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.
I've seen that incident about a dozen times from all angles and in slo mo on TV over the weekend, and I'm inclined to think it was not Barnes' intention to injure the Chelsea man.
His studs were high-ish when he went in, but he was aiming for the ball and the Chelsea player was not directly in front of him. Matic comes in from the side, Barnes foot makes contact with the ball but slides over the top of it and crunches into Matic's calf.
It looked much worse than it was in terms of intent. No doubt will upset some of you, but correct decision for me.
I've seen that incident about a dozen times from all angles and in slo mo on TV over the weekend, and I'm inclined to think it was not Barnes' intention to injure the Chelsea man.
His studs were high-ish when he went in, but he was aiming for the ball and the Chelsea player was not directly in front of him. Matic comes in from the side, Barnes foot makes contact with the ball but slides over the top of it and crunches into Matic's calf.
It looked much worse than it was in terms of intent. No doubt will upset some of you, but correct decision for me.
[Post edited 23 Feb 2015 15:28]
I can see what you mean Mike, but surely the majority of players are sent off for things they didn't intend to do? They just got things wrong, were unlucky or made an error of judgement whether it's a keeper rushing out or two players jostling for the ball and one goes down or a ball hitting a hand on the goal line or just a mistimed tackle. In this case, if it was reckless or dangerous whether it was intentional or not, then he has to go.
I can see what you mean Mike, but surely the majority of players are sent off for things they didn't intend to do? They just got things wrong, were unlucky or made an error of judgement whether it's a keeper rushing out or two players jostling for the ball and one goes down or a ball hitting a hand on the goal line or just a mistimed tackle. In this case, if it was reckless or dangerous whether it was intentional or not, then he has to go.
The point I'm making is that if you've got a player coming towards you, the ball is between the pair of you and you lunge in, studs up, and catch the guy rather than the ball, you deserve a red for 'serious foul play'. You are reckless and out of control, and you can see that you are likely to injure an opponent..
In this case, the Chelsea player came in from an angle and the connection was an unfortunate accident which Barnes couldn't have foreseen.
I've seen that incident about a dozen times from all angles and in slo mo on TV over the weekend, and I'm inclined to think it was not Barnes' intention to injure the Chelsea man.
His studs were high-ish when he went in, but he was aiming for the ball and the Chelsea player was not directly in front of him. Matic comes in from the side, Barnes foot makes contact with the ball but slides over the top of it and crunches into Matic's calf.
It looked much worse than it was in terms of intent. No doubt will upset some of you, but correct decision for me.
Im sure most of have played football at some kind of level and i think its fair to say that going in that high up is just something you don't tend to do.
The way his leg swept in it always looked more likely he would go over the top of the ball and not through it.
It was dangerous and deserved a straight red card, they are professionals and know exactly how much control they have and when they are being reckless, this was why Matic went mental.
Im not saying he tried to break his leg but i think most know if you go in like that there is a chance something horrific could happen.
For me, his Matic challenge was accidental . . . . his first one against Ivanovic wasn't just dangerous but intentional too and he should have walked for it .
And, Where were the linesman in both of these incidents ?
Im sure most of have played football at some kind of level and i think its fair to say that going in that high up is just something you don't tend to do.
The way his leg swept in it always looked more likely he would go over the top of the ball and not through it.
It was dangerous and deserved a straight red card, they are professionals and know exactly how much control they have and when they are being reckless, this was why Matic went mental.
Im not saying he tried to break his leg but i think most know if you go in like that there is a chance something horrific could happen.
Sorry, Jack, but I'm not even sure if you're watching the right video. Or else you're watching only the one that cuts in after Barnes has played the ball.
Up to the moment when Barnes touches the ball, this is what happens: Barnes receives a pass, he takes a touch to control it. Matic runs towards Barnes from the left. Barnes plays the ball backwards towards Jones, with Matic still a couple of feet away from Barnes at the moment Barnes touches the ball. None of that is controversial.
What happens next is that Matic continues his run and blocks the pass (out for a throw-in), but in the process puts his leg exactly under where Barnes' right foot was due to land. The question you can valildly ask is whether Barnes saw this leg there and decided to continue putting his foot down when he could have drawn back (I don't think he had time), or whether he realised Matic's leg was coming down there before he even passed it and took the chance to not-quite hurt him (I doubt it, he was clearly looking at the ball and couldn't have known exactly where Matic was landing).
But to say Barnes made a tackle, or that he "went in", or that he went over the ball, is demonstrably noy correct.
Sorry, Jack, but I'm not even sure if you're watching the right video. Or else you're watching only the one that cuts in after Barnes has played the ball.
Up to the moment when Barnes touches the ball, this is what happens: Barnes receives a pass, he takes a touch to control it. Matic runs towards Barnes from the left. Barnes plays the ball backwards towards Jones, with Matic still a couple of feet away from Barnes at the moment Barnes touches the ball. None of that is controversial.
What happens next is that Matic continues his run and blocks the pass (out for a throw-in), but in the process puts his leg exactly under where Barnes' right foot was due to land. The question you can valildly ask is whether Barnes saw this leg there and decided to continue putting his foot down when he could have drawn back (I don't think he had time), or whether he realised Matic's leg was coming down there before he even passed it and took the chance to not-quite hurt him (I doubt it, he was clearly looking at the ball and couldn't have known exactly where Matic was landing).
But to say Barnes made a tackle, or that he "went in", or that he went over the ball, is demonstrably noy correct.
That's what I was trying to say earlier. It wasn't a case of two players heading directly for each other with the ball between them, and one going over the top. It was one guy playing the ball, unfortunately his foot slides over the top of the ball and the opponent coming in from the side arrives at exactly the wrong moment and gets the studs in his shin (yes, OK, shin not calf!).
I'd say the challenge on Ivanovitch earlier in the match was the dirty one, because he looked as if he did that deliberately. Mind you, the big Chelsea twonk made the most of that one too, rolling around in fake agony, then getting up right as rain when he could see he wasn't getting the ref's attention.
That's what I was trying to say earlier. It wasn't a case of two players heading directly for each other with the ball between them, and one going over the top. It was one guy playing the ball, unfortunately his foot slides over the top of the ball and the opponent coming in from the side arrives at exactly the wrong moment and gets the studs in his shin (yes, OK, shin not calf!).
I'd say the challenge on Ivanovitch earlier in the match was the dirty one, because he looked as if he did that deliberately. Mind you, the big Chelsea twonk made the most of that one too, rolling around in fake agony, then getting up right as rain when he could see he wasn't getting the ref's attention.
And to be fair I sort of agree but just dont see the consistency
The way the retrospective punishments have been going I think people have had them for far less
FWIW I thought Matic made it worse by the reaction but Barnes saw what was happening and definately left a bit in there to catch Matic and anything over the ball is a red card
Don't even get me started on the karate kick
This is Patches O'Houlihan saying "Take care of your balls, and they'll take care of you."
I've seen that incident about a dozen times from all angles and in slo mo on TV over the weekend, and I'm inclined to think it was not Barnes' intention to injure the Chelsea man.
His studs were high-ish when he went in, but he was aiming for the ball and the Chelsea player was not directly in front of him. Matic comes in from the side, Barnes foot makes contact with the ball but slides over the top of it and crunches into Matic's calf.
It looked much worse than it was in terms of intent. No doubt will upset some of you, but correct decision for me.
[Post edited 23 Feb 2015 15:28]
I totally agree there was never any intent there at all. It is the classical paradox an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. If you see Matic's first action on feeling the challenge it was to scream and roll around, as per the PL, then jump up to confront Barnes, only then does any other Chelsea player react, prior to that they were following the ball. Under the laws of the game, there is only one recourse for the referee as retaliation is serious foul play. He only reacts after Matic pushed Barnes, and he came, from memory, he was somewhere near the halfway line, and he comes in from the right-hand side, if he says :- A( I saw it and in my opinion it wasn't a foul B) I didn't see it at all...Matic has to go and have a shot at the appealhas my sympathy as in his mind Barnes went out of his to injure him deliberately hence the red mist, I think any player in that position would do the same.....alas I still believe the referee was piss poor to say the least and should be dealt with by which means he drops down a division, and it will end there.
Sorry, Jack, but I'm not even sure if you're watching the right video. Or else you're watching only the one that cuts in after Barnes has played the ball.
Up to the moment when Barnes touches the ball, this is what happens: Barnes receives a pass, he takes a touch to control it. Matic runs towards Barnes from the left. Barnes plays the ball backwards towards Jones, with Matic still a couple of feet away from Barnes at the moment Barnes touches the ball. None of that is controversial.
What happens next is that Matic continues his run and blocks the pass (out for a throw-in), but in the process puts his leg exactly under where Barnes' right foot was due to land. The question you can valildly ask is whether Barnes saw this leg there and decided to continue putting his foot down when he could have drawn back (I don't think he had time), or whether he realised Matic's leg was coming down there before he even passed it and took the chance to not-quite hurt him (I doubt it, he was clearly looking at the ball and couldn't have known exactly where Matic was landing).
But to say Barnes made a tackle, or that he "went in", or that he went over the ball, is demonstrably noy correct.
Absolutely spot on, see my video on the "poor old Chelsea" thread, can't anyone see it was Matic that made the challenge, that's why they didn't charge him, that and the fact the ref called it right.
Ashley Barnes passing the ball normally on the left, and Ashley Barnes putting in a bone crunching tackle where he nearly kills a poor innocent Chelsea player on the right:
This is a video of Adrian Heath (a former Burnley manager) demonstrating a side foot pass. Either he thinks following through is the normal way to do it, or else he's a bit concerned about the young lad in front of him!
Ashley Barnes passing the ball normally on the left, and Ashley Barnes putting in a bone crunching tackle where he nearly kills a poor innocent Chelsea player on the right:
Hes not even looking that the ball! His eyes are firmly on Matic leg, its obvious hes left his foot in.
I've seen that incident about a dozen times from all angles and in slo mo on TV over the weekend, and I'm inclined to think it was not Barnes' intention to injure the Chelsea man.
His studs were high-ish when he went in, but he was aiming for the ball and the Chelsea player was not directly in front of him. Matic comes in from the side, Barnes foot makes contact with the ball but slides over the top of it and crunches into Matic's calf.
It looked much worse than it was in terms of intent. No doubt will upset some of you, but correct decision for me.
[Post edited 23 Feb 2015 15:28]
Not just me then. There's a great angle behind the player that shows it was an unlucky consequence of several factors, not a deliberate attempt to injure the player, or even a foul.
Hes not even looking that the ball! His eyes are firmly on Matic leg, its obvious hes left his foot in.
Lets hope he doesn't do it against one of ours
Barnes looked at the ball when he kicked it. The ball bounced off Matic's leg and went off to the right. How fast is a man supposed to turn his head to watch the ball going out for a throw-in?
The reason he's looking at Matic's leg is because Matic has just put his leg exactly where the ball was a split second earlier.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
