Jump to content

 

 

EIGHT Game Ban For Thatcher From FA


Recommended Posts

The Football Association have hit Ben Thatcher with an eight-game suspension for his vicious attack on Portsmouth's Pedro Mendes at Eastlands last month.

 

The 30-year-old Manchester City defender was only booked at the time by referee Dermot Gallagher, who failed to spot the former Wales international smashing his forearm into Mendes' face as the pair chased for possession during the second half of the goalless Premiership draw.

 

Aware of the severity of the incident, the FA circumnavigated their own rules to lodge a charge of "serious foul play" against Thatcher.

 

The FA have now delivered their punishment which is backdated to include the two matches Thatcher has served of a club-imposed suspension, meaning the player will miss six more games.

 

In addition, the FA have also given Thatcher a 15-game ban, which will be suspended for two years and will be triggered should the defender ever find himself in a similar situation again.

 

The Blues had stated the former Leicester player would miss four games as punishment, with a further two suspended. Manager Stuart Pearce expressed a wish last Friday that the FA should merely confirm the punishment City had imposed and allow the player to get on with his career.

 

Instead, the FA have decided to clamp down hard on Thatcher, offering the player a clear warning about his future conduct.

 

Effectively, Thatcher will now not be available to play for City the end of October, which must place a question mark over the long-term City career of a player whose contract is due to expire in the summer.

 

(re-opens) Thatcher's representative gave a statement outside the FA's headquarters at Soho Square.

 

He said: "Mr Thatcher accepts the FA's decision without question. He now wishes to serve his suspension, put the incident behind him and get on with his career."

 

(reopens) A City spokesman said: "We note the findings of the disciplinary committee and are pleased the FA have taken our own disciplinary action into account."

 

I think the threat of a bigger ban is a good way to go to keep players in line. Not that they should shy out of challenges or anything, but tbh, what he did was not a challenge in the slightest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.