Jump to content

will we see Suarez in our first match? (Answer: No.)

offix

By offix,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
Not sure how the fans views sit with those of the club's American owners who are prepared to ditch him.

 

Whether that is a moral stance, or a pragmatic one as they think he is damaging the brand,

 

Its just PR. Better to sell him to Real Madrid for a huge amount of money citing his bite as the reason, rather than sell him to RM for a huge amount of money because you dont want to invest more in the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted (edited)
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=314077.520 seems to have got all excited. interesting that the mods there refuse to have it on the main board but stick it in some back water. Also lots of comments about it being the English media bigging it up, while there is a minority who realise that it can't be defended. I guess it natural that you don't want your prize asset being banned. Then there is a lot of "it's not as bad as a leg breaking tackle". But to me, this still is about pushing for a transfer as it was with the previous two incidents. Edited by angelman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=314077.520 seems to have got all excited. interesting that the mods there refuse to have it on the main board but stick it in some back water. Also lots of comments about it being the English media bigging it up, while there is a minority who realise that it can't be defended. I guess it natural that you don't want your prise asset being banned. But to me, this still is about pushing for a transfer as it was with the previous two incidents.

 

Can't imagine this incident will be well received at Barcelona or Real Madrid though. If anything this, especially if with a lengthy ban, will hamper the prospect of a move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=314077.520 seems to have got all excited. interesting that the mods there refuse to have it on the main board but stick it in some back water. Also lots of comments about it being the English media bigging it up, while there is a minority who realise that it can't be defended. I guess it natural that you don't want your prize asset being banned. Then there is a lot of "it's not as bad as a leg breaking tackle". But to me, this still is about pushing for a transfer as it was with the previous two incidents.

 

 

The English media are hypocrites, as is the FA and many many supporters. It is "part of the game" according to Martin Jol , I guess biting an Argie is ok when you're English. And before people start, there is no way I'm sticking up for Suerez, but why was Defoe treated so leniently, and if biting is such a horrendous offense why did nobody care about this?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-412157/Mascherano-rages-FA-punish-Defoe.html

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted

FIFA confirm they are opening disciplinary procedures...

 

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2014/m=6/news=disciplinary-proceedings-opened-against-luis-suarez-2384766.html

 

FIFA can confirm that disciplinary proceedings have been opened against the player Luis Suarez of Uruguay following an apparent breach of art. 48 and/or art. 57 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code during the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ match Italy-Uruguay played on 24 June 2014. The player and/or the Uruguayan FA are invited to provide with their position and any documentary evidence they deem relevant until 25 June 2014, 5pm, Brasilia time.

 

According to art. 77 lit. a of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), the FIFA Disciplinary Committee is responsible for sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials’ attention. Furthermore, according to art. 96 of the FDC, any type of proof may be produced (par. 1), in particular are admissible, reports from referees, declarations from the parties and witnesses, material evidence, audio or video recordings (par. 3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarrettIvo

GarrettIvo

Posted
Posted
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=314077.520 seems to have got all excited. interesting that the mods there refuse to have it on the main board but stick it in some back water. Also lots of comments about it being the English media bigging it up, while there is a minority who realise that it can't be defended. I guess it natural that you don't want your prize asset being banned. Then there is a lot of "it's not as bad as a leg breaking tackle". But to me, this still is about pushing for a transfer as it was with the previous two incidents.

 

 

Yeah but they also refuse to entertain any discussion about Suarez leaving this summer so they've got a pretty good seige mentality going on over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
The English media are hypocrites, as is the FA and many many supporters. It is "part of the game" according to Martin Jol

 

The whole game and media coverage has become over hyped and over dramatised. Stuff that 20 years ago no-one would have commented on is now a public circus of moral outrage for days. 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted

Lordy, the Mail article says that the FA were bound by FIFA's rules on retrospective punishment. Given that FIFA are opening an investigation into this, then I guess the rules might have changed. So whether Defoe was treated leniently isn't the point, but I agree that he got away with one. Also, as we all know, this is not the first time for Suarez, but AFAIK Defoe didn't do this habitually. Maybe you could say that Suarez got off lightly, like Defoe, for his eye gouging against Scott Parker. Some you get away with, some you don't. You get punished for being caught and with half the world's cameras focusing on him, he really must not be able to control himself.

 

I guess that he might have also done it, in the hope that a reaction would be provoked that would get the man sent off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
The whole game and media coverage has become over hyped and over dramatised. Stuff that 20 years ago no-one would have commented on is now a public circus of moral outrage for days. 1

 

Defoe got a yellow card. No fuss in the media, no outrage from supporters. I guess if your English biting someone is a bit of a lark, whereas those dirty Foreign bastards are cannibals .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
Lordy, the Mail article says that the FA were bound by FIFA's rules on retrospective punishment. Given that FIFA are opening an investigation into this, then I guess the rules might have changed. So whether Defoe was treated leniently isn't the point, but I agree that he got away with one. Also, as we all know, this is not the first time for Suarez, but AFAIK Defoe didn't do this habitually. Maybe you could say that Suarez got off lightly, like Defoe, for his eye gouging against Scott Parker. Some you get away with, some you don't. You get punished for being caught and with half the world's cameras focusing on him, he really must not be able to control himself.

 

I guess that he might have also done it, in the hope that a reaction would be provoked that would get the man sent off.

 

My point is the hysteria from the British press, compared to the jokey tone of the Defoe incident. Admittedly it was Defoe's first bite, but do you get a free one, before there's outrage. Is there degrees of biting, or does it matter who you bite. Those calling for Suerez to be banned for years were quite happy for Defoe to play for England since. Biting is either disgusting and has no part in football, or it is like a headbut or an elbow. You cant say, it's only disgusting if you do it twice, or do it in the world cup or do it if you're a Carlos-kick-a-ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goatboy

Goatboy

Posted
Posted
My point is the hysteria from the British press, compared to the jokey tone of the Defoe incident. Admittedly it was Defoe's first bite, but do you get a free one, before there's outrage. Is there degrees of biting, or does it matter who you bite. Those calling for Suerez to be banned for years were quite happy for Defoe to play for England since. Biting is either disgusting and has no part in football, or it is like a headbut or an elbow. You cant say, it's only disgusting if you do it twice, or do it in the world cup or do it if you're a Carlos-kick-a-ball.

 

Maybe it depends on size of gnashers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The9

The9

Posted
Posted

Even the opposition manager wasn't exactly getting het up about Defoe's "bite": http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/6076094.stm

 

My question is over FIFA's jurisdiction - it's their competition so I should think that unlike domestic competitions the national FA doesn't get involved. In which case, FIFA can ban Suarez for as long as they wish from their competitions. The FA are a FIFA member (for now!) and if FIFA want this to be a worldwide ban from all competitions they may not be able to enforce it without pre-emptive action from the FA regarding their competitions.

 

FIFA themselves have enforced a worldwide ban (on Luisao for punching a ref), but the Portuguese FA enforced the ban for their competitions and FIFA extended it worldwide - FIFA were not responsible for the competition there.

 

The other question, is if FIFA issue an international (national team) match ban, and the FA ban Suarez domestically in line with it but it's not extended worldwide, Suarez would just leave, and effectively have been forced out by the FA. The Premier League would be furious with FIFA and the FA, and I suspect the FA wouldn't be too happy with FIFA either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted

See the Uruguayans are alleging that this is a big witch hunt by the British press (utter horse****) - if Suarez gets a lengthy international ban, wouldn't be surprised if he tries to force a move from England. Needless to say, Liverpool suffers the collateral damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
If he wants to play on, take his teeth out. Or put him in a muzzle, like a dangerous dog.

 

One year ban from all football, unpaid leave (so LFC don't lose out).

they are not teeth they are tusks. He couldn't go on safari as the poachers would be after him
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The9

The9

Posted
Posted
Oliver Kay ‏@OliverKayTimes 2m

Confirmed by Fifa: Luis Suarez banned for NINE matches and banned from all football for FOUR MONTHS #URU #LFC

 

Pretty lenient when you consider he's already had two bans of 17 matches combined. Assuming the 9 matches is Uruguay games only.

 

Also assuming it's not offset against the Prem season start date, he'll be back for October 26th and only actually miss around 2 months of Prem action as the first game is 16th August.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
Pretty lenient when you consider he's already had two bans of 17 matches combined. Assuming the 9 matches is Uruguay games only.

 

Also assuming it's not offset against the Prem season start date, he'll be back for October 26th and only actually miss around 2 months of Prem action as the first game is 16th August.

 

First game at Barca is about 24th August, won't miss much at all, with IB in September perhaps 5 or 6 games, can't remember when the CL starts though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldsarum

oldsarum

Posted
Posted
Pretty lenient when you consider he's already had two bans of 17 matches combined. Assuming the 9 matches is Uruguay games only.

 

Also assuming it's not offset against the Prem season start date, he'll be back for October 26th and only actually miss around 2 months of Prem action as the first game is 16th August.

 

So that will be 9 premier games plus at least + 3 champions league games

 

 

But gives him plenty of time too sort out move to Barca or Real Madrid

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SO16_Saint

SO16_Saint

Posted
Posted

The FIFA statement says:

The player Luis Suárez is to be suspended for nine (9) official matches. The first match of this suspension is to be served in the upcoming FIFA World Cup™ fixture between Colombia and Uruguay on 28 June 2014. The remaining match suspensions shall be served in Uruguay’s next FIFA World Cup match(es), as long as the team qualifies, and/or in the representative team’s subsequent official matches in accordance with art. 38 par. 2a) of the FDC.

Is that just World Cup matches, or Qualifiers too? If only WC matches, he will never play at a WC again (27yo now 31 at next and 35 at the one after)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clapham Saint

Clapham Saint

Posted
Posted

A Liverpool fan in the office has just tried to claim that as LS clearly can't help himself when biting it is actually a mental disorder and accordingly the ban is discriminatory.

 

If he were a fan of any other club I would assume this was tongue in cheek but given that he's scouse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DT

DT

Posted
Posted

I think he has a problem where when he is overadrenalised - ie in high pressure atmospheres - his response to stress is animalistic, and that he uses what he has as an advantage - ie big, powerful set of chompers - almost unconsciously. Shame really as fantastic player. Oh well. Good for us. They won't be able to play tooth up front. (sorry)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
The FIFA statement says:

The player Luis Suárez is to be suspended for nine (9) official matches. The first match of this suspension is to be served in the upcoming FIFA World Cup™ fixture between Colombia and Uruguay on 28 June 2014. The remaining match suspensions shall be served in Uruguay’s next FIFA World Cup match(es), as long as the team qualifies, and/or in the representative team’s subsequent official matches in accordance with art. 38 par. 2a) of the FDC.

Is that just World Cup matches, or Qualifiers too? If only WC matches, he will never play at a WC again (27yo now 31 at next and 35 at the one after)

 

 

No it means the rest of this year's tourney and then FIFA WC qualifiers and Copa America qualifiers. Probably about 18 months all in all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintRichmond

SaintRichmond

Posted
Posted
A Liverpool fan in the office has just tried to claim that as LS clearly can't help himself when biting it is actually a mental disorder and accordingly the ban is discriminatory.

 

If he were a fan of any other club I would assume this was tongue in cheek but given that he's scouse...

 

Yes, in the cheek that surrounds Suarez's mouth

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted (edited)
I think he has a problem where when he is overadrenalised - ie in high pressure atmospheres - his response to stress is animalistic, and that he uses what he has as an advantage - ie big, set of chompers - almost unconsciously. Shame really as fantastic player. Oh well. Good for us. They won't be able to play tooth up front. (sorry)

 

To be honest that match could have exploded at any time, it was quite clear that dirty sneaky Italy were targetting his recently operated upon knee in particular and the average Uruguayan's low flash point in general. Mexican ref was weak, both sides could have been down to 7 or 8 at half-time already.You can't condone the biting but I really don't see it as any worse footballistically than the savage back elbows that are being handed out in nigh on every match. A little love bite........pfff, jaw smashed by an elbow deliberately..not so good.

Edited by Window Cleaner
Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint_ed

saint_ed

Posted
Posted

Why do they keep banging on about punishing Liverpool. They're not, they're punishing the player. It was Liverpool's decision to keep hold of him last time he did it, they have to learn to take the rough with the smooth. I'm very critical of all things FIFA but they just about got this right, with perhaps a bigger financial fine included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saxon

Saxon

Posted
Posted
Why do they keep banging on about punishing Liverpool. They're not, they're punishing the player. It was Liverpool's decision to keep hold of him last time he did it, they have to learn to take the rough with the smooth. I'm very critical of all things FIFA but they just about got this right, with perhaps a bigger financial fine included.

 

Exactly this. Liverpool knew what he was like. They managed without him before, they can do so again.

 

In a weird way this may be another strange stroke of luck for SRL, he may get lots of games at the beginning of the season and get to shine for his boyhood club. I'd be interested to see. Considering the service the Scousepool midfield provide combined with his finishing he could have a cracking run of games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The9

The9

Posted
Posted
No it means the rest of this year's tourney and then FIFA WC qualifiers and Copa America qualifiers. Probably about 18 months all in all.

 

The FIFA statement says:

The player Luis Suárez is to be suspended for nine (9) official matches. The first match of this suspension is to be served in the upcoming FIFA World Cup™ fixture between Colombia and Uruguay on 28 June 2014. The remaining match suspensions shall be served in Uruguay’s next FIFA World Cup match(es), as long as the team qualifies, and/or in the representative team’s subsequent official matches in accordance with art. 38 par. 2a) of the FDC.

Is that just World Cup matches, or Qualifiers too? If only WC matches, he will never play at a WC again (27yo now 31 at next and 35 at the one after)

 

Yeah, the "as long as the team qualifies" refers to QF/SF/Final or 3rd/4th Place match, then "subsequent official matches" means Uruguay internationals.

 

If they're not out trying to arrange 8 friendlies for the "senior side" in July they're not the cynical cheats I think they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...