Chelsea Thread 2014/15

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Ok, so have I got the rule right now? Retaliation is now a red card offence, automatically off?
But the length of ban can now range from 1 match...
(maybe a sneaky "bollock slap")
...2 matches...
(running 10 yards, grabbing an opponent around the chest area hurling them to the floor and then needing to be restrained by several teammates)
...3 matches..
(raising your hands and pushing an opponent in the chest , as that ex-ref said on the radio)
..however, it all go multi-ball when you take into account what it is that you are retaliating to. Ban is 0-4 depending upon where the ball lands.

Is this it now? New rules? Top.


Oh, and if that chavski fan's still knocking about with his "we've read the rules" propaganda. Why's moaner now giving it the "we wanted it to be totally rescinded" b'llox if your understanding of the rules are correct?

Is he just on the windup, the cheeky portuguese? Scamp! He's a funny one in't he?

 

[terraloon]

Ok, so have I got the rule right now? Retaliation is now a red card offence, automatically off?
But the length of ban can now range from 1 match...
(maybe a sneaky "bollock slap")
...2 matches...
(running 10 yards, grabbing an opponent around the chest area hurling them to the floor and then needing to be restrained by several teammates)
...3 matches..
(raising your hands and pushing an opponent in the chest , as that ex-ref said on the radio)
..however, it all go multi-ball when you take into account what it is that you are retaliating to. Ban is 0-4 depending upon where the ball lands.

Is this it now? New rules? Top.


Oh, and if that chavski fan's still knocking about with his "we've read the rules" propaganda. Why's moaner now giving it the "we wanted it to be totally rescinded" b'llox if your understanding of the rules are correct?

Is he just on the windup, the cheeky portuguese? Scamp! He's a funny one in't he?

If you had read the point I was trying to make was that the rules as in place would enable Chelsea to appeal against the 3 game ban. at no time did I condone Matic nor does it help when the likes of Webb going on TV to and placing on record an interpretation . All that it does is lead to confusion and contempt for the likes of the FA.
As it happens I don't think on a personal basis that there should be any appeal by players against standard punishment but the rules are there and it's not Chelsea that are at fault it's the rules them self.
Once the FA allowed the appeal and reduced the sanction they really added to the confusion because in one breath they agreed that the normal rules shouldn't apply and the rule as it's written would suggest that it would be just a one game hence why Chelsea said in the press release

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Ok, so have I got the rule right now? Retaliation is now a red card offence, automatically off?
But the length of ban can now range from 1 match...
(maybe a sneaky "bollock slap")
...2 matches...
(running 10 yards, grabbing an opponent around the chest area hurling them to the floor and then needing to be restrained by several teammates)
...3 matches..
(raising your hands and pushing an opponent in the chest , as that ex-ref said on the radio)
..however, it all go multi-ball when you take into account what it is that you are retaliating to. Ban is 0-4 depending upon where the ball lands.

Is this it now? New rules? Top.


Oh, and if that chavski fan's still knocking about with his "we've read the rules" propaganda. Why's moaner now giving it the "we wanted it to be totally rescinded" b'llox if your understanding of the rules are correct?

Is he just on the windup, the cheeky portuguese? Scamp! He's a funny one in't he?

If you had read the point I was trying to make was that the rules as in place would enable Chelsea to appeal against the 3 game ban. at no time did I condone Matic nor does it help when the likes of Webb going on TV to and placing on record an interpretation . All that it does is lead to confusion and contempt for the likes of the FA.
As it happens I don't think on a personal basis that there should be any appeal by players against standard punishment but the rules are there and it's not Chelsea that are at fault it's the rules them self.
Once the FA allowed the appeal and reduced the sanction they really added to the confusion because in one breath they agreed that the normal rules shouldn't apply and the rule as it's written would suggest that it would be just a one game hence why Chelsea said in the press release

Yeah, yeah... blah-blah... holier than though... blah-di-blah. I don't want to hear your excuses for being such good sports,.. "is it now a presedence?" was the main jist of my post?
..but the question still stands, are these the new rules?

BUT "and the rule as it's written would suggest that it would be just a one game ban" - You've got to be on the wind up? Shirley?

 

[terraloon]

Ok, so have I got the rule right now? Retaliation is now a red card offence, automatically off?
But the length of ban can now range from 1 match...
(maybe a sneaky "bollock slap")
...2 matches...
(running 10 yards, grabbing an opponent around the chest area hurling them to the floor and then needing to be restrained by several teammates)
...3 matches..
(raising your hands and pushing an opponent in the chest , as that ex-ref said on the radio)
..however, it all go multi-ball when you take into account what it is that you are retaliating to. Ban is 0-4 depending upon where the ball lands.

Is this it now? New rules? Top.


Oh, and if that chavski fan's still knocking about with his "we've read the rules" propaganda. Why's moaner now giving it the "we wanted it to be totally rescinded" b'llox if your understanding of the rules are correct?

Is he just on the windup, the cheeky portuguese? Scamp! He's a funny one in't he?

If you had read the point I was trying to make was that the rules as in place would enable Chelsea to appeal against the 3 game ban. at no time did I condone Matic nor does it help when the likes of Webb going on TV to and placing on record an interpretation . All that it does is lead to confusion and contempt for the likes of the FA.
As it happens I don't think on a personal basis that there should be any appeal by players against standard punishment but the rules are there and it's not Chelsea that are at fault it's the rules them self.
Once the FA allowed the appeal and reduced the sanction they really added to the confusion because in one breath they agreed that the normal rules shouldn't apply and the rule as it's written would suggest that it would be just a one game hence why Chelsea said in the press release

Yeah, yeah... blah-blah... holier than though... blah-di-blah. I don't want to hear your excuses for being such good sports,.. "is it now a presedence?" was the main jist of my post?
..but the question still stands, are these the new rules?

BUT "and the rule as it's written would suggest that it would be just a one game ban" - You've got to be on the wind up? Shirley?

No wind up within the wording it actually mentions one game ban

 

[Chipmeister]

If you had read the point I was trying to make was that the rules as in place would enable Chelsea to appeal against the 3 game ban. at no time did I condone Matic nor does it help when the likes of Webb going on TV to and placing on record an interpretation . All that it does is lead to confusion and contempt for the likes of the FA.
As it happens I don't think on a personal basis that there should be any appeal by players against standard punishment but the rules are there and it's not Chelsea that are at fault it's the rules them self.
Once the FA allowed the appeal and reduced the sanction they really added to the confusion because in one breath they agreed that the normal rules shouldn't apply and the rule as it's written would suggest that it would be just a one game hence why Chelsea said in the press release

Yeah, yeah... blah-blah... holier than though... blah-di-blah. I don't want to hear your excuses for being such good sports,.. "is it now a presedence?" was the main jist of my post?
..but the question still stands, are these the new rules?

BUT "and the rule as it's written would suggest that it would be just a one game ban" - You've got to be on the wind up? Shirley?

No wind up within the wording it actually mentions one game ban

As a genuine Football fan who loves the great game I can see this decision will lead to many more appeals in the future for red card offences for retaliation, be that retaliation a push,tackle because he "did me earlier" or whatever may be the case put forward it is to the detriment of the game.
Would you agree it has set a precedent to the detriment of the game.

A red card for violent conduct being an automatic 3 game ban is no longer the case, it is now really open to an appeal for every case.

 

[hertsblue]

From the BBC Gossip page:

Referees' chief Mike Riley led a failed peace mission to placate Jose Mourinho after the Chelsea manager publicly bemoaned the performance of officials

Pathetic if true. Ref performances are at an all time low under Riley

 

[terraloon]

From the BBC Gossip page:

Referees' chief Mike Riley led a failed peace mission to placate Jose Mourinho after the Chelsea manager publicly bemoaned the performance of officials

Pathetic if true. Ref performances are at an all time low under Riley[/quote

Couldn't agree more but Riley should have stood back rather than phoning managers apologising for decisions and when he met with Gary Monk earlier in the season after Monk made near enough the same accusations as JM is making he, Riley, gave in effect the green flag

 

[terraloon]

Yeah, yeah... blah-blah... holier than though... blah-di-blah. I don't want to hear your excuses for being such good sports,.. "is it now a presedence?" was the main jist of my post?
..but the question still stands, are these the new rules?

BUT "and the rule as it's written would suggest that it would be just a one game ban" - You've got to be on the wind up? Shirley?

No wind up within the wording it actually mentions one game ban

As a genuine Football fan who loves the great game I can see this decision will lead to many more appeals in the future for red card offences for retaliation, be that retaliation a push,tackle because he "did me earlier" or whatever may be the case put forward it is to the detriment of the game.
Would you agree it has set a precedent to the detriment of the game.

A red card for violent conduct being an automatic 3 game ban is no longer the case, it is now really open to an appeal for every case.

When you started this thread you asked that people not to make comments through club coloured glasses. I know to some it may well seem that my postings have been driven by the team I support but my intention was to post things as they are as opposed to what I wish they were

I am told that the rule that I mention has been in place for many years and that the number of appeals made using this rule is rare

What does come over to me is the FA in trying to keep everyone happy end up achieving the near exact opposite . For an organisation that generates such wealth they really could and should be getting the very best to take charge yet the main FA Council is made up of representatives from local FAs who in reality are way out of their depth .

I have a sneaky feeling that Chelsea were almost directed down this appeal route by the FA who were stung by the criticism from so many about their inability to revisit the initial incident and what them happened appears to me to suggest that the various scenarios of what would then follow clearly weren't thought out.

As a Chelsea supporter of course I am happier with the two game ban being reduced but at the same time as a football supporter I am disgusted with the FA for their ability to get it wrong so often and by that I mean that we all should suck up things as they were and both they and PGMOL need a root and branch review in both structure and have rules that are applied consistently and indeed by a truly independent and professional body.

 

[Chipmeister]

No wind up within the wording it actually mentions one game ban

As a genuine Football fan who loves the great game I can see this decision will lead to many more appeals in the future for red card offences for retaliation, be that retaliation a push,tackle because he "did me earlier" or whatever may be the case put forward it is to the detriment of the game.
Would you agree it has set a precedent to the detriment of the game.

A red card for violent conduct being an automatic 3 game ban is no longer the case, it is now really open to an appeal for every case.

When you started this thread you asked that people not to make comments through club coloured glasses. I know to some it may well seem that my postings have been driven by the team I support but my intention was to post things as they are as opposed to what I wish they were

I am told that the rule that I mention has been in place for many years and that the number of appeals made using this rule is rare

What does come over to me is the FA in trying to keep everyone happy end up achieving the near exact opposite . For an organisation that generates such wealth they really could and should be getting the very best to take charge yet the main FA Council is made up of representatives from local FAs who in reality are way out of their depth .

I have a sneaky feeling that Chelsea were almost directed down this appeal route by the FA who were stung by the criticism from so many about their inability to revisit the initial incident and what them happened appears to me to suggest that the various scenarios of what would then follow clearly weren't thought out.

As a Chelsea supporter of course I am happier with the two game ban being reduced but at the same time as a football supporter I am disgusted with the FA for their ability to get it wrong so often and by that I mean that we all should suck up things as they were and both they and PGMOL need a root and branch review in both structure and have rules that are applied consistently and indeed by a truly independent and professional body.

Very well put, we do indeed see things through our coloured glasses in most cases. Your input in this topic has been most welcome and an ability to be objective is not always easy for us fans. This case however has stirred many emotions in terms of the appeal and secondly the decision made by the FA for the greater good of the game. It has just made everything seem very murky when as you say the FA seem to have tried to keep everybody happy when quite the opposite has happened.

I to am disgusted with the FA who again continue to make things up as they go along when they are the custodians of our great game, let's hope this might bring a new approach and a catalyst for the incompetences of the past to be a thing of the past. I just doubt it very much.

 

[waspish]

From the BBC Gossip page:

Referees' chief Mike Riley led a failed peace mission to placate Jose Mourinho after the Chelsea manager publicly bemoaned the performance of officials

Pathetic if true. Ref performances are at an all time low under Riley

Probably true Mike Riley is cowering Coward weak minded shite he shouldn't be head of referees and is why referees now are total shite and inconsistent...