Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2013

kryogen

monkey9 wrote: »

Seriously?

Once more, Defoe bites player. Ref sees it, takes action

Suarez bites player, not seen, FA takes action.

Cant really be clearer tbh

You want to get hung up on the whole Defoe did the same thing crap, which is understandable I guess, but pointless. Suarez can not be subject to the same punishment as Defoe because the ref did not take action.

What is hard to follow?

You could get into even more pointless stuff like, Suarez has a history of trouble and Defoe has a pretty clean record so that might explain the difference in punishment.

But it doesnt matter, it cant be compared in that way because one incident was dealt with by the ref at the time, the other is going to be dealt with by a review board.

to sum up (again)

Defoe-bite player-disciplined on pitch
Suarez-bite player-not disciplined on pitch

Kirby

monkey9 wrote: »

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??

Probably a bit of both.

The FA is big on totting up. You get a one match ban for five yellow cards. But get another 5 in a season? That's a two match ban. And so on. He's been in trouble before so that will probably count against him.

kryogen

monkey9 wrote: »

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??

Well why don't you wait to see what they say then before bitching about it?

If they say it is because of the incident, what? You can bitch because Defoe did not get the same punishment? Well as you know, he couldnt because his was dealt with at the time!

If they say it is because of an accumulation of incidents, what? You will accept that? Or then bitch because its a "witch hunt" and the FA want to force him out of England or some other mad notion?

The FA want the best players playing in England, it gets the leagues more attention and ultimately puts more money in their coffers, they want to attract players with talent, not drive them out.

monkey9

kryogen wrote: »

Seriously?

Once more, Defoe bites player. Ref sees it, takes action

Suarez bites player, not seen, FA takes action.

Cant really be clearer tbh

You want to get hung up on the whole Defoe did the same thing crap, which is understandable I guess, but pointless. Suarez can not be subject to the same punishment as Defoe because the ref did not take action.

What is hard to follow?

You could get into even more pointless stuff like, Suarez has a history of trouble and Defoe has a pretty clean record so that might explain the difference in punishment.

But it doesnt matter, it cant be compared in that way because one incident was dealt with by the ref at the time, the other is going to be dealt with by a review board.

to sum up (again)

Defoe-bite player-disciplined on pitch
Suarez-bite player-not disciplined on pitch

This is very simple. Defoe got a yellow so therefore the FA were happy to leave it at that. The ref dealt with it, they couldn't overrule that unless they felt it was under exceptional cirumstances. They didn't feel Defoe biting another player's arm was exceptional cirumstances.

The ref in this case didn't deal with the situation so therefore the FA have said that they themselves can deal with it. They've charged Suarez with violent conduct which is a three game ban, but they've said that in this case it should be more than three games. That sounds like exeptional circumstances.

So what gives?

kryogen

monkey9 wrote: »

This is very simple. Defoe got a yellow so therefore the FA were happy to leave it at that. The ref dealt with it, they couldn't overrule that unless they felt it was under exceptional cirumstances. They didn't feel Defoe biting another player's arm was exceptional cirumstances.

The ref in this case didn't deal with the situation so therefore the FA have said that they themselves can deal with it. They've charged Suarez with violent conduct which is a three game ban, but they've said that in this case it should be more than three games. That sounds like exeptional circumstances.

So what gives?

Your interpreting them saying that they will push for more then three games as being the same as them saying it is exceptional circumstances, unfortunately that is just your interpretation, you would be better off waiting for the actual report to come out tbh.


I take it you think its should be exceptional circumstances?

The FA really do not like to overrule the ref, you know this, seriously. The ref in the Defoe case dealt with the situation, it would take something very very serious, excepetional if you will, for the FA to then intervene, I dont think it was exceptional so in that case I understand them not intervening.

The ref did not deal with this, the FA HAVE TO INTERVENE

They may deem it to be worthy of more then a normal 3 game violent conduct charge due to the high profile nature of the game? The amount of people watching etc, someone has to think of the children you know. it could be due to his past indiscretions, it could be due to not wanting to look soft since he was given seven games for doing the same thing elsewhere, as I said, you would be better off waiting to actually see the outcome and the reasoning.

Oranage2

when defoe bit masharano was it there was a rule saying you could nibble an opponent so he wasn't punished.

Anyway looks like suarez won't be able to have his golden boot...and eat it too.

kryogen

Oranage2 wrote: »

when defoe bit masharano was it there was a rule saying you could nibble an opponent so he wasn't punished.

Anyway looks like suarez won't be able to have his golden boot...and eat it too.

Probably not, as he was punished.

Crash Bang Wall

kryogen wrote: »

Seriously?

Once more, Defoe bites player. Ref sees it, takes action

Suarez bites player, not seen, FA takes action.

Cant really be clearer tbh

You want to get hung up on the whole Defoe did the same thing crap, which is understandable I guess, but pointless. Suarez can not be subject to the same punishment as Defoe because the ref did not take action.

What is hard to follow?

You could get into even more pointless stuff like, Suarez has a history of trouble and Defoe has a pretty clean record so that might explain the difference in punishment.

But it doesnt matter, it cant be compared in that way because one incident was dealt with by the ref at the time, the other is going to be dealt with by a review board.

to sum up (again)

Defoe-bite player-disciplined on pitch
Suarez-bite player-not disciplined on pitch

So therefore a bite should be just a yellow card, so there should be no issue? That is the precedent after all. Some chap who used to work at the FA (Palios I think) stated that they cant use the events in Holland as a basis for a ban

kryogen

Crash Bang Wall wrote: »

So therefore a bite should be just a yellow card, so there should be no issue? That is the precedent after all. Some chap who used to work at the FA (Palios I think) stated that they cant use the events in Holland as a basis for a ban

Of course they can't officially use it, but it would be silly to think they will not consider it privately.

A yellow card for violent conduct? Don't think so man, more likely the ref in the Defoe case made an error don't you think?

I'm prepared for a 10 game ban.

Anyone thinking it'll be only 3 are dreamers.

6 games would be a good result.

kryogen

rarnes1 wrote: »

I'm prepared for a 10 game ban.

Anyone thinking it'll be only 3 are dreamers.

6 games would be a good result.

I think it will be between 6-8 myself, 10 is possible though!

Sappy404

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.

rarnes1 wrote: »

I'm prepared for a 10 game ban.

Anyone thinking it'll be only 3 are dreamers.

6 games would be a good result.

If the FA can just hand out an arbitrary ban citing a lack of precedent, they'll be taking a hard line again and I'd definitely expect the ban to be in double-digits.

4 matches seems fair though - an automatic 3 for the offence and the extra day for the circumstances, as per Barton vs. City last May when he had three such offences.

gafferino

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Carragher on Luis Suarez bite .

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.


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

Really don't like this line....could be the end of him. Why would you stay in a country you are vilified and treated with a different set of rules.

Sappy404

gafferino wrote: »

Really don't like this line....could be the end of him. Why would you stay in a country you are vilified and treated with a different set of rules.

He bit a man. He only has himself to blame.

kryogen

gafferino wrote: »

Really don't like this line....could be the end of him. Why would you stay in a country you are vilified and treated with a different set of rules.

Maybe in the next country he goes to he won't work so hard to "endear himself" to the authorities/media.

JimsAlterEgo

Sappy404 wrote: »

He bit a man. He only has himself to blame.

exactly, only 1 person to blame in all this

Wichita Lineman

Best we can hope for is 5 matches which would see him available for the start of next season. I cant condone in any way shape or form what Suarez did but I do think he is being persecuted because he is a foreign player in England.

Vanolder

Andy Dunne11 wrote: »

Best we can hope for is 5 matches which would see him available for the start of next season. I cant condone in any way shape or form what Suarez did but I do think he is being persecuted because he is a foreign player in England.

With League cup games (2nd/3rd round) even if it was ten games, including the back end of this season, he'd only miss 4 games in the league.. Easy.

gafferino

Sappy404 wrote: »

He bit a man. He only has himself to blame.

Yeah there is that of course and no one has defended what he did. The xenophobic reaction from the public, media and the FA is not warranted and is actually quite disgusting to see.

Its been gone over a million times in the last few days but there was virtually no reaction to Defoe doing the same thing in the public or media.

gafferino

kryogen wrote: »

Maybe in the next country he goes to he won't work so hard to "endear himself" to the authorities/media.

No I dont think so - I think he will always have this aspect to his game. It might tone done with time.

It doesnt matter whether you like him or not or support Liverpool or not - the way he is treated by the media and some of the things that are said about him is completely out of line. I feel sorry for anyone treated like that to be honest and it will put players off coming to the PL.

gafferino

The highly reliable Metro.......

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/23/henrikh-mkhitaryan-signs-with-new-agent-to-secure-liverpool-transfer-3663742/

Shaktar Donetsk winger Henrikh Mkhitaryan has switched agents in a bid to secure a summer move to Liverpool, according to reports.

Mkhitaryan has signed with Italian super-agent Mino Raiola as the summer transfer window edges ever closer, with the 24-year-old keen to secure a transfer out of Ukraine.

Raiola has developed a reputation for brokering big-money transfer deals and has contacts at many of Europe’s biggest clubs including Manchester United and Juventus.

But it is Raiola’s close relationship with Liverpool that is of interest to Mkhitaryan – and the Armenian is keen to secure a switch to Anfield after making them his number one priority.

It is thought that Liverpool boss Brendan Rodgers is also keen on doing business, as the player has enjoyed his best campaign yet for Shaktar, scoring 24 goals in 34 matches.

Mkhitaryan is likely to cost upwards of £15million and, if successful in getting his client a move, Raiola stands to pick up a cool £3million on top of that.

Tottenham have previously been linked with Mkhitaryan, but it is thought that Liverpool are the front-runners.

Morzadec

Interesting take on the Suarez incident here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/ian-herbert-luis-suarez--an-ideal-pantomime-villain-for-the-age-of-outrage-8585333.html

He makes a good point which I think has been made here. If what Suarez has done is so utterly terrible and your outrage is genuine, then surely it is not something to be joked over?

The twitter jokes, the restaurant menus, the Evra arm bite - all these things show that the incident was trivial enough to be joked about.

A vicious, leg-breaking, career-threatening challenge would not conjure up the same jokes as it would be considered in bad taste.

Yet it's very likely that Suarez will get a worse ban than an incident like this.

When you dissect it it really makes very little sense.

mike65

I wonder if people would be so flippant/sanguine about the bite if blood had been drawn.

pitythefool

a few things I would like to ad

I think the FA should be allowed to look back at incidents regardless of the referee dealing with it at the time

Suarez seems to attract trouble, Defoe, not so much

Form in these incidents is very important

Defoe should maybe have been given an exceptional ban but Suarez should get more due to form

missingtime

Read this piece on Henrikh Mkhitaryan the other day, quite interesting. It's by Eziz or @Number10Role.

Last Sunday just a bit more than 66,000 football fans gathered to watch another Ukrainian Derby between the country’s biggest two clubs Dynamo Kyiv and Shakhtar Donetsk at NSC Olimpiyskiy. It was another victory for Shakhtar in the Clásico – fifth in a row. It was another fantastic performance from that man again – Henrikh Hamletovich Mkhitaryan. Standard.

The Shakhtar boss Mircea Lucescu firmly believes that there can’t be any leaders in a team, instead the team leads itself. However, it would be silly to deny that Henrikh Mkhitaryan has become the focal figure of the Ukrainian side this season.

Born in 1989 in the capital city of Armenia, Hernikh spent first few years of his life in southeast of France where his father played as a striker for the local side Valence. Sadly, Mkhitaryan Sr. has passed away of brain tumor when his son was only seven, and the family had to return home. It was then Henrikh decided to follow the dad’s path and joined the Yerevan-based football club Pyunik. In 2003 he was invited to have a four-month long trial at the Brazilian club São Paulo where he trained alongside the likes of Hernanes and Diego Tardelli, currently of Lazio and Atlético Mineiro respectively. Three years later Henrikh Mkhitaryan made his first team debut for Pyunik at the age of 17. He would go on to make another 69 appearances for the club and score 30 goals. This ability to score goals from midfield would soon attract interest of clubs such as Lyon, Lille, Dynamo Kyiv, Lokomotiv Moscow and even Boca Juniors.

However, due to a good relationship with the then coach Nikolay Kostov, the promising Armenian youngster was persuaded to join Metalurg Donetsk in 2009. The adaptation to a new country and more competitive football league went surprisingly smooth and he soon became the team captain, aged only 21 – the youngest captain in club history. Mkhitaryan played 46 times for the club scoring17 goals and making 11 assists. It soon became obvious that in order to progress his career Mkhitaryan had to move to bigger things and in 2010 another Donetsk club, Shakhtar, agreed a €6 million transfer fee for the 21-year-old midfielder.

At that point Lucescu admitted that he had been tracking the Armenian for more than three years, since his Pyunik days. Upon arriving to the Donetsk club, Mkhitaryan was mainly deployed as a holding or central midfielder by the Romanian specialist. His functions included mainly defensive contributions but also initiation of attacks. It took a bit of time before Mkhitaryan mastered the new position, understandably, as he spent most of his career at the offensive end of midfield. Lucescu recalls that “it wasn’t easy for him from the start, but his integration was sped up by his high level of football intelligence.” The defensive position has only improved the footballer. The new responsibilities have helped him improve his positional and tactical awareness, ability to read the game as well as the physical side of his game – something which was lacking before.

Despite operating deeper than usual for first two seasons, Henrikh still managed to contribute to 26 goals in all club competitions, assisting his teammates 11 times and scoring 15 of them himself. The number of goals scored could have been even higher but for poor conversion rate – it was another weakness the player was rightly criticised for at the time.

The turning point in Mkhitaryan’s career at Shakhtar Donetsk came in January of 2012. The fan favourite attacking midfielder Jádson had to return back to Brazil for family reasons and the Ukrainian club were forced to accept a €4 million bid from São Paulo. It was thought to be a huge loss as the Brazilian magician became so important to the way the team played and was central to success achieved in last seven years by the club.

However, Mr. Lucescu was confident that the Armenian versatile midfielder would be more than able to fill the gap left by Jádson. He moved Mkhitaryan further up the pitch to play in the position behind the striker(s) but also asked him to track back and press opposition players when the team is defending. And it worked. The 24-year-old has been on fire thus far scoring 21 and assisting 5 goals in just 22 league appearances this season. He only needs two more goals to break record for most goals in a Ukrainian season currently held by Sergey Rebrov and Maxim Shackikh. The difference is that the current record holders, unlike Mkhitaryan, were strikers.

It should be mentioned though that ability to score goals is not the only valuable asset of this player. According to his manager, Henrikh is very similar to Kaká as he possesses fantastic technique, speed, great passing ability, outstanding vision and creativity. Rather interestingly, Mkhitaryan also wears a shirt with number 22 on the back as the Brazilian used to do during his prime time at Milan. Owing to determination to work hard for his teammates and desire to improve every aspect of his own game, Henrikh Mkhitaryan has become an inspirational leader and the engine of the Donetsk club.

Apart from his club career, Henrikh has also excelled in the national team shirt. Having represented and captained Armenia from U17 level, Mkhitaryan made his full national debut in 2007. In 36 other matches he played for the national team, Mkhitaryan scored 10 goals – only two away from becoming the all-time top scorer of his country. He was voted best Armenian footballer on three occasions in last four years, missing out on the award only in 2010.

He has received a lot of praise for his performances both for club and country but undoubtedly the highest praise came when the Azzurri defeated Armenia in a World Cup-2014 Qualification game. After the match, Cesare Prandelli said:

“For me, he was the stand-out performance today. He ran his socks off and scored a fantastic solo goal. Henrikh Mkhitaryan is a footballer who has quality to fit in any leading European national football team.”

His football might have attracted scouts from top European clubs – such as Arsenal, Liverpool, Juventus, Barcelona and Real Madrid – but, off the pitch, Henrikh Mkhitaryan remains to be a down-to-earth guy. With the annual salary of “only” €276,000, he must be one of the most underpaid talented footballers in the world. However, this might change if one of the aforementioned clubs decide to meet his release clause of €30 million this or next summer.

He’s an intelligent young man as well – someone who enjoys reading books especially those of Paulo Coelho, or so he claims. In addition, he speaks five languages including English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and of course Armenian. Having graduated from Institute of Physical Education in Armenia, he is currently studying Economics in a Saint Petersburg university. The next aim is to apply for a law degree in the same university.

Unusual footballer, isn’t he?

http://number10role.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/introducing-henrikh-mkhitaryan-the-armenian-kaka/

The Rooster

mike65 wrote: »

I wonder if people would be so flippant/sanguine about the bite if blood had been drawn.

Exactly.

If blood had been drawn it would have been a much more malicious bite and would have deserved all the outrage.

What he did was stupid and disgusting, like a spit, but it caused no injury to Ivanovic. If it did leave any minor mark on Ivanovic's arm, it had completely vanished by the end of the game.

gafferino

mike65 wrote: »

I wonder if people would be so flippant/sanguine about the bite if blood had been drawn.

I'm not sure people have been flippant about it. Granted I havent read every post in here but the feeling I get is people are quite disgusted and let down about what he did. That goes for the chairman, manager and fellow players alike.
However the defence for him is coming from the angle of the reaction that has blown up in the media - the British media in particular. If you listen to the like of Barnes, Neville and the likes they are not defending him but they are giving balanced opinions on what has happened and not this sensationalist vitriol that we are getting from a lot of places.

Yes it would have been worse if blood had been drawn - it wasnt so I dont your point in bringing that up?

What he did was inexcusable. He will and should be punished. That punishment should be fair and in line with other incidents that have occurred on the football field. There should not be different rules for Suarez.

pitythefool

I dont anything is beyind some football supporters

From mocking Hillsborough to Munich, there is a lack of class in alot of supporters, although they are a minority, they are a large minority

pitythefool

The Rooster wrote: »

Exactly.

If blood had been drawn it would have been a much more malicious bite and would have deserved all the outrage.

What he did was stupid and disgusting, like a spit, but it caused no injury to Ivanovic. If it did leave any minor mark on Ivanovic's arm, it had completely vanished by the end of the game.

much like a gansgter who shoots and misses

gafferino

The Rooster wrote: »

Exactly.

If blood had been drawn it would have been a much more malicious bite and would have deserved all the outrage.

What he did was stupid and disgusting, like a spit, but it caused no injury to Ivanovic. If it did leave any minor mark on Ivanovic's arm, it had completely vanished by the end of the game.

I think Ivanovic or one of the Chelsea players said that the mark had done not long after.

mike65

gafferino wrote: »

I'm not sure people have been flippant about it. Granted I havent read every post in here but the feeling I get is people are quite disgusted and let down about what he did. That goes for the chairman, manager and fellow players alike.
However the defence for him is coming from the angle of the reaction that has blown up in the media - the British media in particular. If you listen to the like of Barnes, Neville and the likes they are not defending him but they are giving balanced opinions on what has happened and not this sensationalist vitriol that we are getting from a lot of places.

Yes it would have been worse if blood had been drawn - it wasnt so I dont your point in bringing that up?

What he did was inexcusable. He will and should be punished. That punishment should be fair and in line with other incidents that have occurred on the football field. There should not be different rules for Suarez.

That's a poor basis for defending someone! "Your honour, my client did indeed eat the baby as seen on the CCTV but such is the hysterical media coverage I feel he is in danger of being punished unduly!"

C'mon if you are going to defend someone you do so for what he has done and as you say no one is defending his actions. His actions are worthy of a significant ban. Context matters and the context of the coverage and the likely punishment is prior form.

That he didn't draw blood is irrelevant, if you bite someone there is a chance of it happening at which point a "foul" becomes a public health matter. No one should need shots and blood tests upon leaving the field of play.

Devilman40k

mike65 wrote: »

That's a poor basis for defending someone! "Your honour, my client did indeed eat the baby as seen on the CCTV but such is the hysterical media coverage I feel he is in danger of being punished unduly!"

C'mon if you are going to defend someone you do so for what he has done and as you say no one is defending his actions. His actions are worthy of a significant ban. Context matters and the context of the coverage and the likely punishment is prior form.

That he didn't draw blood is irrelevant, if you bite someone there is a chance of it happening at which point a "foul" becomes a public health matter. No one should need shots and blood tests upon leaving the field of play.

Not quite the same but I think the point being made is that the media has gone overboard with it. No one condones the act, no one can defend the act it was disgusting, but the media have a pantomime villain in Suarez and have ripped him apart (Yes he's brought it on himself) the FA should step back from the pantomime villain and give a suspension that's fair and balanced...and that in my opinion should be around 6 games although I think the FA will give a lot more (hope I'm wrong).

The Rooster

mike65 wrote: »

That's a poor basis for defending someone! "Your honour, my client did indeed eat the baby as seen on the CCTV but such is the hysterical media coverage I feel he is in danger of being punished unduly!"

C'mon if you are going to defend someone you do so for what he has done and as you say no one is defending his actions. His actions are worthy of a significant ban. Context matters and the context of the coverage and the likely punishment is prior form.

That he didn't draw blood is irrelevant, if you bite someone there is a chance of it happening at which point a "foul" becomes a public health matter. No one should need shots and blood tests upon leaving the field of play.

That's just nonsense. There was absolutely no danger Suarez could have drawn blood. The different between what Suarez did (which I repeat was stupid and disgusting) and a bite that would draw blood is huge. Any one with the smallest semblance of common sense would know that. Anyone with zero common sense can try biting their own arm to check the difference!

citytillidie

I cant see them going more that 8 games as then that would send out a message that biting is worse than raceism

And those going on about the World Cup hand ball give over about that, any player for any nation on a big stage would have done the same thing and celebrated too if they other team missed the resulting pen.

People are comparing the reaction from the press and other media for there reaction between Defoe and Saurez for there respective bites not the action by the FA

gafferino

mike65 wrote: »

That's a poor basis for defending someone! "Your honour, my client did indeed eat the baby as seen on the CCTV but such is the hysterical media coverage I feel he is in danger of being punished unduly!"

C'mon if you are going to defend someone you do so for what he has done and as you say no one is defending his actions. His actions are worthy of a significant ban. Context matters and the context of the coverage and the likely punishment is prior form.

That he didn't draw blood is irrelevant, if you bite someone there is a chance of it happening at which point a "foul" becomes a public health matter. No one should need shots and blood tests upon leaving the field of play.

I'm not defending him. Suarez has brought this on himself and will be punished for it.
I am simply pointing out that the reaction to everything he does, including this, is completely over the top. He is a pantomine villain for the tabloid rags and this is being lapped up by the 'football public' and beyond who read this drivel and allow it to disseminate into society and accept it as the truth. He is treated differently to other players in this regard - this is not right regardless of what he does. There should not be two sets of rules.
I dont know why you are even talking about 'drawing blood' - there was no blood so it has no relevance.

mike65

Devilman40k wrote: »

the FA should step back from the pantomime villain and give a suspension that's fair and balanced...and that in my opinion should be around 6 games although I think the FA will give a lot more (hope I'm wrong).

I think the FA will be careful in their consideration in so far as they will be wary of setting a precedent if they go over the top, they will probably not want to put Liverpool football club (as distinct from Suarez) in a difficult position as well. If the punishment was effectively a third of a league season the club would probably feel compelled to appeal (as the message boards/phone ins melt down) when you just know they really don't want to. Thus bringing further pressure on all parties. We could end up in the situation where a long ban provokes FSG into putting him up for sale and them being seen as the villains of the piece rather than Suarez for his behaviour or the FA for their ban hammer.

Mr Alan

mike65 wrote: »

That he didn't draw blood is irrelevant, if you bite someone there is a chance of it happening at which point a "foul" becomes a public health matter. No one should need shots and blood tests upon leaving the field of play.

How very tabloid of you Mike.

No one should need a stretcher or oxygen to leave the field of play either, however, it happens when people put in horror tackles.

Suarez's ban should be 3 matches. If they want to take into account his previous actions, then it should be increased to 4/5 matches. Anything more would be overkill. Thankfully it appears even much of the tabloid media seems to agree with this.

If the punishment for violent conduct was 10 games & leg breakers, head butts, spitting, punching etc received that as a punishment, then it'd be normal & fair for him to have a ban in line with that, but the FA making up a ban to match the hysteria and faux outrage that has surrounded the incident is too much.

Even the FA announcing from the outset that they were going to punish him more harshly than usual is bizzare, surely they should at least be giving the impression that they weren't going into this with their mind made up?!

The simple fact is with Jermaine Defoe, the FA deemed the incident not exceptional enough to take action against. With Suarez they now classify it as exceptional so they can dish out whatever ban they deem fit. They're a joke.

gafferino

Mr Alan wrote: »

How very tabloid of you Mike.

No one should need a stretcher or oxygen to leave the field of play either, however, it happens when people put in horror tackles.

Suarez's ban should be 3 matches. If they want to take into account his previous actions, then it should be increased to 4/5 matches. Anything more would be overkill. Thankfully it appears even much of the tabloid media seems to agree with this.

If the punishment for violent conduct was 10 games & leg breakers, head butts, spitting, punching etc received that as a punishment, then it'd be normal & fair for him to have a ban in line with that, but the FA making up a ban to match the hysteria and faux outrage that has surrounded the incident is too much.

Even the FA announcing from the outset that they were going to punish him more harshly than usual is bizzare, surely they should at least be giving the impression that they weren't going into this with their mind made up?!

The simple fact is with Jermaine Defoe, the FA deemed the incident not exceptional enough to take action against. With Suarez they now classify it as exceptional so they can dish out whatever ban they deem fit. They're a joke.

This x 1,000,000

What sort of amateurish buffoon saw fit to include this in their statement. I thought I was reading a fake when I saw that. Dinosaurs.

mike65

Mr Alan wrote: »

Even the FA announcing from the outset that they were going to punish him more harshly than usual is bizzare, surely they should at least be giving the impression that they weren't going into this with their mind made up?!

Did they? are you referring to

The incident was not seen by the match officials and has therefore been retrospectively reviewed.

"It is alleged that the conduct of Suarez constitutes violent conduct and it is the FA's contention that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances

Mr Alan wrote: »

The simple fact is with Jermaine Defoe, the FA deemed the incident not exceptional enough to take action against. With Suarez they now classify it as exceptional so they can dish out whatever ban they deem fit. They're a joke.

Defoe was dealt with at the time - yellow card. Clearly a mild punishment and one that the FA could not change under the rules.

Devilman40k

mike65 wrote: »

Did they?

Yes they did, which was astonishing.

It is alleged that the conduct of Suarez constitutes violent conduct and it is The FA’s contention that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances.
http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/luis-suarez-charge-liverpool-chelsea-ivanovic.aspx#1zU0kf0tXYYwZW8b.99

super_furry

It'll be seven games. They can't impose a bigger punishment than the one they gave him for the Evra farce for fear of being accused of 'downplaying' so called racist insults.

mike65 wrote: »

Did they? are you referring to

Defoe was dealt with at the time - yellow card. Clearly a mild punishment and one that the FA could not change under the rules.

But they could have changed it under the rules as they did with Ben Thatcher earlier in the same season for hitting Pedro Mendes. They deemed Thatchar's case as exceptional and changed their own rules to punish him, but did not feel that an Englishman biting a foreigner was 'exceptional' enough.

Kess73

Maybe folk should actually wait and see what the ban length is before wetting their collective knickers over it.


Suarez deserves a ban, don't think there are any against that, but until we know what length the ban is, it is pretty pointless to have Liverpool supporters bitching at Liverpool supporters over an outcome that has not been announced as of yet.


Yes there are other incidents in the past that have not been punished or have received bans of certain lengths, but the Suarez ban cannot be compared to them until an actual ban has been given.

Regarding the Defoe bite. Everyone seems to be saying that nothing could be done as he was booked. Is this completely true?

super_furry

rarnes1 wrote: »

Regarding the Defoe bite. Everyone seems to be saying that nothing could be done as he was booked. Is this completely true?

Nope - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/5339964.stm

Kess73

rarnes1 wrote: »

Regarding the Defoe bite. Everyone seems to be saying that nothing could be done as he was booked. Is this completely true?

No it is not true. Even if a ref has acted upon something and given a card, the FA can take further action if the deem the incident to be exceptional.

If an incident is deemed non exceptional then the FA are bound by their own rules, but they do have carte blanche to act if they regard the incident as requiring further sanctions. All they have to do is deem the incident as being an exceptional circumstance.

pitythefool

rarnes1 wrote: »

Regarding the Defoe bite. Everyone seems to be saying that nothing could be done as he was booked. Is this completely true?

yes, in some instances

but it is wrong, refs might not always see the full extent

the fa should be allowed rule on anything they want after a match, regardless of what the ref sees

Knex*

Shouldn't be more than four (or less than three), but probably will be six or more.

Its the shock factor and also that its Luis Suarez involved. People are some what accustomed to seeing the dangerous tackles and flying elbows, they happen I would say 10+ times a year, more even in just the PL alone. However, this is the first bite in what, 6 or 7 years?

Its easy to see why people are shocked and then jumping on the outrage wagon. Neville made a great point on MNF when he says the culture over here makes that sort of incident more shocking and disgusting that an 'honest 'ard' tackle that may finish a guy's career.

Doesn't matter how physically threatening the incident was IMO, rightly or wrongly the FA are going to give him 6+ games.

RasTa

I remember phone-ins and backpage stories over this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndLeaJk7o0Q

That brought the media writing award winning stuff such as

Four days after his foul-mouthed rant into a pitchside camera live on lunchtime TV, the global drinks company said it had cut all ties with the boorish Manchester United and England star.
On Wednesday the decision not to renew his £600,000-a-year deal was hailed as ‘a victory for decency’.

Now don't forget his swore into a camera, given what has happened since Suarez turned into a walker and the FA's comments being similar to Rooney's aftermath I expect a 10 game ban.

amiable

Kess73 wrote: »

No it is not true. Even if a ref has acted upon something and given a card, the FA can take further action if the deem the incident to be exceptional.

If an incident is deemed non exceptional then the FA are bound by their own rules, but they do have carte blanche to act if they regard the incident as requiring further sanctions. All they have to do is deem the incident as being an exceptional circumstance.

As proved in the Ben Thatcher case with his elbow on Pedro Mendes

kryogen

As has been pointed out, the FA can intervene if they see it as exceptional, they are extremely against doing this though, it does take something very special for them to act.

Count how many times they have retrospectively acted after a ref has dealt with an incident