http://www1.skysports.com/football/...ilure-to-punish-fernando-torres-is-a-disgrace Not sure what it has to do with the arrogant twat but rules are rules. Can't just make it up as oh go along to suit the outraged.
I haven't clicked the link but I assume AVB has a pop at his own player for being the aggressor to which Torres wrongly responded.
Loks to me like it's the dopey rule he's whingeing about, not us or Torres, well maybe a little bit !! Got to say I also think the FA are a laughing stock the way they apply this rule.
He has a right to feel aggrieved, but it's the FA's own ridiculous and senseless rule which has prevented any further punishment.
If you read the full quotes I think AVB went out of his way to make it clear that his opinion was nothing to do with it being Torres, Chelsea or against his team. He was just pointing out that it's ridiculous that you can get away with violent conduct when it was caught so clearly on the cameras. Lets face it we were all surprised that Torres didn't get a further ban, weren't we? You might not have liked it but I bet you were expecting it. You say they couldn't ban him under the FA's rules but this case was the precedent for the alteration to the rules. In that Sky Sports article it says the rule change said that retrospective action can be taken when the officials "are not in a position to fully assess a 'coming together' of players". Now clearly that could have applied here but the FA in setting this precedent have simply confirmed that the rule only applies when an official is too far away. It is a farce, the FA were under pressure after the McManaman tackle on Hadira last season. In response they basically said they would sort it for next season but in giving this Torres decision they've shown that they failed to understand what everyone was complaining about in the first place. People weren't furious that the official was too far away to fully assess the challenge, they were furious that a bad challenge went unpunished because of a technicality and that technicality still exists, albeit with a minor amendment. Like AVB I'm not annoyed about who it is, or what impact it has on Chelsea but I am annoyed that the FA looked to have fixed a serious problem in their laws over the summer but at the first test of it they've shown it means nothing.
I fail to see what AVB has done wrong here? I think both he and Mourinho have a right to their opinions post game and I (and I thought most on here were too) am in agreement that Torres should have received punishment for the scratch. Let's face it, if Soldado had done that to Luiz/Terry and escaped punishment we'd all be spitting feathers! Was a nasty, bitchy act and he's lucky to have escaped.
I'm just glad it wasn't Suarez but then again it's early in the season yet, something tells me the FA would have taken action.
What does he gain from Torres being banned? Torres was punished for a different offence and his team benefitted from gaining a point they would most likely not have gained otherwise. In the 2008/09 season, I completely understood why Fergie was aggrieved when Terry's red card against Manchester City was rescinded given it meant he was available for the game against United. When Aguero escaped a ban for what was borderline assault on Luiz, I don't recall Benitez or anyone at Chelsea once lambasting the FA for not banning him, nor do I recall Ivanovic/Benitez calling for Suarez to be banned after the bite.
AVB is lambasting the decision when he should be lambasting the process and the rules. Although we all agree Torres should have been banned as a matter of principle, the rules state otherwise.
We all know Torres should have been punished but so should Vertoghen. Had the FA looked at the entire incident they should have taken Vertoghen to task for diving,yellow,and then for being the aggressor, red. Then they could have given Torres his red. I think that would have been best and then no one could complain at all.
Perhaps he just has a view on what the fair answer is. You don't have to benefit from a ruling to agree or disagree with it.
Baffles me to the sending off came at just the right time for them as we were right on top of them they hadnt seriously threatened at all in the second half up to the sending off.
More of the same. The rules only allow violent conduct and serious foul play to be reviewed if the officials didn't see the incident. None of the things Vertonghen did fell into those categories and all of them were seen by the ref. So they were never going to be reviewed. If you think all refereeing decisions should be subject to review then start a debate on it. I don't think you'll get much support
Think that was just coincidental.Neither did anything wrong that I could see in the red card incident, apart from some overacting. Just plain dumb from Mike Read, who has plenty of previous for the same offence. What pisses me off is that we all see Torres on replay grab the face of an opponent, and yet the FA manage to make a pigs ear of the charge through some weird and lunatic thinking, and he gets off. FA utterly inept , should resign in shame. Couldn't organise a **** in a brothel with a pocketful of fivers.
Well it was an act of violence against his player and he believes it shouldn't go unpunished as then you feel as though they essentially got away with it. You could argue as well that, from a perspective as a rival, it would be of a disadvantage to us if we were missing Torres in the 3 games he would be banned for. Incidentally he's now been injured and is set to be out for probably the same amount of games he would have been had the FA punished him. Ironically this could be beneficiary for us as it will allow other players more game time and after today, I would like for us to continue with Ba for the time being (I still don't think he's had a fair chance) and I hope that Mourinho witnessed enough to agree with me.
