[Archived] Barton - Yes Or Not

[67splitscreen]

MGP invites Barton to dinner

[thenodrog]

  On 11/11/2010 at 12:44, Blue n White Rover said:

Exactly, so just because he is on a football field does not mean he should get away with it. The agony he must be facing when he receives a 3 math ban eh? Getting paid over £25k a week will ease the pain.

I seem to rem that Bartons on 2-3 times that amount.

[Kelbo]

  On 11/11/2010 at 12:27, DE4life said:

Barton should receive a ban for it, no question, but it's not like he threw a right-cross at Pedder's, decked him and then got on top of him and started pounding his face. He gave him a dig into his chest, which probably hurt a little, but it's nothing worse than you see at an average sunday league match or even the 6-a-side leagues I play in. Obviously this is a professional league and you can't do that, especially with impressionable kids watching, but I'm more annoyed that neither the lino or the ref picked up on it. Barton's an aggressive knob, and no doubt a nasty character, but what he did last night wasn't that bad and I can understand MGP playing it down. A retrospective 3 game ban would suffice as punishment - based on the fact he would have been sent off had the referee seen it.

Are you for real? Football is a mans game, yes, you get incidents where you could explode if a really bad tackle went in, but in this instance there was nothing of the kind, Barton is a thug, unable to control himself and I would go as far as to say a lifetime ban now, he's had his chances!

[92er]

A general point when it comes to banning players when the ref misses the offense.

I think Gordon made a really good point:when the player is banned, it doesn't give any advantage to the team that by rights

should have had a numerical advantage during the match. I understand a 10 man team doesn't always lose, but I was quite

struck by the idea of one the matches to be missed should be against the team who, like us last night, should have had an

advantage but didn't get it.

[Tom]

  On 11/11/2010 at 21:13, thenodrog said:

I seem to rem that Bartons on 2-3 times that amount.

Rumoured to be around £70k a week

[DE.]

  On 11/11/2010 at 21:20, Kelbo said:

Are you for real? Football is a mans game, yes, you get incidents where you could explode if a really bad tackle went in, but in this instance there was nothing of the kind, Barton is a thug, unable to control himself and I would go as far as to say a lifetime ban now, he's had his chances!

Well, that's your opinion. If he'd struck MGP flush in the face with his fist and/or booted him repeatedly on the floor I might agree, but a thrust into the chest? I've seen worse from plenty of other players in the Premiership in the past including Rovers players and they haven't received lifetime bans. He doesn't really have form for taking players out on the pitch so he can't be judged to be a danger to other players based on that. He's been a violent thug off the pitch in the past, but can that really be taken into account when handing out the punishment? As much as I dislike Barton personally, I think any punishment dished out should solely reflect the specific incident in question. In which case, it's a 3 game ban for violent conduct.

[BuckyRover]

  On 11/11/2010 at 21:57, DE4life said:

Well, that's your opinion. If he'd struck MGP flush in the face with his fist and/or booted him repeatedly on the floor I might agree, but a thrust into the chest? I've seen worse from plenty of other players in the Premiership in the past including Rovers players and they haven't received lifetime bans. He doesn't really have form for taking players out on the pitch so he can't be judged to be a danger to other players based on that. He's been a violent thug off the pitch in the past, but can that really be taken into account when handing out the punishment? As much as I dislike Barton personally, I think any punishment dished out should solely reflect the specific incident in question. In which case, it's a 3 game ban for violent conduct.

When was the last time you saw a Premiership player throw and connect with a punch?

I believe you are wrong.

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

I cant remember the last time i saw such a blatant punch being thrown seemingly completely unprovoked during a match. The guy is lucky he has the ability to play professional football.

[Smithy]

  On 11/11/2010 at 17:29, 67splitscreen said:

MGP invites Barton to dinner

I wonder if Morten will get his food from these guys?

[47er]

  On 11/11/2010 at 11:56, Torgeir said:

Morten has come out and defended Barton, saying it was something that happened in the heat of the moment - and that he would invite him out for dinner next time Blackburn face Newcastle.

Careful with that cigar Barton!

[Steve Moss]

  On 11/11/2010 at 21:30, 92er said:

I think Gordon made a really good point:when the player is banned, it doesn't give any advantage to the team that by rights should have had a numerical advantage during the match. . . . but I was quite struck by the idea of one the matches to be missed should be against the team who, like us last night, should have had an advantage but didn't get it.

I agree with this. It makes absolute sense, which is why the FA will never adopt it.

But the Rovers do benefit indirectly. Despite his anger/stability issues, Barton is a key figure in Newcastle's line up. They will have to do without him for three matches, which will (hopefully) impair their offense and defense and, consequently, make it more likely that they'll not pick up points within the near term. Gives us a better chance to close the gap if we can score a win or two over the next three matches.

[Inta Beaver]

I've just heard on SSN Barton has been given a 3 match ban, I hope I heard that wrong.

[thenodrog]

  On 12/11/2010 at 07:28, Inta Beaver said:

I've just heard on SSN Barton has been given a 3 match ban, I hope I heard that wrong.

Why? Did you want him let off?

  On 12/11/2010 at 01:59, smoss said:

I agree with this. It makes absolute sense, which is why the FA will never adopt it.

But the Rovers do benefit indirectly. Despite his anger/stability issues, Barton is a key figure in Newcastle's line up. They will have to do without him for three matches, which will (hopefully) impair their offense and defense and, consequently, make it more likely that they'll not pick up points within the near term. Gives us a better chance to close the gap if we can score a win or two over the next three matches.

How will it help BRFC if the Mags next three fixtures are against our rivals in the bottom 6? I think the result is interfering with your judgement, would it make a difference to your opinion smoss if we had drawn or lost the match on Wed when by rights Barton should have been sent off?

[philipl]

It can only be more than three matches if the player contests and it goes to a hearing.

He has just said I did it so he gets the ban he would have got had he been sent off.

Re MG crumpling. One thing to take a punch to the chest from one highly trained athlete to another if you are expecting it. Quite another if the blow arrives totally unexpectedly.

[Inta Beaver]

  On 12/11/2010 at 08:32, thenodrog said:

Why? Did you want him let off?

I course I didn't want them to let him off, I just feel for what he did he deserves a bigger ban.

[den]

  On 12/11/2010 at 09:09, Inta Beaver said:

I just feel for what he did he deserves a bigger ban.

I agree with you Inta. Some of the things Barton has done and continues to do, both on and off the field, should be sending messages to the sporting governing body who's priority should be to uphold behavioural standards. What kind of message does it send to academy lads who can see the "antics" that Barton has got up to all of his footballing career, and who just serves his ban and is allowed to continue with his despicable behaviour? Behaviour that's included throwing punches on the field, stubbing Cigars in the eyes of kids in training,being jailed for violent conduct off the field etc, etc? Is he allowed to do whatever he wants, for as long as he wants? If next game he breaks someones jaw, should another three match ban suffice - again? Should he be stopped once and for all? I think so.

[roversmum]

Barton's regret

[Hughesy]

Thing that annoys me about suspensions is that it benefits 'other' teams, not us.

If you get a 3 game ban, wouldnt it be a good idea to suspend the final game to the next time you face the side you saw red against? Therefore meaning Barton would miss the trip to Ewood?

[Pugg]

  On 12/11/2010 at 12:38, Hughesy said:

If you get a 3 game ban, wouldnt it be a good idea to suspend the final game to the next time you face the side you saw red against? Therefore meaning Barton would miss the trip to Ewood?

There are problems with this. One off the top of my head would be if they wouldn't be likely to face us for a long time, eg if it was the second time we'd faced them and one of us got relegated.

[PAFELL]

  On 12/11/2010 at 10:59, den said:

I agree with you Inta. Some of the things Barton has done and continues to do, both on and off the field, should be sending messages to the sporting governing body who's priority should be to uphold behavioural standards. What kind of message does it send to academy lads who can see the "antics" that Barton has got up to all of his footballing career, and who just serves his ban and is allowed to continue with his despicable behaviour? Behaviour that's included throwing punches on the field, stubbing Cigars in the eyes of kids in training,being jailed for violent conduct off the field etc, etc? Is he allowed to do whatever he wants, for as long as he wants? If next game he breaks someones jaw, should another three match ban suffice - again? Should he be stopped once and for all? I think so.

Is it not the same with any legal stuff. If a person commits and offence they are punished for that offence alone. Past offending histry is not meant to be taken into consideration as the punishment would have already been handed out and often already served. A person could get fined for speeding (as an example) one year, pays the fine etc. Then does not commit another driving offence of any kind for, say 10 years. should the past be brought up again '10 years ago you did this and that'?

How many of us have done stupid things, say when we were drunk in our younger days. Things maybe only you or mates know. Then you mature and cannot believe what things you used to do I agree Barton has an very bad history. But is what he has done worse than cantona's behavior when he jumped into the crowd. Yet he was and still is held as a genius. People say walk away from provocation, easy words but hard to apply. Some people are able to do it better than others. I think a person should be punished for the offence they have just committed and not on history.

[tony gale's mic]

  On 12/11/2010 at 13:12, PAFELL said:

Is it not the same with any legal stuff. If a person commits and offence they are punished for that offence alone. Past offending histry is not meant to be taken into consideration as the punishment would have already been handed out and often already served. A person could get fined for speeding (as an example) one year, pays the fine etc. Then does not commit another driving offence of any kind for, say 10 years. should the past be brought up again '10 years ago you did this and that'?

How many of us have done stupid things, say when we were drunk in our younger days. Things maybe only you or mates know. Then you mature and cannot believe what things you used to do I agree Barton has an very bad history. But is what he has done worse than cantona's behavior when he jumped into the crowd. Yet he was and still is held as a genius. People say walk away from provocation, easy words but hard to apply. Some people are able to do it better than others. I think a person should be punished for the offence they have just committed and not on history.

I'm no legal expert but I'm fairly sure past offending history plays a pretty big role in sentencing...

[den]

  On 12/11/2010 at 13:12, PAFELL said:

Is it not the same with any legal stuff. If a person commits and offence they are punished for that offence alone. Past offending histry is not meant to be taken into consideration as the punishment would have already been handed out and often already served.

As TGM pointed out, past history is taken into account.

  On 12/11/2010 at 13:12, PAFELL said:

People say walk away from provocation, easy words but hard to apply. Some people are able to do it better than others.

Most of the despicable offences that Barton has committed haven't been the result of any provocation Pafell. Plus, in my opinion this latest punch into Pedersen's chest was about as bad as it can get on a football field.

The way you put this argument, seems to be that as long as he's prepared to take a three match ban, then he can do precisely what he wants. Can this be right?

[BuckyRover]

  On 12/11/2010 at 13:42, tony gale said:

I'm no legal expert but I'm fairly sure past offending history plays a pretty big role in sentencing...

It does. The jury doesn't know anything about past offences but the judge does when deciding the sentence.

[92er]

I think it's arguable Barton committed 2 offences to MGP.

He punched him.

Then he made out he had only slapped him.

I am not arguing Barton should have been given a longer ban.

I am not arguing he should have had the book thrown at him.

But I am arguing it was not the action of a contrite person.

It was the action of a person trying to manipulate the system.

[Tom]

What bugs me is they keep mentioning this provocacation by Pedersen but he didn't nothing at all bar from brush past him.

Hate to see how he reacts if anyone really winds him up.