What punishment do you think is fair for what he did and do you see this as eight or 12 matches? I see it as eight matches, because the first four are mandatory and standard in accordance to the rules of the game. Any other player in the same circumstance would have picked up the same four match suspension had it been the second time they received a red card in the same season. So that's pretty normal in my eyes and completely fair and accurate with the disciplinary rules. They obviously should have looked into Carlos Tevez striking him as well and if that was worthy then he should have picked up a suspension for violent conduct too (three matches if he hadn't been sent off previously this season or accumulated the necessary points through yellow cards to warrant an additional match on top). But to be honest, that doesn't have any impact on Barton's case, it would still be the same outcome and they'd be judged on their own merits. I still am unsure how they've applied the context of the day, because like I said, even without the context of the day his ban should have been for 11 matches, plus the original four, taking it to 15 matches. It suggests that the original offences were deemed lesser perhaps, maybe three games a piece and they've added additional matches for whatever else they considered and balanced some of it out with a £75K fine. It's certainly unusual, and of course, it was done by an independent regulatory panel and not the FA themselves, though how that actually works in practice and how it's applied, I'm not sure. I was very impressed however by the report I read by such a panel about the Luis Suarez/Patrice Evra case. It's about 150+ pages long but well worth a read if you get the chance.
You make your point very well Neil. My issue is less the extent of the suspension but more the verdict and justification (whether it was 8 or 15 matches in total). They presumably couldn't take into account Tevez because they'd previously judged it inconsequentail (and I'd guess the regulatory board is within the confines of the FAs remit) and so that undermines the decision. Stating the extensive media coverage (ie viewing audiences etc) as further vindication of their verdict is quite blatantly wrong IMO - the media coverage leading up to the game was extreme with everyone trying to hype it as much as possible. Our already fragile (in temperamental terms) Joey will have been wound so tight about the match that he was bound to go off at somepoint (it could have been argued that THAT is why he is being punished as such but then Clarke Carlisle has just confirmed on the BBC website that JB has made significant efforts to address this problem although "not quite" there yet). It's like winding up a spinning top too tight - the media cranked it up, Tevez pulled out the pin and it went off in a berserk fashion but there is more to it than just a coil (albeit a faulty one) yet that is the sole consideration. That's fair enough if that's what they want to do but don't bring the enormity of the match into it as a witness for the prosecution without using it as a witness for the defence too. I feel that irrespective of length of ban.
I'm heading off to the Lake District for a charity hike this weekend and need to release my QPR related angst before I go (while adding to the backlog work I'll need to do on my laptop when I get back Monday night).
