I wouldn't dispute that Notso. As I think the Sky commentator said at the time, Tevez started it. However, that still can't disguise the fact that Barton completely lost his head ( again!) and was prepared to attack the whole of the Man City team, if he hadn't been restrained. He's a thug, simple as...
From that Mail piece: "Mr Dean was questioned about the "Tevez" incident for which Mr Barton was dismissed. It was confirmed that neither the referee nor the assistant saw the alleged incident of Mr Tevez striking Mr Barton although Mr Barton immediately made representations to Mr Dean that is what happened, and such comments by Mr Barton can be clearly seen in the video. The commission accept that Mr Barton was aggrieved by the action of Mr Tevez and Mr Dean confirmed that had the incident been seen by the officials as shown by the clip supplied by Mr Barton, it would have been an automatic red card." So where's the suspension for Tevez, then? Not seen by the officials, the ref admits it should've and would've been a red had he seen it... what am I missing?
From what was suggested yesterday, as it's not 100% clear what Tevez's intention was, ( although pretty clear, I admit) that City and Tevez would fight the charge, with reasonable hope of success. One can only assume that the authorities don't feel that they have an iron clad enough case to charge him.
Dean said that it was a red card, though. Let them fight it and dismiss their appeal, without adding on an extra game for a frivolous attempt to overturn it. The system's currently ridiculous. There's absolutely no consistency at all and some of the decisions reached are ludicrous. The Balotelli and Lescott situation after our game at the Etihad was a good example. Two cases to answer and only one ban, for arguably the less clear cut one, too.
Yes, but this can't be a case of " let's give him a fair trial, and then we'll hang him" just because it's Tevez.
Not just because he's Tevez, but because he clearly committed a red card offence and got away with it. The officials didn't see it and it was caught on camera. That's what's supposed to happen, isn't it, unless you're Wayne Rooney and the ref's Clattenburg, Webb et al?
Not defending Barton at all NSIS, both should have gone is my argument here. The ref did not see or deal with the Tevez swipe, so retrospectively that could have been acted on. I believe the FA are powerless if the ref deals with it, in this case he didn't. I still don't know why who ever watched that incident back, let Tevez off. Its violent conduct and he should be missing the first 3 games next season imo...if he stays with them.
The difference being, that had Dean seen what he thought was a red card, he would have sent Tevez off, and then he would have had to appeal. As it is, the boot is on the other foot. Tevez escaped without sanction on the day, and the F.A, must now decide whether they have a good enough case to change him. So, instead of the punishment having automatically been imposed by his dismissal, it's now a case of trying to prosecute in retrospect. It really depends on whether they feel that they have a strong enough case to take on what would almost certainly be a robust defence from City, and Tevez
I understand what you're saying NSIS, but I think it's a pretty clear cut case and it appears that the ref does, too. I'd just like to see the system consistently applied.
I suppose it comes down to who they're taking on, unfortunately. I can't disagree that had it been a player from one of the smaller Prem clubs, that the F.A. would be more liable to act. Maybe they feel that in taking on City, and it's lawyers, there's too big a chance of them being left with egg on their faces. Cowardly, I agree, but that seems to be the way of it.
