jose probably sucked off whoever made the decision
Brown envelopes from Abramovich
http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/oct/fernando-torres-chelsea-tottenham.aspx
They really are making it up as they go along aren't they?
It was the only reasonable outcome. Torres did nothing wrong. As usual Sky and the rest of the media, and silly little girl spurs fans, played it up to try and get a Chelsea player a ban.
It was the only reasonable outcome. Torres did nothing wrong. As usual Sky and the rest of the media, and silly little girl spurs fans, played it up to try and get a Chelsea player a ban.
(ok)
What I don't understand is that they said one of the officials didn't see it in its entirety so surely they can review it? In fact vertonghen is shielding the view of the scratch from the assistant anyway.
FA come across as complete idiots. This sends the message out that it's fine to go around scratching other players faces.
Robcuff - just made that same point on the Chelsea board. So they've not seen the full incident, so by their own rules they could make a judgement. Doesn't make any sense.
comment by Robcuff (U10939)
posted 16 seconds ago
What I don't understand is that they said one of the officials didn't see it in its entirety so surely they can review it? In fact vertonghen is shielding the view of the scratch from the assistant anyway.
FA come across as complete idiots. This sends the message out that it's fine to go around scratching other players faces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He clearly didn't scratch it. There were no nails involved. If there has of been, there would be some physical evidence of that; which there wasn't so that speaks volumes about the severity of the "attack".
As usual, it was merely a cynical attempt for the Chelsea-hating media to try and get one of Chelsea's players banned. Didn't work this time
Fernando is an awful player so they felt pity on him
50million pounds
It was the only reasonable outcome. Torres did nothing wrong.
------------------------------
Other than the face clawing incident?
It was the only reasonable outcome. Torres did nothing wrong.
other than the claw and being a general ?
If there has of been, there would be some physical evidence of that; which there wasn't so that speaks volumes about the severity of the "attack".
------
Don't think there was any substantial mark on Ivanovic after the suarez bite, but that resulted in a lenghty ban. The two incidents are very similar in that both players lost control for a couple of seconds. I personally think the suarez ban was too harsh (or at least the media attention over the top) but these two should have had similar punishments. My opinion anyway.
The ruling is a victory for common sense
He clearly didn't scratch it. There were no nails involved. If there has of been, there would be some physical evidence of that; which there wasn't so that speaks volumes about the severity of the "attack".
As usual, it was merely a cynical attempt for the Chelsea-hating media to try and get one of Chelsea's players banned. Didn't work this time
-------------------
Putting your hand in another players face, with or without nails is / used to be an offence by definition.
comment by NotSoMagicJuande (U1913)
posted 4 seconds ago
If there has of been, there would be some physical evidence of that; which there wasn't so that speaks volumes about the severity of the "attack".
------
Don't think there was any substantial mark on Ivanovic after the suarez bite, but that resulted in a lenghty ban. The two incidents are very similar in that both players lost control for a couple of seconds. I personally think the suarez ban was too harsh (or at least the media attention over the top) but these two should have had similar punishments. My opinion anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attempting to sink your teeth into someone's flesh is a little more savage than brushing your fingers over someone's face.
I thought players could get sent off for moving their heads at opponents. Not damaging but intent is there. Torres didn't cause damage but if you grab someone's face it is not acceptable. Really don't see what message the FA are trying to send.
Torres will still be banned for the red card right?
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8846440.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/torres_vertonghen.jpg
Looks lovely
It's fecking Chelsea say no more ....just one question.....what if it had been Suarez ?
Funny, spurs fans weren't so eager to remove all forms of violence from the game when Defoe bit somebody.
Funny, spurs fans weren't so eager to remove all forms of violence from the game when Defoe bit somebody.
That was 2006
And none of us were even on a forum back then
Headsgone!
It's just ridiculous that the point of a retrospective punishment is to act when officials haven't fully seen an incident aka Suarez, McManaman. But the reasoning for not being act on this incident is that an official has seen it but not in its entirety. FA tying themselves up in knots.
comment by Thudd LaFleur (U1029)
posted 15 seconds ago
Funny, spurs fans weren't so eager to remove all forms of violence from the game when Defoe bit somebody.
That was 2006
And none of us were even on a forum back then
Headsgone!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did I mention Spurs fans on here? I do know people in RL who support other teams you know
comment by About time I had one of these (U4234)
posted 19 seconds ago
Funny, spurs fans weren't so eager to remove all forms of violence from the game when Defoe bit somebody.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jermain Defoe should have been banned for that bite. Try and look at this from an unbiased view point and not just a from a Chelsea perspective. What if the roles had been reversed?
Sign in if you want to comment
FA bottles it.
Page 1 of 5
posted on 1/10/13
jose probably sucked off whoever made the decision
posted on 1/10/13
Brown envelopes from Abramovich
posted on 1/10/13
http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/oct/fernando-torres-chelsea-tottenham.aspx
posted on 1/10/13
They really are making it up as they go along aren't they?
posted on 1/10/13
It was the only reasonable outcome. Torres did nothing wrong. As usual Sky and the rest of the media, and silly little girl spurs fans, played it up to try and get a Chelsea player a ban.
posted on 1/10/13
It was the only reasonable outcome. Torres did nothing wrong. As usual Sky and the rest of the media, and silly little girl spurs fans, played it up to try and get a Chelsea player a ban.
(ok)
posted on 1/10/13
What I don't understand is that they said one of the officials didn't see it in its entirety so surely they can review it? In fact vertonghen is shielding the view of the scratch from the assistant anyway.
FA come across as complete idiots. This sends the message out that it's fine to go around scratching other players faces.
posted on 1/10/13
Robcuff - just made that same point on the Chelsea board. So they've not seen the full incident, so by their own rules they could make a judgement. Doesn't make any sense.
posted on 1/10/13
comment by Robcuff (U10939)
posted 16 seconds ago
What I don't understand is that they said one of the officials didn't see it in its entirety so surely they can review it? In fact vertonghen is shielding the view of the scratch from the assistant anyway.
FA come across as complete idiots. This sends the message out that it's fine to go around scratching other players faces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He clearly didn't scratch it. There were no nails involved. If there has of been, there would be some physical evidence of that; which there wasn't so that speaks volumes about the severity of the "attack".
As usual, it was merely a cynical attempt for the Chelsea-hating media to try and get one of Chelsea's players banned. Didn't work this time
posted on 1/10/13
Fernando is an awful player so they felt pity on him
50million pounds
posted on 1/10/13
It was the only reasonable outcome. Torres did nothing wrong.
------------------------------
Other than the face clawing incident?
posted on 1/10/13
It was the only reasonable outcome. Torres did nothing wrong.
other than the claw and being a general ?
posted on 1/10/13
If there has of been, there would be some physical evidence of that; which there wasn't so that speaks volumes about the severity of the "attack".
------
Don't think there was any substantial mark on Ivanovic after the suarez bite, but that resulted in a lenghty ban. The two incidents are very similar in that both players lost control for a couple of seconds. I personally think the suarez ban was too harsh (or at least the media attention over the top) but these two should have had similar punishments. My opinion anyway.
posted on 1/10/13
The ruling is a victory for common sense
posted on 1/10/13
He clearly didn't scratch it. There were no nails involved. If there has of been, there would be some physical evidence of that; which there wasn't so that speaks volumes about the severity of the "attack".
As usual, it was merely a cynical attempt for the Chelsea-hating media to try and get one of Chelsea's players banned. Didn't work this time
-------------------
Putting your hand in another players face, with or without nails is / used to be an offence by definition.
posted on 1/10/13
comment by NotSoMagicJuande (U1913)
posted 4 seconds ago
If there has of been, there would be some physical evidence of that; which there wasn't so that speaks volumes about the severity of the "attack".
------
Don't think there was any substantial mark on Ivanovic after the suarez bite, but that resulted in a lenghty ban. The two incidents are very similar in that both players lost control for a couple of seconds. I personally think the suarez ban was too harsh (or at least the media attention over the top) but these two should have had similar punishments. My opinion anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attempting to sink your teeth into someone's flesh is a little more savage than brushing your fingers over someone's face.
posted on 1/10/13
I thought players could get sent off for moving their heads at opponents. Not damaging but intent is there. Torres didn't cause damage but if you grab someone's face it is not acceptable. Really don't see what message the FA are trying to send.
posted on 1/10/13
Torres will still be banned for the red card right?
posted on 1/10/13
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8846440.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/torres_vertonghen.jpg
Looks lovely
posted on 1/10/13
It's fecking Chelsea say no more ....just one question.....what if it had been Suarez ?
posted on 1/10/13
Funny, spurs fans weren't so eager to remove all forms of violence from the game when Defoe bit somebody.
posted on 1/10/13
Funny, spurs fans weren't so eager to remove all forms of violence from the game when Defoe bit somebody.
That was 2006
And none of us were even on a forum back then
Headsgone!
posted on 1/10/13
It's just ridiculous that the point of a retrospective punishment is to act when officials haven't fully seen an incident aka Suarez, McManaman. But the reasoning for not being act on this incident is that an official has seen it but not in its entirety. FA tying themselves up in knots.
posted on 1/10/13
comment by Thudd LaFleur (U1029)
posted 15 seconds ago
Funny, spurs fans weren't so eager to remove all forms of violence from the game when Defoe bit somebody.
That was 2006
And none of us were even on a forum back then
Headsgone!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did I mention Spurs fans on here? I do know people in RL who support other teams you know
posted on 1/10/13
comment by About time I had one of these (U4234)
posted 19 seconds ago
Funny, spurs fans weren't so eager to remove all forms of violence from the game when Defoe bit somebody.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jermain Defoe should have been banned for that bite. Try and look at this from an unbiased view point and not just a from a Chelsea perspective. What if the roles had been reversed?
Page 1 of 5