10 game ban for a bite....zero game ban for a scratch.

I think they based it on the fact that one incident is very very bad and disgusting and the other one isn't.

Lol scousers never fail to disappoint do they?

makes you think doesn;t it

scratching is not that far off biting especially a n i p

if suarez had taken a chunk out of ivanovic then fair enough.

what torres has done is still ******* bang out of order.

It's a long way off when the person doing the biting had served a lengthy ban for doing it before.

and he scratched his face/neck! if suarez bit ivanovic there, he would have got an even bigger ban.

so zero ban ???

and suarez yes deserved a ban but 10 games???
especially when brton commited 2 offences v city and only got 8 games.

ben thatcher got 8 i think for nearly killing someone.

this stinks and defo makes you think that the fa are runnign scarred of certain teams.

******* b*** league imo

I dont think Vertonghen realised how intentional the scratching was


Watching the replay im amazed he doesnt spark him

Oct 1, 2013 -- 4:40PM, G1_Jockey_4 wrote:

so zero ban ???and suarez yes deserved a ban but 10 games???especially when brton commited 2 offences v city and only got 8 games.ben thatcher got 8 i think for nearly killing someone.this stinks and defo makes you think that the fa are runnign scarred of certain teams.

Oh come the **** on, you quote is it a deserved 10 match ban?  Yes it is, when he got a seven match ban for doing the exact same thing the next time he commits the same offence it is going to be stronger punishment.  If you are going to put an argument for or against at least include the pertinent bits of information eh?

Yep G1,

The bigger clubs always get the breaks... you just have to live with it.

so will you tbb

boing boing


as for the ten match ban.
well that was in the dutch league and even the fa said that was irrelevant...

the point being a repeat offender...joey barton...comits 2 offences and lets face it that was just as bad yet gets 8 games.

ben thatcher could have killed someone and gets 8 games!!!


so when you weigh it all up ten for what he has done IS not right.....and then zero for torres HAHAHAHA

Oh come the **** on, you quote is it a deserved 10 match ban?  Yes it is, when he got a seven match ban for doing the exact same thing the next time he commits the same offence it is going to be stronger punishment.  If you are going to put an argument for or against at least include the pertinent bits of information eh?

they weren't bound by the decision from the Dutch league as far as I know

ben thatcher could have killed someone and gets 8 games!!!


better off hospitalising someone than biting them if you want a shorter ban

the message the fa are sending out to youngsters is.

dont bite but its ok to scratch someone or nearly gauge their eye out.

well done you bunch of *****

dont bite but its ok to scratch someone or nearly gauge their eye out.

Oh give over you clown.

Torres will have nearly gouged his brain out by the time you've finished.

what should he have got then sunshine??

come on coco what should he have got???

Look the FA rules are clear on this. If one of the officials has seen an incident then no further action can be taken. He should have been sent off for it but wasn't.

Your constant wah wahing about poor hard done by Luis plus your embellishment of what Torres really did is all a bit embarrassing.

so then why was thatcher done????

what do YOU think he should have got??torres that is not thatcher...imo thatcher should ahve got the same as cantona

and no its not embarrasing

your just letting us know how you feel about it...embarrasing.
the fa have acted disgracefully again....mcmanaman was another one last season.

Oct 2, 2013 -- 4:32PM, aaronh wrote:

Oh come the **** on, you quote is it a deserved 10 match ban?  Yes it is, when he got a seven match ban for doing the exact same thing the next time he commits the same offence it is going to be stronger punishment.  If you are going to put an argument for or against at least include the pertinent bits of information eh?they weren't bound by the decision from the Dutch league as far as I know

Quite right aaron but no doubt was factored in.

Take it from me it's embarrassing.

Thatcher was done in 2006 under a different disciplinary process to the one that's there now. Plus if you honestly think what Torres did compares in any way to what Thatcher did you're even more deluded than I thought.

Marcce • October 2, 2013 4:46 PM BST
Look the FA rules are clear on this. If one of the officials has seen an incident then no further action can be taken. He should have been sent off for it but wasn't.

another farcical rule of the FAs btw

It's not really the FA though. It all comes from UEFA and FIFA not wanting games to be re-refereed.

you can throw all the insults int he world to make your defensive stance look "credible" ....but you cant even admit that should have got quite a few games.

it pains you to admit it.

anyways the plot thickens.....fa failed to investigate match fixing allegations.

come on fs we know your gonna be implicated in negligent/manslaughter charges soon but at least try to stay transparent till then

Your examples are a bit off G1, Thatcher should never have been allowed on a football pitch again after what he did to Mendes, especially considering he had done exactly the same thing before.

Suarez deserved his ban, only a fool would suggest otherwise.

And the FA are just as culpable.

If one of the officials did see the Torres incident - which I doubt btw considering he was clearly booked for the foul preceding it - why did the ref not send him off? And why did the FA not publicly remind the referee that actually attempting to perform the first half of a face transplant is a red-card offence?

When you see how they have behaved with Calum McManaman though, you wouldn't trust them to do anything right.

i agree

suarez did deserve a ban.

10 matches no chance.
when you use other players bans ( a good yardstick for transparency) i think 6 would have been right.

barton i think got 4 both both incidents yet imo the second was far far worse and should have got the same as suarez's bit.

i agree thatchers should have been a much linger ban...like i said earlier probably the same as cantonas....maybe the whole year would have been right.

to let torres go free for that is a laugh and you have to start suspecting something fishy is going on here.......kick racism out of football...oh but eye gauging is ok

but you cant even admit that should have got quite a few games.

Torres should have been sent off and that should have got a 3 game ban. However, the reasons are clear as to why that didn't happen. It's the same reason nothing happened to McManaman and to Suarez for that matter following that stamp on Jones.

Should it have been dealt with as an "exceptional" case the way Suarez's bite was dealt with? Not in my opinion. Contrary to what you keep saying there was no eye gouging at all. The very fact that you have to exaggerate the incident indicates you know that it didn't compare to Suarez.

Regarding the 10 game ban with Suarez regardless of what the FA claimed, the Dutch punishment had to play a part. If you were given a sentence for assaulting someone would you expect to get a lesser sentence if you went out and did exactly the same thing again a year or two later?

Regarding the 10 game ban with Suarez regardless of what the FA claimed, the Dutch punishment had to play a part.

so what you are saying is that the fa are lying ****s and are about as transparent as the albanian league when it comes to match fixing??

lets not go into their failure to investigate those incidents highlighted int he papers lol

that makes it all the more suspicious.