Dokko Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 FA says it is powerless to act over Barton's tackle http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2210099,00.html Simon Williams Tuesday November 13, 2007 The Guardian Newcastle United's Joey Barton will not be punished for the challenge on Dickson Etuhu during Saturday's north-east derby despite the referee's admission that he had not seen the incident clearly. Replays showed Barton plunging his studs into the groin of Sunderland's Etuhu, a former team-mate at Manchester City, but the FA said yesterday it was powerless to act. Although the referee, Martin Atkinson, said he had not realised how high Barton's boot was when it made contact he had, strictly speaking, seen the challenge. Under FA rules no retrospective action can be taken because the officials had decided not to punish the incident during the game. An FA spokesman said: "The Football Association can only take action in the case of incidents that are not seen by officials. While it is clear that the officials did not see the full extent of the incident, they did see players coming together and to take any further action would be tantamount to re-refereeing the game and this would be contrary to the laws of the game." The news came as a relief to Newcastle's manager, Sam Allardyce, last night, although he is privately annoyed at Barton for making such a rash challenge. Allardyce has spoken of the player's growing maturity since he moved to St James's Park from Manchester City for £5.8m and feels let down by his actions. The FA is privately frustrated that Barton cannot be disciplined for a challenge that made TV viewers cringe, although there is no blame attached to Atkinson. It believes a three-match ban and a fine for violent conduct would have been appropriate. Sunderland's manager, Roy Keane, declined to comment on the announcement last night. However, former Black Cats captain, Gary Bennett, who was at the game as a pundit for local radio, believes Barton had a lucky escape. "The intention was there and it appears Joey Barton is a very lucky boy," said Bennett. This is the latest controversy to sour the career of the 25-year-old Barton. He was punished for stubbing a cigar out on the eyelid of a youth team player while at Manchester City and denies charges of assaulting another former City team-mate, Ousmane Dabo, following a fight at the club's training ground this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Should of been a 3 match ban and a sending off. Stupid cunt, less of that or fuk off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filflop1 Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Ethuhu should of been off as well for sticking his head in !!! That was just as bad !!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Ethuhu should of been off as well for sticking his head in !!! That was just as bad !!! If he had done it at the same speed at Barton's tackle then fair enough, but tbh, thats just utter bollocks. Take your B&W specs off for a moment, it was disgusting, against a mackem or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Should have ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom_NUFC Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 It was blatant. I'm glad the FA aren't taking any action over it, but it was a stupid and dangerous thing to do and he should have got a ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emre5 Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 if it was emre the fa would've banned him and accused him for being racist. funny thing is everyone saw what barton did and nobody heard exactly what emre allegedly said and the rest you can figure out for yourself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 While he should've been banned, the decission from FA is correct. They should not be re-reffere the games, at least not the way the rules are at the moment. Doesn't make the challange any better though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 He's a tit of the highest order. He has yet to make any real impact in playing terms, but could easily have had a 3 match ban when he's just starting to get fit. Idiotic and proof, if any were needed, that he's still a fucking liability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 The FA's reasoning completely baffles me to be honest. Have they not issued suspensions before based on video evidence? Perhaps we should sue UEFA for millions of lost earnings due to them suspending Shearer for that elbow against Inter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spectrum Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 The FA's reasoning completely baffles me to be honest. Have they not issued suspensions before based on video evidence? Perhaps we should sue UEFA for millions of lost earnings due to them suspending Shearer for that elbow against Inter. They banned Thatcher for decapitating Mendes, even tho the ref had seen (and booked him for) it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 The FA's reasoning completely baffles me to be honest. Have they not issued suspensions before based on video evidence? Perhaps we should sue UEFA for millions of lost earnings due to them suspending Shearer for that elbow against Inter. They banned Thatcher for decapitating Mendes, even tho the ref had seen (and booked him for) it. They can act if the ref has penalised a player by upgrading the punishment but they can't if the ref has seen it and taken no action. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest microbar Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 He should be Kicked out of the game for good, He will always be scum What if he had been sent off for his mindless actions And we were down to ten mem against the enemy, We should have never signed barton a leopard cant change its spots He is just a sick headed yob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LucaAltieri Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 He's a tit of the highest order. He has yet to make any real impact in playing terms, but could easily have had a 3 match ban when he's just starting to get fit. Idiotic and proof, if any were needed, that he's still a fucking liability. Agreed. Not sure why we ever signed this clown. The argument about the extra £300,000 that we ended up paying should have been what killed the deal and made Sam realise he wouldn't be able to turn this idiot around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 High-horsetastic. It was a stupid and rough 'challenge' which probably merited a red card. It didn't get one. That is all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 there has to be a point at which they cannot act as it would mean going through each second of footage from every camera to pick out each individual misdemeanor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 The FA are fucking gash when it comes to everything to be fair to them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nguyen Van Falk Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Really a big deal over nothing, you get a challenge like that a week. Just so happens a guy with a "yobish" reputation was the one who did it this week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 High-horsetastic. It was a stupid and rough 'challenge' which probably merited a red card. It didn't get one. That is all. Exactly and all this bollocks is prejudiced by the fact he hasn't set the world alight in his first two games back after injury. If he'd scored the winner against the mackems no one would be saying any of this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 why wasn't the elbow by taylor, the elbow on viduka and the two footed lunge on viduka given as many column inches ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 The tackle cannot be defended it was deliberate and reckless, the way he went on after it was totally stupid too, he knew dam well what he had just done. He is very lucky to be getting away with it, there is a story also today that there was bother in the tunnel too at HT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Joey Barton... Lee Bowyer... Bad boys... Hmmm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 why wasn't the elbow by taylor, the elbow on viduka and the two footed lunge on viduka given as many column inches ? I thought the Taylor elbow was nowt and the two-footed challenge was just a foul (which the ref missed). The elbow on Viduka was pretty bad though. Deliberate and dangerous. Worse than what Barton did (which meritted a red card all the same). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 High-horsetastic. It was a stupid and rough 'challenge' which probably merited a red card. It didn't get one. That is all. Exactly and all this bollocks is prejudiced by the fact he hasn't set the world alight in his first two games back after injury. If he'd scored the winner against the mackems no one would be saying any of this Tbh, if he'd got banned I bet you wouldn't be saying that. It was fucking idiotic, especially for a player with his reputation at a brand new club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 High-horsetastic. It was a stupid and rough 'challenge' which probably merited a red card. It didn't get one. That is all. Exactly and all this bollocks is prejudiced by the fact he hasn't set the world alight in his first two games back after injury. If he'd scored the winner against the mackems no one would be saying any of this Tbh, if he'd got banned I bet you wouldn't be saying that. It was fucking idiotic, especially for a player with his reputation at a brand new club. Eh? I'm agreeing with Dave that it was a red card and he would have been banned if he'd been sent off. Even if he'd been banned via video evidence I'd have been of the same view - i.e. it was stupid and reckless but really, it was nowt. There was no real chance of any injury to the other player either so I see other incidents you see in matches - i.e. elbows, shocking tackles etc. as worse. I'm not defending what he did, I'm railing against the holier than thou shite coming from people who've made up their minds about a player and his attitude etc. after a couple of games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now