsea want rule change etc)you give the oxygen of publicity to Chelsea’s opinions about the above incident with no counter arguments. You write that Chelsea are left ‘appalled’ by the decision to reduce the Matic suspension by only one game. 'The club are incensed by Ashley Barnes’ tackle’ 'reacting to a challenge by the Burnley forward’ ‘a bare minimum gesture . . . might have left the midfielder with broken leg’ ‘universal condemnation of the reckless challenge’ ‘unjustly punished . . . . to a career-threatening tackle’ ‘protect players from dangerous challenges’ ‘Mourinho, who has been scathing in his criticism of barnes’ Let it be said, Barnes neither tackled nor challenged Matic. He played a pass cleanly to a colleague and his right foot followed through to connected with Matic’s leg which was in fact ‘late’ coming in on Barnes. This was potentially, a horrific accident, not a tackle or a challenge. Noone responded to the incident at the time, except, indisputably, Matic ran ten metres to push Barnes to the ground, violently in the back. He received a red card. He then continued to fight to get at other players or the referee rather than leave the pitch. (meanwhile Ivanovich took the red card from the referee’s hand, constituting a red card in itself) This is an automatic three match ban. Mourinho, on Match of the Day, said he doesn’t speak about such things (though he did for 23 minutes on Sunday) but cites certain minutes during the match that were crucial he claimed, which the pundits then debate for the rest of the analysis. This of course, deflects debate as to why his £400,000,000 team failed to beat lowly Burnley, and why the ‘Ginger Mourinho’ somehow out-thought the ‘Chosen One’ who is not slow to feed his own myth.
Or, why his players simulate injury and scream abuse when not award fouls,
Or, FAIL, to throw the ball back to the burnley goalkeeper after Heaton had rolled the ball into touch so that Mee could receive attention on the floor in front of him.The Chelsea players ignored the tradition of sportsmanship that prevails, but used the throw-in to remount their attack near the Burnley goal. And now, I read, that the PGMOL at Cobham sent a deputation to Mourinho to discuss the incident and build bridges! Relations in the meeting were strained! In other words Mourinho was still behaving as though it is he who controls the FA, the referees, the media.
Your report says Mourinho has been scathing in his criticism of Barnes. I wonder what Ashley Barnes thinks of Mourinho? We won’t find out will we? Mourinho wasn’t scathing, in fact he refused pointedly, to name Barnes, saying he ‘wasn’t fit to be called a player’. I find that deeply offensive. ‘Universal condemnation of the reckless challenge?’ Really? How would that be monitored? Certainly Chelsea’s histrionics have lightened Matic’s just suspension, to the disgust of parts of the football world: Robbie Fowler, for one considers it to be an ‘absolute shambles, should have got a game extra for such a frivolous appeal’. And finally, if you want a measured, dignified, statesmanlike response to the whole matter, read Sean Dyche in an interview for the Lancashire Telegraph. Now, THAT’S the way to behave. Yours faithfully, Andrew Bolton (I was there)
22
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 14:50 - Feb 26 with 2651 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 14:36 - Feb 26 by MrNITK
Agree. However, it's a blatant red for Matic. I don't think any other premier league side would of had the cheek to appeal for fear of getting an extra game suspension for a frivolous appeal. It should of been a 4 game ban and they've actually come out of it better off.
That's the Mourinho chipping away at them starting to work, they'll start getting more decisions now as well I'll bet. I didn't mind him the first time he was here, but he's defo lost that bit of charm he had.
It Is What It Is !!
1
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 17:23 - Feb 26 with 2585 views
Mourinho's work is done - he has taken attention away from two unfortunate events: Chelsea being branded worldwide as a racist club and the draw at home to Burnley.
Air hostess clique
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 01:34 - Feb 27 with 2481 views
[Quote Superhoop - "The suggestion that Matic came in late on Barnes is simply ridiculous and suggests that some of the Chelsea paranoia infected Mr Bolton. "]
I'm don't really see why it's ridiculous to say Matic came in late. Here's a picture of the moment Barnes played his pass. Matic is the man just in shot on the far right. And if he isn't late, he certainly isn't early!
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 10:50 - Feb 27 with 2407 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 01:34 - Feb 27 by dsr_burnley
[Quote Superhoop - "The suggestion that Matic came in late on Barnes is simply ridiculous and suggests that some of the Chelsea paranoia infected Mr Bolton. "]
I'm don't really see why it's ridiculous to say Matic came in late. Here's a picture of the moment Barnes played his pass. Matic is the man just in shot on the far right. And if he isn't late, he certainly isn't early!
It was a nasty challenge, even if Matic did come across late Barnes made no effort to take weight off the leading foot when it connected. It was a potentially leg breaking tackle and it makes it very hard to defend him when the accused is the dirtiest player in the league by fouls conceded.
The ban being reduced is absolute nonsense though. The next time someone charges at another player and throws them to the ground it should be challeneged and reduced, as a stand alone incident it's a definite straight red for violent conduct, whether it was a justified reaction or not.
[Post edited 27 Feb 2015 10:51]
ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead
1
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 10:56 - Feb 27 with 2404 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 10:50 - Feb 27 by simmo
It was a nasty challenge, even if Matic did come across late Barnes made no effort to take weight off the leading foot when it connected. It was a potentially leg breaking tackle and it makes it very hard to defend him when the accused is the dirtiest player in the league by fouls conceded.
The ban being reduced is absolute nonsense though. The next time someone charges at another player and throws them to the ground it should be challeneged and reduced, as a stand alone incident it's a definite straight red for violent conduct, whether it was a justified reaction or not.
[Post edited 27 Feb 2015 10:51]
It was a tackle by Matic, not a tackle by Barnes; and if Barnes had made no effort to take the weight off his leading foot, Matic's leg would have been broken.
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 11:02 - Feb 27 with 2396 views
I've seen it a few times and looks like Barnes is playing the ball. It's natural for your leg to follow-through, especially if you're trying to get the ball off the ground. Matic comes in and makes contact with Barnes, not the other way around. Barnes isn't even looking at Matic, he's looking at where he's trying to play the ball to.
Loads of youtube clips entiled "Barnes horror/outrageous etc. tackle on Matic". As said, he didn't tackle Matcic, Matic ran in on him.
Matic's suspension should be for four games, not two. However aggrieved he may have felt, the rules of the game are you just don't retaliate. He did and the FA have caved in.
As others have said, what about Cisse v Wolves or Barton v Norwich and many others in the game.
[Post edited 27 Feb 2015 11:16]
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 11:20 - Feb 27 with 2382 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 10:50 - Feb 27 by simmo
It was a nasty challenge, even if Matic did come across late Barnes made no effort to take weight off the leading foot when it connected. It was a potentially leg breaking tackle and it makes it very hard to defend him when the accused is the dirtiest player in the league by fouls conceded.
The ban being reduced is absolute nonsense though. The next time someone charges at another player and throws them to the ground it should be challeneged and reduced, as a stand alone incident it's a definite straight red for violent conduct, whether it was a justified reaction or not.
[Post edited 27 Feb 2015 10:51]
But then by the FAs reasoning in their written explanation, they reduced a game off the ban partly because of the horrific challenge, but also because Matic 'only' pushed him in the back. So yes, if in future someone is on the end of a horror challenge and pushed the tackler over, it's a 2 game ban.
If however, like Barton you slap them in the nuts, or throw a head but at them, or like Cisse, grab them around the throat after a foul, it's 3 games.
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 11:25 - Feb 27 with 2370 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 10:56 - Feb 27 by dsr_burnley
It was a tackle by Matic, not a tackle by Barnes; and if Barnes had made no effort to take the weight off his leading foot, Matic's leg would have been broken.
So the fact he's fouled more than anyone else all season is just coincidence?
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 11:02 - Feb 27 by Juzzie
I've seen it a few times and looks like Barnes is playing the ball. It's natural for your leg to follow-through, especially if you're trying to get the ball off the ground. Matic comes in and makes contact with Barnes, not the other way around. Barnes isn't even looking at Matic, he's looking at where he's trying to play the ball to.
Loads of youtube clips entiled "Barnes horror/outrageous etc. tackle on Matic". As said, he didn't tackle Matcic, Matic ran in on him.
Matic's suspension should be for four games, not two. However aggrieved he may have felt, the rules of the game are you just don't retaliate. He did and the FA have caved in.
As others have said, what about Cisse v Wolves or Barton v Norwich and many others in the game.
[Post edited 27 Feb 2015 11:16]
Cisse grabbed Oiger Johnson by the throat & Barton threw a headbutt (with minute contact) at Johnson. Not really comparable with pushing someone in the back. The FA have stated as much.
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 12:53 - Feb 27 with 2333 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 11:25 - Feb 27 by simmo
So the fact he's fouled more than anyone else all season is just coincidence?
Yes. Just because someone puts himself about, especially in, the air, does not automatically mean he attempts to break people's legs. I'm surprised you would think so.
He's been booked 5 times in 47 games for Burnley - one of which was for handball which the cameras prooved he didn't do. He's not a really dirty player, just an aggressive one.
Anyway, where do the stats come from that say he's committed more fouls than anyone else? I've heard it said a few times but not seen any evidence.
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 12:59 - Feb 27 with 2323 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 12:53 - Feb 27 by dsr_burnley
Yes. Just because someone puts himself about, especially in, the air, does not automatically mean he attempts to break people's legs. I'm surprised you would think so.
He's been booked 5 times in 47 games for Burnley - one of which was for handball which the cameras prooved he didn't do. He's not a really dirty player, just an aggressive one.
Anyway, where do the stats come from that say he's committed more fouls than anyone else? I've heard it said a few times but not seen any evidence.
Most fouls obviously doesn't mean leg breaking, but I also have eyes and have played myself. Personally I think it was a nasty challenge - and I have more bias against Chelsea than you'd imagine.
Stats are from official premier league list, he's on 50 apparently.
ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 13:20 - Feb 27 with 2306 views
I think this must be the first time I have ever disagreed with anything Simmo has written! Half the time I don't bother posting things because he's already said it.
BUT to me it's clear that Barnes is playing the ball, he does so poorly making weak contact with his foot going over the ball and Matic then arrives after this in his foots 'flight path'. Wholly different, IMHO, than the normal version of the horror tackle where the perpetrator is well aware that they are going into a head on 50/50 with an oppo player and often have their eye on them knowing their is going to be contact and go over the ball deliberately.
Not sure how you expect Barnes to stop his momentum in the split second that Matic decides to put his leg in the way.
Looks terrible, but nothing like the normal version of these, which is how the referee quite rightly read it as well.
[Post edited 27 Feb 2015 13:20]
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 13:41 - Feb 27 with 2287 views
Fne margin but I agree with Bobby.That is not a horror tackle.Matic was late in and met Barnes' boot IMO.Its a close one tho but does not warrant Loineker and Savages and Mourinho's hysteric reaction .And definitely does not warrant Matic getting his ban reduced.
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 13:41 - Feb 27 by Pommyhoop
Fne margin but I agree with Bobby.That is not a horror tackle.Matic was late in and met Barnes' boot IMO.Its a close one tho but does not warrant Loineker and Savages and Mourinho's hysteric reaction .And definitely does not warrant Matic getting his ban reduced.
We're seeing very different things there. That's a straight red for me.
ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 13:49 - Feb 27 with 2268 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 11:32 - Feb 27 by Jamie
Cisse grabbed Oiger Johnson by the throat & Barton threw a headbutt (with minute contact) at Johnson. Not really comparable with pushing someone in the back. The FA have stated as much.
Point is Jamie, 99% of violent conduct red cards have been 3 games - FA have now set precedent for all SFP and VCs to be appealed in the hope of reducing number of games ban.
Fact it was retaliation and the severity of the offence being retaliated against has never, been taken into account before, so why now?
Making it up as they go along IMHO.
1
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 13:52 - Feb 27 with 2240 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 13:48 - Feb 27 by simmo
We're seeing very different things there. That's a straight red for me.
Seeing Pommy's video another marker to look at is the reaction of the Chelsea players, Ba, Willian, Ivanovic etc. We all know how much those lot love to surround a referee for absolutely f**king anything but not one of them gives it a second look. They turn away following the ball, nothing to see here. That's pretty telling, never happens when a real horror tackle is made.
Edit Zouma not Ba
[Post edited 27 Feb 2015 14:03]
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 13:57 - Feb 27 with 2228 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 13:48 - Feb 27 by simmo
We're seeing very different things there. That's a straight red for me.
This is the first time i've seen it. It's a bad tackle borderline between yellow and red. However, Matic doesn't help himself by going down like he's been shot and the sprinting like Usain Bolt two seconds later to knock him over. How that got reduced to 2 match ban is beyond me.
So much for video technology clearing everything up!
Nearly 7 days later and you have about 20 people on here utterly convinced their version of events is correct, despite being split about 50/50 on what that version is!
At least shows how difficult iti s with one viewing in real time, from ground level as it were.
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 14:12 - Feb 27 with 2215 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 14:01 - Feb 27 by PinnerPaul
So much for video technology clearing everything up!
Nearly 7 days later and you have about 20 people on here utterly convinced their version of events is correct, despite being split about 50/50 on what that version is!
At least shows how difficult iti s with one viewing in real time, from ground level as it were.
Fair do's tho the old goal line technology has proved its worth a few times . the players dont even bother looking at the ref now if it a close one .They know the score and just get on with it. Remember Clints v WBA? Shudders
The way Barnes shirks off after the tackle is all the proof you need he meant to do it. I don't think Matic should be sent off for a reaction like that — same way I don't think Routledge should have been sent off after Henry's tackle — but the law is the law and the law says it's a red. Both men should have gone.
0
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 14:41 - Feb 27 with 2192 views
this is the reason I don't really watch any football on telly or read newspapers. The endless fellating of Mourinho by the media makes me want to set fire to my own eyes. Amazingly some fans of other clubs, and a few of ours, think he's ok, using phrases like "he's good value" "he's a proven winner" "just mind games" whereas in fact he is, always has been and always will be just a 24 carat cvnt and that's the end of it.
3
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 14:48 - Feb 27 with 2187 views
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 14:41 - Feb 27 by PeterHucker
this is the reason I don't really watch any football on telly or read newspapers. The endless fellating of Mourinho by the media makes me want to set fire to my own eyes. Amazingly some fans of other clubs, and a few of ours, think he's ok, using phrases like "he's good value" "he's a proven winner" "just mind games" whereas in fact he is, always has been and always will be just a 24 carat cvnt and that's the end of it.
Burnley mates letter to Guardian - re Chelsea love in on 14:12 - Feb 27 by Pommyhoop
Fair do's tho the old goal line technology has proved its worth a few times . the players dont even bother looking at the ref now if it a close one .They know the score and just get on with it. Remember Clints v WBA? Shudders
Yes agree, but that's a simple fact isn't it?
What the pundits get wrong (there's a shock!) is that they see goal line technology works, so think it would work for all decisions - nonsense of course.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
