• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Torres

What would have happened had this been Suarez? I'm not trying to say he is targeted by the FA like some demented Kopite, far from it, but surely it must be one rule across the board. Torres has gotten away with this, mainly due to Mourinho's comments, that is what annoys me about this
 
So one of the officials saw it , or some of the incident thus no action can be taken.

So its taken them nearly two days to mull that over whilst knocking back the best wine and nosh known to mankind.:-k
 
I feel I need to take a lynch mob up to Wembley stadium, walk up to Greg 'I'm a tool' Dyke and shout in his face.. NO

Liverpool now have the right to feel like they are being victimised

Why is there so many fcuking loopholes. FFS. The FA needs to come out today, now, right this minute with revised rules.

Hang on can I phone the cops and say I saw an assault on the pitch at WHL on Saturday.
 
Perhaps Jan should now contact the police and ask for an assault charge to be made on torres. See the FA backtrack quickly then.
 
I just don't get it.

If the refs saw the incident clearly they made a ridiculous decision by not sending him off. In which case they should be in for he harshest of criticism, journalistic questioning and probably a temporary stint at a lower league.

If they didn't see it then surely retroactive punishment should be possible.

Most likely it wouldn't have benefited us anyway, but these rules and rulings are laughable.
 
I thought they had altered the rules this summer so that retrospective action could be taken in cases like this one where one of the officials saw the incident, but not the full extent of it. They kept saying there would be changes made after that McManaman incident last season at least. Seems like they had a meeting and just decided to keep the same flawed system that has been in place all along.

It is quite extraordinary how pretty much every football association, whether it is the FA, FIFA or UEFA, always manages to make rules and regulations that make no sense at all to any person with half a brain in the real world though. They all have their heads stuck up their own arses.
 
King of Norway said:
I thought they had altered the rules this summer so that retrospective action could be taken in cases like this one where one of the officials saw the incident, but not the full extent of it. They kept saying there would be changes made after that McManaman incident last season at least. Seems like they had a meeting and just decided to keep the same flawed system that has been in place all along.

It is quite extraordinary how pretty much every football association, whether it is the FA, FIFA or UEFA, always manages to make rules and regulations that make no sense at all to any person with half a brain in the real world though. They all have their heads stuck up their own arses.
Click to expand...

There was a change:

http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/jul/retrospective-action-rule-change-120713.aspx

There has been a change to The FA's retrospective action process for the new season

The FA has made a change to its policy regarding what constitutes a 'not seen' incident for the new season.

From the start of the 2013-14 campaign, where the referee’s view of an incident has been completely obstructed and the assistant referees or fourth official are not in a position such that they could be expected to judge the challenge, based on factors such as their distance from or line of sight to an incident, The FA will be able to take retrospective action.

The amendment follows a tackle last season involving Wigan’s Callum McManaman and Saudi Sportswashing Machine’s Massadio Haidara in which the match referee’s view of the incident was blocked whilst the other match officials were not in a position to judge exactly what had occurred.

Prior to this change, which was ratified by The Football Regulatory Authority, The FA was only able to take retrospective action when none of the match officials had seen the ‘coming together’ or when the incident was truly exceptional, for example, in the case of Ben Thatcher's challenge on Pedro Mendes.

This change is not intended to usurp the authority of the match officials who are, in the vast majority of cases, best-placed to deal with incidents at the time they occur. It will only be utilised in the rare circumstances outlined above.
Click to expand...

So still worded in a way that they can essentially make whatever decision they feel like in any individual situation. When is the ref's view completely obstructed? At which point can't the assistant referees be expected to judge on a situation?
 
I think one of our club executives if not Levy should take a stand and call the police about an assault on one of our players.
 
Ginola99 said:
The video on the link i put on the previous page does a good job of explaining the situation.. Doesn't make it right, just explains it all a bit better..

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/rulebookanalysis/not-seen-incidents.aspx#
Click to expand...

Cheers for posting, that video does explain the rules fairly well I think. Although I think it's from before the latest rule change made this summer? The last date mentioned was a meeting after the 2011/12 season. So it doesn't contain any information on the change in retrospective actions that can be taken.

Just how vague the rules are, and how they can be interpreted any way is also highlighted by this article by Graham Poll:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2437633/Fernando-Torres-disgrace-Chelsea-v-Tottenham-GRAHAM-POLL.html

Fernando Torres should face at least a three-match ban for his spiteful, cowardly assault on Tottenham defender Jan Vertonghen and the FA has the power to enforce such a punishment.

[...]

Referee Mike Dean saw the trip, but his view was not clear of the follow-up by the Spaniard, who grabbed his opponent and appeared to try and press a thumb into his face and scratch his cheek with his fingers.

You could see the spite on Torres’ face and there appeared to be an intention to cause harm. There is no place on the football field for such actions, which rugby sees too often and always cites and punishes with video evidence.

Let’s be clear here — Torres should have been sent off. And as the violent incident was clearly missed by all of the match officials, the FA can now have the incident reviewed by their disciplinary panel, which must surely recommend a suspension.

I would expect Dean to confirm that he would have sent off Torres had he had the chance to see the incident — any select group referee would have done so.
Click to expand...

(I only copy-pasted part of the article)

When Graham Poll can be this sure that a retrospective ban is in order and that the FA has the power do hand out such a ban, but the FA sees it completely differently I struggle to see how there can ever be consistency.

Le Saux talked in that video about "exceptional circumstances". I also struggle to see how this wasn't an exceptional circumstance by just about any useful definition of that term. He also talked about off the ball incidents being the main target of retrospective action, this was clearly an off the ball incident.
 
braineclipse said:
There was a change:

http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/jul/retrospective-action-rule-change-120713.aspx



So still worded in a way that they can essentially make whatever decision they feel like in any individual situation. When is the ref's view completely obstructed? At which point can't the assistant referees be expected to judge on a situation?
Click to expand...
The wording of the main paragraph there is so vague that I doubt that the people in the FA understand what it means themselves. This is probably the idea though. As you say, it gives them the opportunity to make the decision that suits them in every seperate case.

And, if Mike Dean and/or his assistant on that side, actually had a clear view of the incident, and still decided not to give a red card, I would expect them to get demoted to the Blue Square division next weekend. Clearly they didn't see what happened. They aren't that incompetent. I think that the FA wants to defend/protect its referees, but it actually has the opposite effect when things like this happens. It makes the referees look even worse than they are.
 
King of Norway said:
The wording of the main paragraph there is so vague that I doubt that the people in the FA understand what it means themselves. This is probably the idea though. As you say, it gives them the opportunity to make the decision that suits them in every seperate case.

And, if Mike Dean and/or his assistant on that side, actually had a clear view of the incident, and still decided not to give a red card, I would expect them to get demoted to the Blue Square division next weekend. Clearly they didn't see what happened. They aren't that incompetent. I think that the FA wants to defend/protect its referees, but it actually has the opposite effect when things like this happens. It makes the referees look even worse than they are.
Click to expand...

I agree fully.

In a way their stubbornness on these situations undermines the referees further as their errors are magnified by the lack of retrospective punishment.

As an example, assume that Dean gave the yellow to Torres for putting his hand up to Vertonghen's face, he saw that and thus "the incident", but he didn't see the scratch from Torres. Obviously a yellow card is the wrong decision. The right decision is a red followed by at least a 3 match ban. Had the FA given Torres a retrospective 3 match ban then at least that part would have been just. As it is the error made by the ref in the first place leads to another error, the following ban not being given.

In some of these situations, if the ref doesn't see a situation clearly, the FA puts the referees in a situation where giving a yellow for what they did see essentially becomes advantageous to the offender compared to not giving a card at all. That's pretty ridiculous. And for the FA to put the referees and the offenders in this position in the name of "protecting the authority of the referee" makes very little sense at best.
 
Quelle surprise! How spineless are the FA? They are happy to clamp down on a club whose fans wish to use one word to defend themselves against racist and anti-Semitic abuse, but when it comes to a player of a perceived big club, assaulting a player of another perceived smaller club, they decide to do nothing.

Not only does this further dilute the "Respect" initiative to almost nothing, but it also incentivises arrogant "a-holes" like Mourinho that it is acceptable to brand a victim of an assault 'a disgrace'. The man himself and the FA are the 'disgraces' in this whole sorry affair. It is a sad indictment of how far this regulatory body and this particular manager has fallen in the eyes of decent law abiding fans and those players and managers who carry themselves with dignity and real respect. Shame on the FA!
 
Last edited:
I watched this along with my old man (a Chelsea bod), and couldn't work out what the 2nd yellow/red was all about. I thought the Ref must have seen something else, or Torres had give the Ref some lip.

I watched MoTD with much the same reaction.

When I got home, I watched the MoTD coverage and saw that Torres looked around, then went up against Dembele with a leading arm. The ref put his whistle to his lips before he raeched Vrtonghen.

THEN Torres charged across towards Vertonghen.

Quite when the ref BLEW is unclear, but in hindsight I think it was for the first tackle and his hot-headed charge at Vertonghen. This is supported by the ref at one point (not on BBC?) showing a high arm gesture after the 2nd booking.

I've yet to read about today's development (surrender), but believe the BBC ought to employ me rather than the inepts who know not the laws, nor watch the action, and fail to seek out the replay angles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back