Rival Watch Thread Watch

Until this game I would have agreed with you.
Certainly when (as with the Rooney vs the Preston goalkeeper challenge), no actual contact is made, calling it a leg breaker is a little silly.
But, and call it Chelsea bias if you will, the tackle is above the ankle, studs up, over the ball, and you actually see the guys leg flex and bend from the impact, that is a leg breaker.
Why it didnt break? Matic might have particularly strong leg bones, Barnes may have realised what he was doing and pulled his weight off at the last minute.

 

Believe me......it wasn't...

 

Anyone who's ever played the game at any level whatsoever, knows what a leg breaker looks like.

Straight legged, front the side, on a muddy Sunday league pitch with a decent set of studs on the oppo's, his leg is planted and the full weight of the challenge snaps the leg.

On a snooker table pitch with short studs or blades, his leg wasn't fully planted and he didn't have his full weight on it, so the challenge didn't result in a serious injury. More by luck than judgement and the intent was certainly there, proper ****house challenge. No wonder he went ape in fairness. No way he'll get his red rescinded though, as they can't set a precedent re: retaliation, albeit for me the Burnley lad deserved a ****ing right hander.

 

It was a really bad challenge, imo, no question. I doubt he intended to hurt him, but it was reckless and he shouldn't escape punishment.

On a side note though, this leg bending assertion puzzles me. I must admit it does look like that, and I'm no expert on orthopaedics, but I'm not sure it's possible for adult bones to bend visibly so it seems weird. I'm wondering whether it's an optical illusion brought about the force of the challenge turning his ankle over and so the line through the leg from his knee - following the curve of his calf -, to the foot, gives the impression of a bend.
The guy must have rubber bones if they can bend that far out of line to be visible.

 

yes its possible... everything is possible. youve just seen the evidence on film.

 

Well the bone is surrounded by muscles and tendons, which do bend.
I am just as shocked that it didnt snap to be honest.

 

Of course they can bend. When they don't it's called osteoporosis and they break immediately.

Ever been on a plane and watched the wings? They are deliberately designed to bend so they don't snap.

 

Any slow motion video will show what appears to be 'bending' - but as you say bones can't bend to the extent we see in the video. Joints, however can bend. We can see in the slow replay of the tackle, the ankle and knee joints do bend in the way they have to, to take the force, watch a slow motion video of a football hitting a leg and the same thing happens. As someone else pointed, just look at a slow play of a boxing punch to the face, if you didn't know any better you'd think it would have done irreparable damage but it hasn't, it's the beauty of the human body and how our joints and muscles work.

 

Hmmm, I don't think a plane's wing is a fair analogy, tbh. I'm well aware that they bend, so do trees in the wind, and tall buildings.
I'm certain bones can bend a little, but enough to be clearly visible from a distance and then to immediately bend back to normal? I just think they'd break before the bend became that extreme, or in the very least he wouldn't be running about straight away.

Osteoporosis is an extreme condition where bones lose density and become brittle and not really relevant to my point.

 

A long bone can bend, it's the same as bending a ruler. You can get a decent flex on it, but then if you go a fraction over it's tolerance it'll snap.

Atheletes bones will be stronger than the average person anyway, due to their exercise regimes, weight training and highly controlled diets.

 

Yeah extremely nasty, but then as now the referees and FA are letting the culprits off with it on a technicality ie: "the referee saw the incident" but they cherry pick some for retro punishment even though the ref has seen it and flout their own rule.

Ain't heard Mourinho say take the matter to the league managers association and get them to confront the FA on it?, probably because he knows one of his own players is just as likely to do what he's condemning.

It'll never be sorted until there's consistency and a stop/start video panel decision at every game, we'd end like the NFL in the long run though if that happened, managers would be contesting everything that went against their team.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31613184

Matic ban reduced to 2 games

Shoving is now a FA-protected form of violence

#justdontbite

 

If and its a BIG if considering its The Daily Fail there is any truth in this the FA can't retro punish Rooney because he'd seen the dive and can't overturn the yellow, also at 2-1 PNE still had a chance of snatching a draw that would have earned them over £1m in gate and tv receipts.

But as its in the Fail its not true.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...mistake-referee-standards-row-rumbles-on.html

Makes the apology made by Rooney to the keeper all the more plausible though, what you reckon UIR?

 

So retaliation is now endorsed by the FA, brilliant! and chelsea said they are "appalled" by the FA's decision yet still have the gall to claim they are the victims of FA campaign
#cheekytwats

 

He beat you too it then Page

 

I'm surprised Hendo's knee didn't bend when E'to Kung Fu'd him last season, but as Jose said in an after match interview that he'd told E'to to do that, I suspect that's not part of the conspiracy.

 

Hardly lads he has a 2 match ban... It is setting a precedent though

A shove is not as violent as a punch and a ouch is not as bad as being a nasty potty mouth and biting is worse but being Joey Barton is unforgivable

Also seeing flipping the bird is one match it is least offensive of all

 

Also you all so know the actual rules for retrospective actions are clear and well published

It doesn't matter how bad something is as long as a ref says he saw it... There is nothing to allow a video panel say that ref saw an assault and did nothing. All they can act on is refs report saying I did not see it

 

So where exactly does the FA draw the line re what it considers as mitigation for players violent reaction.

"leg breaker" challenge even though you have walked away?
Team mate reacting on behalf of player who has had his leg broken?
Racist comments?
opponent saying he has slept with your wife?
finding out above is true and the child is not yours?
Cheating at cards?

Seeing as it is the FA they will just do the usual and make it up as they go along.

 

the ref saw barnes tackle or kick or whatever so............ the red card is usually an auto 3 matches.

terrific is right it is just making stuff up....