Saint Charlie Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 Fair ban. Ludicrous thing to do. Comparisons to other incidents proove the FA got some of them wrong but in isolation this is about right for a disgusting thing to do. Hopefully his previous was also taken into account because it DOES make a difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 Fair ban. Ludicrous thing to do. Comparisons to other incidents proove the FA got some of them wrong but in isolation this is about right for a disgusting thing to do. You cant run a sustainable disciplinary regime without taking previous punishments for the same incident into account. How would we feel is Gaston got a 10 game ban and somebody else gets just a yellow card for exactly the same offense. It is a disgusting thing to do, but it's disgusting when an England player does it as well as a foreigner. I can see Suarez getting extra because of past behaviour, but 10 games is well OTT bearing in mind the precedent the FA set with Defoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian lord Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 (edited) You cant run a sustainable disciplinary regime without taking previous punishments for the same incident into account. How would we feel is Gaston got a 10 game ban and somebody else gets just a yellow card for exactly the same offense. It is a disgusting thing to do, but it's disgusting when an England player does it as well as a foreigner. I can see Suarez getting extra because of past behaviour, but 10 games is well OTT bearing in mind the precedent the FA set with Defoe. Account is taken of the guidelines for punishing such offences in isolation, but sentencing also takes into account the offender's previous offences, and rightly so. Also any mitigation. So yes Suarez was given a 10 match ban for what he did in the context of what he's done previously. NOT for who he is ie a "smarmy foreigner". Many may think he's that too, but it's not a part of the sentencing calculations. Edited 24 April, 2013 by adrian lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 Will the whole Liverpool squad wear t-shirts supporting him again? Got to be worth a minute's silence and a few more banners on the kop at least. Got to be worth a candle lit vigil at least I'd have thought. I think the ban is perfectly reasonable. This wasn't just a reckless tackle he is deliberately trying to injure another player and it's not the first time he has done it. I can't have any sympathy for him, he is a racist, cheating, violent *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 1 minutes silence at Liverpool's next home game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 Joke decision. It's not the easiest thing or the easiest player to defend, but the ban is this length because of who he is, plain and simple. Defoe bites someone and gets a yellow card, Suarez gets 10 games. Now I'm sure the FA will point to the rule that because the ref saw it and acted they could not increase Defoe's punishment. However as Ben Thatcher found out, they can act if they consider the act extreme. Now the normal ban for violent conduct is 3 games, unless the conduct is considered extreme. It seems like Defoe's bite was not extreme enough to up grade the yellow, yet Suarez's was extreme enough for an extra 7 games. That's Defoe the England international as opposed to Suarez the smarmy foreigner. The whole thing stinks. Suarez has form, he's not a first time offender. Already been banned in Holland for biting an opponent. Old lags always get extra time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 Account is taken of the guidelines for punishing such offences in isolation, but sentencing also takes into account the offender's previous offences, and rightly so. Also any mitigation. So yes Suarez was given a 10 match ban for what he did in the context of what he's done previously. NOT for who he is ie a "smarmy foreigner". Many may think he's that too, but it's not a part of the sentencing calculations. Do you think Defoe got off lightly by only receiving a yellow card and do you believe that had Suarez been give a yellow card the FA would have left it at that? Why did John Terry get 4 games for racial abuse and Suarez 8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 Do you think Defoe got off lightly by only receiving a yellow card and do you believe that had Suarez been give a yellow card the FA would have left it at that? Why did John Terry get 4 games for racial abuse and Suarez 8? I'm confused as to what you are trying to say here. Suarez actually bit somebody, during a football match. It wasn't a mistimed or misjudged tackle, or a handball on the line that was probably intentional; he deliberately sank his teeth into a players arm. I would have thought that a ten match ban was lenient in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 I'm confused as to what you are trying to say here. Suarez actually bit somebody, during a football match. It wasn't a mistimed or misjudged tackle, or a handball on the line that was probably intentional; he deliberately sank his teeth into a players arm. I would have thought that a ten match ban was lenient in the extreme. Let's look at the facts. Defoe bit someone and Suarez bit someone. Dofoe's bite was seen and he was given a yellow card. The FA decided that it was not an exceptional circumstance and therefore did not "re referee" the game and allowed the punishment to stand. Suarez's bite was not seen by the official, so faced a charge. The standard punishment for violent conduct is 3 games, unless exceptional circumstances. My opinion is that biting is either exceptional or it's not. It cant be exceptional for Suarez but not Defoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 I don't knoq what all the fuss is about. It's a witch hunt and racially motivated. When you consider the Rooney -Ronaldo incident and they got clean away with far worse than a bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 Let's look at the facts. Defoe bit someone and Suarez bit someone. Dofoe's bite was seen and he was given a yellow card. The FA decided that it was not an exceptional circumstance and therefore did not "re referee" the game and allowed the punishment to stand. Suarez's bite was not seen by the official, so faced a charge. The standard punishment for violent conduct is 3 games, unless exceptional circumstances. My opinion is that biting is either exceptional or it's not. It cant be exceptional for Suarez but not Defoe. Defoe got off ridiculously lightly. He's another little freak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 24 April, 2013 Share Posted 24 April, 2013 Liverpool fans at their classiest tonight. Calling on their players to retire from or boycott England internationals, as the punishment by the FA is so harsh... You can be the absolute scum of the earth but put on a Liverpool shirt and they'll love you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 Liverpool fans at their classiest tonight. Calling on their players to retire from or boycott England internationals, as the punishment by the FA is so harsh... You can be the absolute scum of the earth but put on a Liverpool shirt and they'll love you. Lets hope so for the rest of us!! Be brilliant..we would miss the likes of Henderson, Johnson, Sturridge, Downing, Shelvey, Carroll, Kelly...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian lord Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 Let's look at the facts. Defoe bit someone and Suarez bit someone. Dofoe's bite was seen and he was given a yellow card. The FA decided that it was not an exceptional circumstance and therefore did not "re referee" the game and allowed the punishment to stand. Suarez's bite was not seen by the official, so faced a charge. The standard punishment for violent conduct is 3 games, unless exceptional circumstances. My opinion is that biting is either exceptional or it's not. It cant be exceptional for Suarez but not Defoe. Why do you think the Courts have a range of sentences to apply at their discretion for the same offences? For example manslaughter can lead to anything from life in jail to noncustodial sentences. It is because each case is considered on it's own merits and circumstances, taking into account, inter alia, previous offences. How difficult is that to grasp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 Why do you think the Courts have a range of sentences to apply at their discretion for the same offences? For example manslaughter can lead to anything from life in jail to noncustodial sentences. It is because each case is considered on it's own merits and circumstances, taking into account, inter alia, previous offences. How difficult is that to grasp? How difficult is it to grasp the unfairness of one player getting a yellow card and one player getting a 10 game ban, for exactly the same offense. The Defoe case was not considered on it's merits, the FA deemed that biting did not come under their exceptional circumstances rule and therefore the ref's decision stood. Surely you can see the unfairness in that, compared to the exceptional circumstance that led to a 10 game ban, rather than the standard 3. I'm pretty sure people on here would if, it was a Southampton player whose punishment was so much greater than a Spurs player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 Liverpool fans at their classiest tonight. Calling on their players to retire from or boycott England internationals, as the punishment by the FA is so harsh... You can be the absolute scum of the earth but put on a Liverpool shirt and they'll love you. Bit like Saints fans were over BWP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 Bit like Saints fans were over BWP? If BWP had been a liverpool player nicking phones in a nightclub near everton, they'd have hailed him as a hero and called for a pay rise. Thats crazy dimond's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 If BWP had been a liverpool player nicking phones in a nightclub near everton, they'd have hailed him as a hero and called for a pay rise. Thats crazy dimond's point. And my point is that Saints fans sang songs about BWP and that "incident". Liverpool fans are no different than supporters of every club, one eyed and willing to forgive most things that their players have done. We seem to have forgiven a bit of spot fixing from one of our greats. Yes, the Hillsborough stuff makes the club slightly different, but I'm pretty sure had 96 Saints fans died in one of our 80's semi finals we'd want to get to the bottom of the cover up. Are you seriously trying to say that had Rickie Lambert done the same thing as Suarez (unlikely, but then Defoe did it), our supporters would be any different? No chance, it'll be exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 (edited) Last I heard biting someone counted as assault. Possibly even ABH if it causes bleeding and/or bruising. The point is that if I did that to someone at work, I'd find myself without a job fairly quickly. I think Suarez can count himself relatively lucky in the grand scheme of things. A few Saturday afternoons off work (most likely still on full pay) really isn't that much of a punishment. Lord Duck - We may have sang songs about it but that was pretty much a p*ss take on the terraces. Very few people, other than a selection of small minded Muppets, actually supported what he did. A few even wanted him sacked from the club but apparently you can't sack a footballer either, even for gross misconduct. If Lambert did the same I would be hugely disappointed in him too. He wouldn't though because it takes a special kind of kn*bber to go around biting and racially abusing other players. Edited 25 April, 2013 by Lighthouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 It#s different in Uruguay, biting people is a friendly form of greeting even a sign of affection. When will people understand he is just from a different culture and they do things differently over there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 We may If Lambert did the same I would be hugely disappointed in him too. He wouldn't though because it takes a special kind of kn*bber to go around biting and racially abusing other players. I accept what you're saying, but some pundits and papers seem to have selective memory. I don't recall such a circus over Defoe biting Mascherano, so this is clearly down to the individual and the fact it was Suarez. What I find hard to understand is that Terry got 4 games for racial abuse and he got 8, Defoe got a yellow and he got 10 games. It's not easy to defend someone as ignorant and unpleasant as Suarez, however the FA have shown a complete and utter lack of consistency so I can quite understand why Liverpool supporters are unhappy about the punishment. You can be appalled by the offense and still think the punishment is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 And my point is that Saints fans sang songs about BWP and that "incident". Liverpool fans are no different than supporters of every club, one eyed and willing to forgive most things that their players have done. We seem to have forgiven a bit of spot fixing from one of our greats. Yes, the Hillsborough stuff makes the club slightly different, but I'm pretty sure had 96 Saints fans died in one of our 80's semi finals we'd want to get to the bottom of the cover up. Are you seriously trying to say that had Rickie Lambert done the same thing as Suarez (unlikely, but then Defoe did it), our supporters would be any different? No chance, it'll be exactly the same. Hard as I try, I cannot imagine any circumstances in which Rickie Lambert would bite another player. As for the BWP case, yeh, he got a few joke chants from the crowd, but was roundly condemned by the overwhelming majority of saints fans, not least on here. And he was sold as soon as it became practical to do so, while Suarez has already been told that Liverpool want to retain him for the duration of his contract regardless of the assault. If you cant see any difference between the two cases there's really no point debating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 I accept what you're saying, but some pundits and papers seem to have selective memory. I don't recall such a circus over Defoe biting Mascherano, so this is clearly down to the individual and the fact it was Suarez. What I find hard to understand is that Terry got 4 games for racial abuse and he got 8, Defoe got a yellow and he got 10 games. It's not easy to defend someone as ignorant and unpleasant as Suarez, however the FA have shown a complete and utter lack of consistency so I can quite understand why Liverpool supporters are unhappy about the punishment. You can be appalled by the offense and still think the punishment is wrong. They are right to be upset about the inconsistency of the FA. I've never understood how Prutton got a 10 game ban for a heat of the moment, small push on the ref, whilst Roy keane only got 5 for deliberately ending Haaland's career. The issue isn't that Suarez is being victimised here, it's that Defoe and Terry got off stupidly lightly. On the other hand players like Barton and Prutton, who are both English, received sizeable punishments for their misdemeanours. The Dutch FA gave Suarez 7 games for the first biting incident, so 10 games for a repeat offence would seem fairly consistent to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 Prutton's ban was because a ref was involved. Had he pushed a player in the same way chances are he'd have just been carded. There is no justification for biting. The ban handed to Suarez is appropriate IMO. Had he bitten a ref id hope the ban would have been substantially increased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 I think that if Liverpool finally decide not to keep him he will have achieved his objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 Prutton's ban was because a ref was involved. Had he pushed a player in the same way chances are he'd have just been carded. There is no justification for biting. The ban handed to Suarez is appropriate IMO. Had he bitten a ref id hope the ban would have been substantially increased. So it's not so much the bite as the who you bite? What if he had bitten a fan? Shorter or longer ban? What about a disabled fan? A ball boy? A child? A disabled child? A disabled child ball boy who wanted to be a ref? The FA really need to make a chart to show what happens when you bite who. I guess it is like on here. Mug off bearsy and you get lols, Jeff le taxi and you get away with it, a main boarder and you might get an infraction but mug off a mod or Baj and you are facing a ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 They are right to be upset about the inconsistency of the FA. I've never understood how Prutton got a 10 game ban for a heat of the moment, small push on the ref, whilst Roy keane only got 5 for deliberately ending Haaland's career. The issue isn't that Suarez is being victimised here, it's that Defoe and Terry got off stupidly lightly. On the other hand players like Barton and Prutton, who are both English, received sizeable punishments for their misdemeanours. The Dutch FA gave Suarez 7 games for the first biting incident, so 10 games for a repeat offence would seem fairly consistent to me. This has been beyond my comprehension for years, and yet the media still use the vicious c*nt, imo he should have been put down in the interests of the human gene-pool, he's a really nasty piece of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 Racism and biting combined, the guy misses half a season. He's a nasty individual, and I wouldn't like him to play for us - just as I didn't like BWP and Dyer playing for us after they had stolen from some poor woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 25 April, 2013 Share Posted 25 April, 2013 I think Suarez got 10 matches because he's got teeth like a horse and could eat an apple through a letterbox. Defoe has got smaller teeth, so a yellow was deemed sufficient. Ivanovic is lucky he didn't lose his arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 26 April, 2013 Share Posted 26 April, 2013 I don't knoq what all the fuss is about. It's a witch hunt and racially motivated. When you consider the Rooney -Ronaldo incident and they got clean away with far worse than a bite. Dont forget these shameful incidents, either...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 25 October, 2014 Share Posted 25 October, 2014 Anyone got a good stream for El classico? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 25 October, 2014 Share Posted 25 October, 2014 Suarez sets up the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now