Wengers comments - what is he on about?

Lack of point? I believe, and others have agreed with, Arsenal and Spurs fans alike that i have made some reasoned points. If i said i think you're a horrible and incredibly stupid person, which for the record i dont, that is an insulting statement, or is it just me informing you of my opinion which you should take in good heart?

And i dont desire for players to assualt one another, hence why i said Song should be rightly reprimanded

The class behind van persies glass (ankles) (U8678)

So how exactly have I insulted you? Seriously - it's not an insult to say that I don't have anytime for people that want to see one player assault another.

And that is what you said.

"i was pleased he did it because as a person i believe Barton deserves that sort of treatment"

It is not insulting to tell you that this attitude appalls me.

I don't disagree that throwing a punch - whether or not it lands - is a dismissable offence.

However, what you seem to have missed is that both Dyer and Bowyer were sent but only one of them threw a punch. The other was sent for aggression shown and wrestling/grappling.

If Dyer wasn't sent for grappling and being aggressive, he must have been sent for being the target of Bowyer's punch, which would be silly. Both players lost their heads and were violently aggressive towards each other. That's what they went for.

So if it's ok to send a player off for grappling and excessive aggression which is viewed as violent conduct in 2005 it is reasonable to expect similar punishments to be given 6 years later.

I'm afraid the ghost penalty is a valid argument, as the ball was still live - the ref had waved play on. So unless Barton's actions are suddenly acceptable on a football field without punishment, it's an offence and one that occurred before Gervhino's slap. Therefore Barton must get punished, and I believe causing a fight in your own penalty box is unlikely to get leniency from a ref, had he seen the whole incident clearly.

So Barton can consider himself very lucky. He could have gone for the aggression shown. He could have gone for conceding a penalty by attacking a player.

He got away with it, and once again it's a lack of consistency that's the bane of referees.

"low-life"

You have every right to your opnion as i do mine, and the reason you called me a low life is because i said, "From an Arsenal fans perspective i was pleased he did it because as a person i believe Barton deserves that sort of treatment, however i fully except that in the laws of the game it is unacceptable and therefore song should be sanctioned accordingly."

If you'd said to me i dont agree with your statement as violence in football should not be supported then fine, i accept your point. but the low life bit was uneceassry. I completely understand why you feel like that regarding my statement, and i respect, and in no way would i want to see players going round physically assaulting eachtoher, there are some people in this world, like Joey Barton, and not trying to venture off topic, the recent rioters that i would like to see given a good pasting. Now, i am not trying to put Joey in the same bracket as them, i'm trying to highlight my point that i am of the opinion that some people need a good slap, personally i believe Barton is one of them

Oscandwarf (U3677)

In my opinion, they both threw a punch.

The other flaw in your point is that we could probably watch plenty of games where there has been a coming together but no one has been sent off. If you were honest, you'd admit that we could define 'putting heads together', pushing each other etc etc as aggressive. But they're not deemed as violent conduct by anone using common sense.

I have never said that it shouldn't have been a pen.

To use this as a stick to beat referees with is ridiculous. Just because you disagree with the referee's opinion, doesn't mean he's being inconsistent. How many incidents of grappling have we seen that have resulted in yellow cards? Lots.

You've had to go back to 2005, where punches were thrown, to try and prove inconsistency - that in itself shows what a poor point you've made.

The class behind van persies glass (ankles) (U8678)

I actually said that it was a low-life statement... I didn't call you a low-life. There's a difference. A low-life statement, or point of view, is something morally unacceptable. I believe your view is indeed morally unacceptable.

To say that it's an insult is just plain wrong, not to mention ridiculously pedantic.

From that you were insinuating a low life. Look, we're not getting anywhere here, you have your points and opinions, as i do mine. Call it what you will, pedantic or whatever, you're obviously articulate therefore i saw no need for that sort of statement. Danny, agree to disagree?

The class behind van persies glass (ankles) (U8678)

No problem - but maybe you shouldn't take things so personally next time

Danny, i didn't take it personally, "The thing is, you didn't hurt my feelings", see. what i didn't like was an insult when none was required. Not because it offended me, or because i took it personally, purely because it was unecessary in the context of the debate and adds nothing to the debate. Now, again, i offer out my hand, and say lets agree to disagree and enjoy the rest of your day

It wasn't an insult.

It was a statement that you perceived as an insult, and therefore you took it personally.

As above, you tell me what I insinuated. I did nothing of the sort - you just saw the term low-life and took offence.