Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2013

BorneTobyWilde

Hate way people are making out that Suarez is in need of some serious help, that he's the same person off pitch as on it. It's just not the case,by all accounts his personality off the pitch is one of a very quite relaxed family man
You won't see him in bar brawl of falling out of clubs drunk,

SM01

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Hate way people are making out that Suarez is in need of some serious help, that he's the same person off pitch as on it. It's just not the case,by all accounts his personality off the pitch is one of a very quite relaxed family man
You won't see him in bar brawl of falling out of clubs drunk,

Why no Haiku?!

klose

Did anyone see rudi vollers comments on hyypia wanting to manage us one day? Now thats something id love to see one day. Has hit the ground running in the bundesliga and as a fan favourite would get the time he needs.


Would love to see him play in gerrards trstimonial too, actually theres too many id love to see play that day

Kess73

murpho999 wrote: »

Hard to say, remember Barton got a 12 match ban for assault on Aguero last season. Worse incident but strong ban. 8 -10 games is not impossible.

Barton's ban was for 12 games because he was done for 3 charges of violent conduct and each of the charges were seen as exceptional so he got the usual ban for violent conduct with the exceptional add on which is 3 games plus one. Multiply by three charges and that came to 12 games.

Hidalgo

murpho999 wrote: »

Agree, but we're talking about a dirty rotten foreigner here who needs to be made an example of for the media.

Laying the blame for a big ban at the door of the FA is dodging the issue,
The fact of the matter is that it was Suarez and no one else who put him in this position. He loaded the gun, naturally the FA will fire it.

michael999999

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Hate way people are making out that Suarez is in need of some serious help, that he's the same person off pitch as on it. It's just not the case,by all accounts his personality off the pitch is one of a very quite relaxed family man
You won't see him in bar brawl of falling out of clubs drunk,

Ya, I can't remember the FA offering to get Gerrard any help after the DJ incident!

I wonder why?

Kess73

michael999999 wrote: »

Ya, I can't remember the FA offering to get Gerrard any help after the DJ incident!

I wonder why?

Because someone who loves Phil Collins is beyond help? :pac:

murpho999

Kess73 wrote: »

Barton's ban was for 12 games because he was done for 3 charges of violent conduct and each of the charges were seen as exceptional so he got the usual ban for violent conduct with the exceptional add on which is 3 games plus one. Multiply by three charges and that came to 12 games.

True, I remember that now when I think back.

Hopefully Suarez gets maximum standard 3 and 3 extra.

5starpool

klose wrote: »

Did anyone see rudi vollers comments on hyypia wanting to manage us one day? Now thats something id love to see one day. Has hit the ground running in the bundesliga and as a fan favourite would get the time he needs.


Would love to see him play in gerrards trstimonial too, actually theres too many id love to see play that day

That would be great alright.

I heard before that Owen will be back in a Liverpool jersey for Gerrard's game. Not a day for booing, but that might get a few anyhow.

opr

How many more international games is he banned for at the moment?

Opr

5starpool

opr wrote: »

How many more international games is he banned for at the moment?

Opr

None as far as I know? Has FIFA or Conmebol ruled on the incident yet?

kingshankly

michael999999 wrote: »

Ya, I can't remember the FA offering to get Gerrard any help after the DJ incident!

I wonder why?

Was it not the pfa that overed Suarez help not the fa

opr

5starpool wrote: »

None as far as I know? Has FIFA or Conmebol ruled on the incident yet?

Maybe that's why I can't find it. He seems to be suspended for the coming game anyway but I can't find any details on the length of time for the ban.

Opr

gafferino

opr wrote: »

Maybe that's why I can't find it. He seems to be suspended for the coming game anyway but I can't find any details on the length of time for the ban.

Opr

Wasn't that a 1 match ban for picking up too many yellows or something?

gafferino

Luis Suarez's former Ajax team-mate Albert Luque has defended the Liverpool striker following his biting of Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic.

The Uruguay international has been charged with violent conduct by the Football Association after he bit the arm of Ivanovic during Sunday's 2-2 draw at Anfield.

Suarez and Luque were involved in an on-field confrontation in a match against Feyenoord when they were both playing for Dutch side Ajax, which resulted in them coming to blows in the dressing room at half-time.

However, former Newcastle player Luque said: "He is a good guy, and we all make mistakes.

"We were good friends before and after this incident and it was the only time I ever had a problem with him.

"After that game he admitted he was wrong and said sorry because that's the type of guy he is.

"He was quiet in the dressing room and kept to himself, but when he gets onto the pitch he is transformed.

"He fights for everything, he's very physical, and what happened with Ivanovic was unfortunate, but I'm sure he didn't do it with any bad intentions or in bad faith.

"Luis is a player who lives football 100%. He plays with a lot of intensity and right to the limit. We know Luis is capable of doing anything to win a game and sometimes he does things in the heat of the moment, but he is the type of player I'd always want in my team."

Luque claimed Sunday's incident was being blown out of proportion, even though Suarez was banned for seven matches while at Ajax for biting PSV Eindhoven's Otman Bakkal.

"In the Premier League everything is exaggerated a lot and perhaps this is getting more coverage because it's not the first time something like this has happened to Luis," he added.

"There's no need to give more importance to it. He has said sorry and that's for the better. It is just an anecdote."

skywalker

@AnfieldMole

https://twitter.com/AnfieldMole/status/326682309740855299

Anyway bad news day it seems #lfc won't be signing #eriksen , not sure what happened but a very reliable source tells me interest has ended

https://twitter.com/AnfieldMole/status/326783212053467137

For those who missed it earlier the #eriksen deal has collapsed, this came from a impeccable source , I only hope he was told a lie #lfc

opr

gafferino wrote: »

Wasn't that a 1 match ban for picking up too many yellows or something?

Yeah that's what the one game suspension is for but he slapped that Chile lad which was suppose to be getting retrospectively reviewed as the referee missed it. Likely to be added to the number of games he misses. As 5Star says it looks like FIFA still haven't made a judgement on it yet.

Opr

klose

skywalker wrote: »

@AnfieldMole

https://twitter.com/AnfieldMole/status/326682309740855299




https://twitter.com/AnfieldMole/status/326783212053467137

Havent heard from the mole since the time of the accusations in the thread :pac:


His 'source' was probably @plAgent078 anyways

skywalker

klose wrote: »

Havent heard from the mole since the time of the accusations in the thread :pac:


His 'source' was probably @plAgent078 anyways

Pretty sure he admitted to posting in this thread around that time alright, that doesnt necessarily make him a total spoofer though. Not saying I believe it either way mind.

mike65

Sign Sean Moloney!

Knex*

Kerrigooney wrote: »

Did you read the article? Toby was having a laugh.

lol, how did I miss that. Cheers.

Knex*

Transfer thread started, twitter rumours posted. Seems silly season is up and running already!

Right, my go, tell Chelsea, Juve, and probably Inter to feck off, we're signing Mario Gomez in the summer now :P

Edit: Actually better add Spurs to that list too, crafty bastards will definitely chance it.

Also, we'd get to post this in the match threads http://www.gomezbutton.de/

5starpool

skywalker wrote: »

Pretty sure he admitted to posting in this thread around that time alright, that doesnt necessarily make him a total spoofer though. Not saying I believe it either way mind.

Of course he is a total spoofer. All those accounts are. Fling enough shít and occasionally some will stick.

smileyj1987

Knex. wrote: »

Transfer thread started, twitter rumours posted. Seems silly season is up and running already!

Right, my go, tell Chelsea, Juve, and probably Inter to feck off, we're signing Mario Gomez in the summer now :P

Edit: Actually better add Spurs to that list too, crafty bastards will definitely chance it.

Also, we'd get to post this in the match threads http://www.gomezbutton.de/

Y

You thief !!!!!! I deserve the credit for the gomez button :pac:

Knex*

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Y

You thief !!!!!! I deserve the credit for the gomez button :pac:

Blatter had it before ya :pac:

Nuri Sahin

klose wrote: »

Havent heard from the mole since the time of the accusations in the thread :pac:

I was blocked for a few days after my hint in this thread too

DDC1990

Knex. wrote: »

Blatter had it before ya :pac:

Fúck ya. Had speakers on full blast and scared the bejaysus out of the dog!

:P

smileyj1987

Carragher on Luis Suarez bite .

Before you carry on reading, it is important to make this point: this is not me trying to defend the indefensible. This is an attempt to put some perspective on the Luis Suarez saga.
It was said in the aftermath of Sunday’s game against Chelsea, firstly by Graeme Souness as he began his analysis on Sky, that nobody is bigger than the club and that Liverpool should make Luis pay the heaviest penalty by getting rid of him.
Now I am not for one moment trying to sugar-coat the incident in which Luis bit Branislav Ivanovic. It was wrong on all levels. You simply don’t expect to see a grown man bite another grown man — that is behaviour you would associate with nursery school.
We have had it many times before, as have every other club in the country. I know this as I was responsible for one incident in January 2002. I threw a coin into the crowd at Highbury during an FA Cup tie against Arsenal after one had initially been flung at me.
Souness, who was captain of Liverpool at the time, broke the jaw of Dinamo Bucharest’s Lica Movila during a European Cup semi-final in 1984 when he punched him in an off-the-ball incident.
It was a serious incident but it is one which fans and some of his old team-mates speak almost nostalgically about.Robbie Fowler had his scrapes, too. There was outrage after he celebrated a goal against Everton in April 1999 by mimicking drug taking. A couple of months earlier he was hugely condemned when he taunted Graeme Le Saux with a homophobic gesture.
Jan Molby was sent to jail in October 1988 for three months for a drink-driving offence.
More recently, Steven Gerrard appeared in court charged with affray but was subsequently found not guilty.
Every one of the players I mention regretted what happened and Luis is the same. More importantly, the club stood by every one of them.
Luis is normally a bubbly lad around the training ground. He tends to mix mainly with the other South Americans in the group but he is well liked all around because he has a fantastic attitude to his job and just loves playing football.
In my time at Liverpool, very few players have possessed an appetite to win the same as mine but Luis has got it. He trains well every day. When we get a day off, he will come in to do extra work and there is nothing arrogant or flash about him. He slots into the group without problem.
Yesterday, however, it was clear that events had taken a toll.
Luis knows he has done something seriously wrong, letting himself down. He has been told that a repeat of such behaviour will not be tolerated and the club’s stance has been different from how it was following his altercation with Patrice Evra.
But, rather than hounding him out of the country, shouldn’t we be helping him?
We have a top psychologist in Steve Peters who comes to the club once a week and he could have as big a role as our manager, Brendan Rodgers, for Luis.
Ian Ayre has stated that the club are not looking to sell Luis. History shows that message has always been the same. What happened when Tony Adams was released from jail in February 1991 after serving a sentence for drink- driving?
He went back to captain Arsenal and won eight major honours. Look at Eric Cantona.
Less than eight months after returning from his eight-month ban for an assault on Crystal Palace fan Matthew Simmons, he had inspired Manchester United to the Double. It is selfish but clubs need their best players.
As Martin Samuel said in his column yesterday, perhaps if a player of lesser ability had been guilty of Luis’s offence, he would have been shown the door by now. Again, a precedent at Anfield has already been set.
During the Hillsborough memorial service in 2009, Charles Itandje and Damien Plessis were caught laughing and messing around. Itandje, a third-choice keeper with a terrible attitude, was banished immediately. Plessis, who was viewed as being a player of promise, was admonished but stayed.
Morally you could say such standards are wrong but it happens in any walk of life, not just football. If someone is exceptional at what they do, many people are prepared to put up with them regardless of the hassle they may cause.
People may say this is a Liverpool-biased opinion but I don’t want to see another world-class player leave the Barclays Premier League, like Xabi Alonso, Cristiano Ronaldo and Cesc Fabregas have.
We are talking about one of the top five players in world football here.
Finally, I would like to finish by putting forward a thought from a footballer’s perspective about the incident.
The bite was shocking, no question, and everyone who has seen it was amazed. Yet was it worse than a challenge that could end someone’s career?
I know what it is like to have your leg broken by a reckless tackle. Lucas Neill cost me six months of my career in September 2003 when he played for Blackburn. Would I have preferred to have been bitten? Absolutely.
I suspect that Branislav Ivanovic, who has conducted himself with great credit in the aftermath, would agree. You can get up and carry on after a skirmish. If someone shatters your leg, you wonder whether you will play again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2313752/Luis-Suarez-bites-Branislav-Ivanovic-Suarez-wrong--Jamie-Carragher.html

Sir Gallagher

Good article there from Carra, i'm completely and utterly pissed off at Suarez but some of the the hypocrisy surrounding the incident is laughable, especially that coming from Sounness.

monkey9

You wanna be careful there, Jamie. If you keep making sense the media won't like it.

klose

Did anyone else read that in carras voice? :pac:

BorneTobyWilde

monkey9 wrote: »

You wanna be careful there, Jamie. If you keep making sense the media won't like it.

Made no sense to me
I read it in his accent

hefferboi

Carra and Gary Neville doing punditry next year instead of Souness, Redknapp, Wilkins etc.

Yes please. (Throw in Digger Barnes as well)

~Rebel~

Have to say I think anything over a 4 match ban is overkill and tough to justify with respect to other bans given out by the FA.

It's a particularly notable offence in that its absolutely bat**** crazy, but it wasn't actually dangerous.

If you compare it to the Thatcher incident, for instance (which got the 8 match ban some suggest is suitable here), they're just on completely different levels.

monkey9

The thing about Suarez is that he is so briiliant at what he does, i mean the bloke is world class, that of course the club is going to stick by him.

There's been so much nonsense over the past few days that the club should sell him etc etc. I'd be disgusted if Liverpool sold him over this.

Let's face facts here. All he did was bite someone on the arm. A bit bizarre, yes. But a bite all the same. He didn't even make a mark on Ivanovich's arm (and no, i'm not saying the lack of marks and injury to Ivanovich makes it ok).

I have to laugh at people's perception of the game. If you go in two footed over the ball and break the opponent's leg that's ok because tackling is part of the game. That's a red card. But bite someone, we want at least ten games?

People are going on that a tackle is part of football, but a bite isn't?? And they'd be right. Do you what else isn't part of football? A punch to the head or a headbutt!

I've seen incidents where players have gone head to head and one has fallen dramatically and got a three match ban. What's the difference with Suarez? It's violent conduct!

Which leads me into this. The FA have charged Suarez for violent conduct and correctly so. The incident wasn't dealth with by the referee so that gives the FA access to charge him. Fair enough and rightly so.

They've charged him with violent conduct which is a three game ban which is what you'd assume he would get. But then they've stated that what he did warrants more than a three game ban??

Ok, so why were they not outraged by Defoe's bite? Why did they not decide that Defoe's bite on the arm of an opponent warrant more than a yellow card.

It needs to be made very clear if Suarez's punishment is based on this incident alone or if it's for an accumulation.

daithijjj

monkey9 wrote: »

The thing about Suarez is that he is so briiliant at what he does, i mean the bloke is world class, that of course the club is going to stick by him.

There's been so much nonsense over the past few days that the club should sell him etc etc. I'd be disgusted if Liverpool sold him over this.

Let's face facts here. All he did was bite someone on the arm. A bit bizarre, yes. But a bite all the same. He didn't even make a mark on Ivanovich's arm (and no, i'm not saying the lack of marks and injury to Ivanovich makes it ok).

I have to laugh at people's perception of the game. If you go in two footed over the ball and break the opponent's leg that's ok because tackling is part of the game. That's a red card. But bite someone, we want at least ten games?

People are going on that a tackle is part of football, but a bite isn't?? And they'd be right. Do you what else isn't part of football? A punch to the head or a headbutt!

I've seen incidents where players have gone head to head and one has fallen dramatically and got a three match ban. What's the difference with Suarez? It's violent conduct!

Which leads me into this. The FA have charged Suarez for violent conduct and correctly so. The incident wasn't dealth with by the referee so that gives the FA access to charge him. Fair enough and rightly so.

They've charged him with violent conduct which is a three game ban which is what you'd assume he would get. But then they've stated that what he did warrants more than a three game ban??

Ok, so why were they not outraged by Defoe's bite? Why did they not decide that Defoe's bite on the arm of an opponent warrant more than a yellow card.

It needs to be made very clear if Suarez's punishment is based on this incident alone or if it's for an accumulation.

Because they have been a joke, and still are, in the way they hand/hide behind rules. I cant stand Samuel but read this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2313724/The-FA-hide-FIFA-Luis-Suarez-Martin-Samuel.html

monkey9

daithijjj wrote: »

Because they have been a joke, and still are, in the way they hand/hide behind rules. I cant stand Samuel but read this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2313724/The-FA-hide-FIFA-Luis-Suarez-Martin-Samuel.html

And bearing in mind, what Defoe is doing there has been described as a nibble. Suarez this week by the same paper was called a cannibal.

kryogen

Defoes was referred to as a nibble by his manager was it not? What do you expect him to say?

The ref took action, dealt with the incident there and then, rightly or wrongly thats the end of the matter from an FA point of view. You know this so why bother comparing the two incidents?

monkey9

kryogen wrote: »

Defoes was referred to as a nibble by his manager was it not? What do you expect him to say?

The ref took action, dealt with the incident there and then, rightly or wrongly thats the end of the matter from an FA point of view. You know this so why bother comparing the two incidents?

No offense to yourself at all, but this is exactly my point when i say that people hop on the media bandwagon. They're being told to be offended.

They don't remember England international Jermaine Defoe crawling along the pitch to bite a fellow footballer , but they'll sure as hell remember Suarez

Kirby

kryogen wrote: »

The ref took action, dealt with the incident there and then, rightly or wrongly thats the end of the matter from an FA point of view. You know this so why bother comparing the two incidents?

Because picking and choosing facts is the name of the game. Some folks won't let facts get in the way of their point.

Suarez will get more then Defoe because ref and didn't see it, and he is a repeat offender. It's really that simple. If this was a first offence, he might get away with a lower ban but it isn't. In the same way that Barton ended up getting a 12 match ban because of totting up procedures. There is no conspiracy and talk of the FA being a useless organisation etc. is just deflection.

He did wrong, he apologised, he'll take his punishment and he shouldn't complain about it. Neither should the fans. The sooner people stop talking about it, the better. Accusing the FA of this and that and how X player got Y matches is pointless and all it does is serve to keep the story in the public consciousness.

~Rebel~

kryogen wrote: »

Defoes was referred to as a nibble by his manager was it not? What do you expect him to say?

The ref took action, dealt with the incident there and then, rightly or wrongly thats the end of the matter from an FA point of view. You know this so why bother comparing the two incidents?

Because they're comparable. Obviously in this instance the punishment can't be the same, because as you said Defoes was partially seen by the ref. Everything else, however, is well worth comparing.

For Defoe there was no national outrage, no witch hunt, no calls for him to be sold etc. I would say the Defoe incident got about the right amount of coverage for a weird, heat of the moment but ultimately harmless act. Everyone knew about it, few were filled with vitriol by it.

Suarez, being Suarez, will always evoke more reactions, but looking at the two incidents, the disparity in reactions in staggering.

4 games is fair. Anything beyond that is overkill.
In answer to Kirby's above post citing Barton getting more time for being a respect offender - those offences were all in the same game, not a result of things he'd done before as seemed to be implied.

monkey9

Kirby wrote: »

Because picking and choosing facts is the name of the game. Some folks won't let facts get in the way of their point.

Suarez will get more then Defoe because ref and didn't see it, and he is a repeat offender. It's really that simple. If this was a first offence, he might get away with a lower ban but it isn't. In the same way that Barton ended up getting a 12 match ban because of totting up procedures. There is no conspiracy and talk of the FA being a useless organisation etc. is just deflection.

He did wrong, he apologised, he'll take his punishment and he shouldn't complain about it. Neither should the fans. The sooner people stop talking about it, the better. Accusing the FA of this and that and how X player got Y matches is pointless and all it does is serve to keep the story in the public consciousness.

Is that what the FA are saying when they say it's worth more than a three game ban? Because it's a totting up proceduree? If it is, then say that.

Kirby

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Because they're comparable. Obviously in this instance the punishment can't be the same, because as you said Defoes was partially seen by the ref. Everything else, however, is well worth comparing.

For Defoe there was no national outrage, no witch hunt, no calls for him to be sold etc. I would say the Defoe incident got about the right amount of coverage for a weird, heat of the moment but ultimately harmless act. Everyone knew about it, few were filled with vitriol by it.

Suarez, being Suarez, will always evoke more reactions, but looking at the two incidents, the disparity in reactions in staggering.

It's not staggering. It's perfectly standard. I've made this point before, when Philip Neville dived, people laughed. When Suarez or Bale or Ronaldo do it, people get in an uproar. The reason is obvious. Suarez has bitten another player before. Obviously he is bound to get more of a reaction when he does it again than say if Carragher did it.

It's common sense. The reason Defoe's incident was laughed at was the same reason as Neville's dive. It's out of character. Defoe has never been in trouble in his career. Suarez' career is littered with misdemeanors. He's punched players, bitten players, handled the ball on the line in a world cup, been accused of racism etc. It's controversial stuff. Defoe has been accused of none of that. Therefore, less of a reaction.

kryogen

monkey9 wrote: »

No offense to yourself at all, but this is exactly my point when i say that people hop on the media bandwagon. They're being told to be offended.

They don't remember England international Jermaine Defoe crawling along the pitch to bite a fellow footballer , but they'll sure as hell remember Suarez

Again, what does it have to do with this incident?

How can my post be "exactly your point?"

Its a question, why are you comparing the incidents when they are completely different? No moral outrage, one was dealt with at the time, by the ref, end of case, the FA cant do anything.

One was not dealt with, the FA can look at it and take action.

How can you not see the difference? There is no moral outrage from me whatsoever. There is also no witch hunt tbh, Suarez was winning the media over with his performances, he was getting praise from all corners, even United fans would freely admit he was having an amazing season.

He does this to himself, blaming the media is a cop out to me, the media will sensationalise and hype up whatever sells. If he stays within the rules of the game they have nothing to say about him, except the good that they had been saying up to this.

I'm sorry but from talking to Liverpool fans, plenty of them know where the blame lies for this, but it seems that many have learned nothing from past mistakes and are still looking to blame everybody else because poor Luis cant control himself.

~Rebel~

Kirby wrote: »

It's not staggering. It's perfectly standard. I've made this point before, when Philip Neville dived, people laughed. When Suarez or Bale or Ronaldo do it, people get in an uproar. The reason is obvious. Suarez has bitten another player before. Obviously he is bound to get more of a reaction when he does it again than say if Carragher did it.

It's common sense. The reason Defoe's incident was laughed at was the same reason as Neville's dive. It's out of character. Defoe has never been in trouble in his career. Suarez' career is littered with misdemeanors.

My point was that even taking into account this being Suarez, that a lot of the reaction is above and beyond even the level of crazy we'd expect.

Kirby

~Rebel~ wrote: »

My point was that even taking into account this being Suarez, that a lot of the reaction is above and beyond even the level of crazy we'd expect.

Really? You think so? The world went banana's over Henry's handball and he had never done that before. Imagine what would happen if he did it again a few months later at the world cup itself? A repeat occurance of something shocking. My bet would be a lot of coverage.

I think you know I'm right. Anybody expecting this sort of thing not to be analysed and talked about in the papers and on tv are deluding themselves. He bit somebody.,......again. I mean, most people go their whole lives without biting somebody. Unless their spouses are into that I'm pretty sure he's the only player in the league to have done that. And he did it again. Ofcourse its going to be huge news.

monkey9

kryogen wrote: »

Again, what does it have to do with this incident?

How can my post be "exactly your point?"

Its a question, why are you comparing the incidents when they are completely different? No moral outrage, one was dealt with at the time, by the ref, end of case, the FA cant do anything.

One was not dealt with, the FA can look at it and take action.

How can you not see the difference? There is no moral outrage from me whatsoever. There is also no witch hunt tbh, Suarez was winning the media over with his performances, he was getting praise from all corners, even United fans would freely admit he was having an amazing season.

He does this to himself, blaming the media is a cop out to me, the media will sensationalise and hype up whatever sells. If he stays within the rules of the game they have nothing to say about him, except the good that they had been saying up to this.

I'm sorry but from talking to Liverpool fans, plenty of them know where the blame lies for this, but it seems that many have learned nothing from past mistakes and are still looking to blame everybody else because poor Luis cant control himself.

kryogen

~Rebel~ wrote: »

My point was that even taking into account this being Suarez, that a lot of the reaction is above and beyond even the level of crazy we'd expect.

That comes with the territory of being high profile tbf

Has anybody else been banned yet for swearing? Rooney was banned for it and we all had to please think of the children because of who he is. Who he plays for. His reputation as a bit of a bad boy.

Suarez has worked hard to earn his reputation, both he and Liverpool are high profile.

Kirby

kryogen wrote: »

why are you comparing the incidents when they are completely different? .

monkey9 wrote: »

We've both explained why they are completely different. The is just being obtuse for the sake of it.
One was seen by the ref, one wasn't.
One was committed by a player with no history of biting, one wasn't.
One was committed by a player who doesn't get in trouble, one wasn't.

Ergo, big difference.

monkey9

Kirby wrote: »

We've both explained why they are completely different. The is just being obtuse for the sake of it.
One was seen by the ref, one wasn't.
One was committed by a player with no history of biting, one wasn't.
One was committed by a player who doesn't get in trouble, one wasn't.

Ergo, big difference.

So i therefore am very interested in the FA's response to this incident being worth more than a three game ban.

Is this for for the incident or an accumulation??