Is this violence?

What Joey Barton does here..



We're just talking about the act of Joey Barton here, nothing else.

Theo says Grabbing an opponent is not serious foul play or violent conduct. He used this to back himself up..



Which proves him wrong in the first sentence.

Excessive force or brutality? I don't use this word often, but in this case I'll make an exception, if you think that's violent conduct you're a phaggot.

The way he grabbed him is violent conduct imo.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Excessive force or brutality? I don't use this word often, but in this case I'll make an exception, if you think that's violent conduct you're a phaggot.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Excessive force or brutality? I don't use this word often, but in this case I'll make an exception, if you think that's violent conduct you're a phaggot.

I told him already, it isn't excessive or brutality.

[11:29:55] Ben : Grabbing an opponent is not serious foul play
[11:29:56] Chris: and then sent off
[11:30:04] Ben : or violent conduct
[11:30:09] Chris: yes it is
[11:30:54] Ben : http://gyazo.com/6d0d6109ee2b35aa070d55f288a0dd61
[11:31:25] Ben : Do you class grabbing a player as excessive force or brutality? If yes then you would abandon many matches.

It's blatant use of excessive force against an opponent not challenging for the ball.

Excessive force is force that is over the top if you're too thick to understand, he didn't need to go near him so of course its excessive.

Theo Filippo wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Excessive force or brutality? I don't use this word often, but in this case I'll make an exception, if you think that's violent conduct you're a phaggot.

I told him already, it isn't excessive or brutality.

[11:29:55] Ben : Grabbing an opponent is not serious foul play
[11:29:56] Chris: and then sent off
[11:30:04] Ben : or violent conduct
[11:30:09] Chris: yes it is
[11:30:54] Ben : http://gyazo.com/6d0d6109ee2b35aa070d55f288a0dd61
[11:31:25] Ben : Do you class grabbing a player as excessive force or brutality? If yes then you would abandon many matches.

Abandoned? Are we talking about a red card here? I thought we were talking about whether it's a foul.

kyro7 wrote:

Theo Filippo wrote:I told him already, it isn't excessive or brutality.

[11:29:55] Ben : Grabbing an opponent is not serious foul play
[11:29:56] Chris: and then sent off
[11:30:04] Ben : or violent conduct
[11:30:09] Chris: yes it is
[11:30:54] Ben : http://gyazo.com/6d0d6109ee2b35aa070d55f288a0dd61
[11:31:25] Ben : Do you class grabbing a player as excessive force or brutality? If yes then you would abandon many matches.

Abandoned? Are we talking about a red card here? I thought we were talking about whether it's a foul.

No I was taking the piss because he said it was a red card too.

Theo Filippo wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

Theo Filippo wrote:I told him already, it isn't excessive or brutality.

[11:29:55] Ben : Grabbing an opponent is not serious foul play
[11:29:56] Chris: and then sent off
[11:30:04] Ben : or violent conduct
[11:30:09] Chris: yes it is
[11:30:54] Ben : http://gyazo.com/6d0d6109ee2b35aa070d55f288a0dd61
[11:31:25] Ben : Do you class grabbing a player as excessive force or brutality? If yes then you would abandon many matches.

Abandoned? Are we talking about a red card here? I thought we were talking about whether it's a foul.

No I was taking the piss because he said it was a red card too.

Not a red card imo but when you grab someone like that, I think it is under the Excessive force, especially when you do it in such an aggressive way.

Chris wrote:It's blatant use of excessive force against an opponent not challenging for the ball.

Excessive force is force that is over the top if you're too thick to understand, he didn't need to go near him so of course its excessive.

I think you need to man up a bit here, there's was nothing excessive or brutal in that incident. It was battery by the law of the land, it was a penalty, but it wasn't violent conduct. I'm well aware of the definition of the word "excessive", let's not play stupid games here, I simply interpret it differently to you. Sending a player off for that would be farcical.

Ben what the fuck? This is the bit you cut off..

[11:29:50] Chris: in the arsenal game
[11:29:54] Chris: gervinho got assaulted
[11:29:56] Ben Ohana: Grabbing an opponent is not serious foul play
[11:29:59] Chris: and then sent off

Don't make stuff up you cunt, I was talking about gervinho being sent off, not saying barton should have been.

kyro7 wrote:

Theo Filippo wrote:No I was taking the piss because he said it was a red card too.

Not a red card imo but when you grab someone like that, I think it is under the Excessive force, especially when you do it in such an aggressive way.

If it's excessive force then it must be a red card.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

Theo Filippo wrote:No I was taking the piss because he said it was a red card too.

Not a red card imo but when you grab someone like that, I think it is under the Excessive force, especially when you do it in such an aggressive way.

If it's excessive force then it must be a red card.

Hmm.. maybe it's just my view on what Excessive force is.. I would definitely not red card Barton for that, but from the start my whole point has been if it's a penalty.

The point is.. it's violence.

I said to Ben if I did that to him is it not assault, he said no. Yet i've seen police arrest people for assault for much less.

Chris wrote:The point is.. it's violence.

I said to Ben if I did that to him is it not assault, he said no. Yet i've seen police arrest people for assault for much less.

You're conflating three different issues here.

A) Is it a penalty? Yes, under Law 12, because he holds an opponent in the box while the ball is in play

B) Is it assault/battery? Yes, under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861

C) Is it violent conduct? No, because it is not an excessive or brutal level of force

ResurrectionRooney wrote:A) Is it a penalty? Yes, under Law 12, because he holds an opponent in the box while the ball is in play

So Theo is wrong, knew that rule he put in the other thread about it not being a penalty was bullshit.

kyro7 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:A) Is it a penalty? Yes, under Law 12, because he holds an opponent in the box while the ball is in play

So Theo is wrong.

[11:58:46] Chris: remember this ben
[11:58:50] Chris: the thread is called
[11:58:52] Chris: is this violence
[11:58:54] Chris: because you said
[11:58:55] Chris: its not
[11:59:04] Chris: anything else
[11:59:07] Chris: is besides the point

We cannot discuss penalties in this thread, I am the winner of this thread.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Chris wrote:The point is.. it's violence.

I said to Ben if I did that to him is it not assault, he said no. Yet i've seen police arrest people for assault for much less.

You're conflating three different issues here.

A) Is it a penalty? Yes, under Law 12, because he holds an opponent in the box while the ball is in play

B) Is it assault/battery? Yes, under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861

C) Is it violent conduct? No, because it is not an excessive or brutal level of force

A) You're saying Theo is wrong, he thinks its an in-direct freekick.

B) Again agreeing with me against Theo, he said its not assault.

C) If it's not excessive force, it must be nessecary force.. it wasn't needed though. Of course its excessive.

Theo Filippo wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:A) Is it a penalty? Yes, under Law 12, because he holds an opponent in the box while the ball is in play

So Theo is wrong.

[11:58:46] Chris: remember this ben
[11:58:50] Chris: the thread is called
[11:58:52] Chris: is this violence
[11:58:54] Chris: because you said
[11:58:55] Chris: its not
[11:59:04] Chris: anything else
[11:59:07] Chris: is besides the point

We cannot discuss penalties in this thread, I am the winner of this thread.

Maybe but the only thing I was challenging was this:

Theo Filippo wrote:

We're done, apology accepted Chris.

kyro7 wrote:Is that in the box? Because if so why are penalties given for pulling shirts?

Chris wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

You're conflating three different issues here.

A) Is it a penalty? Yes, under Law 12, because he holds an opponent in the box while the ball is in play

B) Is it assault/battery? Yes, under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861

C) Is it violent conduct? No, because it is not an excessive or brutal level of force

A) You're saying Theo is wrong, he thinks its an in-direct freekick.

B) Again agreeing with me against Theo, he said its not assault.

C) If it's not excessive force, it must be nessecary force.. it wasn't needed though. Of course its excessive.

A) I'm telling you the truth, I don't care who I'm agreeing with or disagreeing with

B) As above

C) That is an impractical interpretation of the law. If two players put their heads up against each other they are exreting force on one another which is clearly not necessary. It's not violent conduct though.

Despite Theo being wrong in everything he has said, the main point was what Barton did is violence.

You have to be thick as pig shit to believe that If you did what Barton did to Gervinho to somebody it is not violence. You can see the anger in his face, he a known violent man and this is the reason. I've seen people arrested for less.

Chris wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

You're conflating three different issues here.

A) Is it a penalty? Yes, under Law 12, because he holds an opponent in the box while the ball is in play

B) Is it assault/battery? Yes, under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861

C) Is it violent conduct? No, because it is not an excessive or brutal level of force

A) You're saying Theo is wrong, he thinks its an in-direct freekick.

B) Again agreeing with me against Theo, he said its not assault.

C) If it's not excessive force, it must be nessecary force.. it wasn't needed though. Of course its excessive.

I said it's not assault in football, bringing real life scenarios into this like 'If you did this infront of a copper you would be handcuffed' are not relevant, therefore B is void. It's not excessive force or brutality therefore it isn't a red card.

Theo Filippo wrote:

Chris wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

You're conflating three different issues here.

A) Is it a penalty? Yes, under Law 12, because he holds an opponent in the box while the ball is in play

B) Is it assault/battery? Yes, under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861

C) Is it violent conduct? No, because it is not an excessive or brutal level of force

A) You're saying Theo is wrong, he thinks its an in-direct freekick.

B) Again agreeing with me against Theo, he said its not assault.

C) If it's not excessive force, it must be nessecary force.. it wasn't needed though. Of course its excessive.

I said it's not assault in football, bringing real life scenarios into this like 'If you did this infront of a copper you would be handcuffed' are not relevant, therefore B is void. It's not excessive force or brutality therefore it isn't a red card.

Surely with that he's saying it's assault though? Which you didn't agree with.

Chris wrote:Despite Theo being wrong in everything he has said, the main point was what Barton did is violence.

You have to be thick as pig shit to believe that If you did what Barton did to Gervinho to somebody it is not violence. You can see the anger in his face, he a known violent man and this is the reason. I've seen people arrested for less.

Chris, do you think Theo and I are actually thick as pig shit? If you do then I don't think there's any points in continuing this conversation. If you don't, then please retract and apologise for that statement, we can discuss this matter at a level of mutual respect rather than being unnecessarily rude to one another.

The anger in his face and the legality of his actions under the law of the land are irrelevant here, what is relevant is whether it is an excessive or brutal exertion of force by Barton on Gervinho, and I don't think it is without using an extremely stringent interpretation of the terms in question.

this is like the discussion about who got the goal nani or tevez

being on the other side.. you all look stupid

Res what he did was violent whether you like it or not.

How come Barton went flying?

Chris wrote:Res what he did was violent whether you like it or not.

In your opinion.