Liverpool v Chelsea 4:00pm

Unearthly

Ivanovic to be accused of having history of playing the bite card before

PhlegmyMoses

Gbear wrote: »

Unless you took a chunk out of them you really wouldn't.

If courts had to deal with **** this trivial there wouldn't be time for anything else.

"No Garda, you see, I didn't take a chunk out of him, though. It's only when I take a chunk out them that I get in trouble. Don't you know the rules? The judge won't like you for wasting his time like this"

Garda: "What is this, I don't even...."

Here Precious2

super_furry wrote: »

I just don't get how, when Jermaine Defoe bites Javier Mascherano no-one cares but when Luis Suarez does it, there's calls for him to be banned from football.

Because Suarez has a long long long history of doing stupid things.

Felexicon

Gbear wrote: »

Unless you took a chunk out of them you really wouldn't.

If courts had to deal with **** this trivial there wouldn't be time for anything else.

Ok

Why don't you test your own theory and go out now and bite someone on the street,give them your name and address to take to the guards and see if you spend some time in handcuffs and have to book a day off work for a court date.

I guarantee you will be charged.


Seriously you're going on like you were brought up in Baghdad

PhlegmyMoses

super_furry wrote: »

I just don't get how, when Jermaine Defoe bites Javier Mascherano no-one cares but when Luis Suarez does it, there's calls for him to be banned from football.

Did nobody care? It was fecking ages ago. Can't remember if there was any reaction or not.

super_furry

Here Precious2 wrote: »

Because Suarez has a long long long history of doing stupid things.

Surely one bite is as bad as another?

Nailz

super_furry wrote: »

I just don't get how, when Jermaine Defoe bites Javier Mascherano no-one cares but when Luis Suarez does it, there's calls for him to be banned from football.

It's unfair. When Defoe done that he should've been smacked with a very long term banned, it's assault, and shouldn't be brought into sport.

super_furry wrote: »

Surely one bite is as bad as another?

It is, and if I was the FA I would've banned Defoe at least a dozen games, it's just a shame that Suarez will only be missing 4 games because of it.

DwightSchrute1

batistuta9 wrote: »

saying this

is an overreaction

maybe you might think getting bit by somebody is harmless, but if it was me, i don't think i could have shown the restraint that Ivanovic had

General Relativity

Nailz wrote: »

It's unfair. When Defoe done that he should've been smacked with a very long term banned, it's assault, and shouldn't be brought into sport.

IIRC Defoe was booked for biting, negating any chance of an FA ban.

batistuta9

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

maybe you might think getting bit by somebody is harmless, but if it was me, i don't think i could have shown the restraint that Ivanovic had

i don't think it's harmless, but it's no where near the level you originally described

super_furry

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Did nobody care? It was fecking ages ago. Can't remember if there was any reaction or not.

It was 2006 and it was brushed aside as almost a joke at the time. He was booked for it by the referee and that was it, no additional punishment, no witch-hunt and no screaming hysterical fools calling for him to be banned from football.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Nailz

General Relativity wrote: »

IIRC Defoe was booked for biting, negating any chance of an FA ban.

I'm aware of that, but it's also my opinion that that whole rule regarding retrospective rulings is retarded.

PhlegmyMoses

super_furry wrote: »

It was 2006 and it was brushed aside as almost a joke at the time. He was booked for it by the referee and that was it, no additional punishment, no witch-hunt and no screaming hysterical fools calling for him to be banned from football.

This really shouldn't be a surprise. The bigger, more high profile players get bans for **** that other players do not. It's not even an English player\foreign player paradigm. If Rooney did this he'd get roasted as well.

.jacksparrow.

super_furry wrote: »

It was 2006 and it was brushed aside as almost a joke at the time. He was booked for it by the referee and that was it, no additional punishment, no witch-hunt and no screaming hysterical fools calling for him to be banned from football.

So why do you think its a witch hunt against suarez?

murpho999

Luis Suarez
I'm sad for what it happened this afternoon, I apologize Ivanovic and all football world for my inexcusable behaviour. I'm so sorry about it!!

From his Facebook. He knows he's in the sh1t.

kmart6

Suarez on twitter:

Suarez wrote:

I'm sad for what happened this afternoon, I apologize Ivanovic and all football world for my inexcusable behaviour. I'm so sorry about it!!

DwightSchrute1

peteeeed wrote: »

Sky sports saying Suarez is going to issue an apology tonight

He should just copy and paste from his last apology, changing a few words here and there.

Good that's he has apologised.

Now over to the club/FA and we can move on.

michael999999

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This really shouldn't be a surprise. The bigger, more high profile players get bans for **** that other players do not. It's not even an English player\foreign player paradigm. If Rooney did this he'd get roasted as well.

No he wouldn't, sure didn't the fa appoint a barrister to get rooneys ban overturned the time he kicked someone from behind!

Giggsy11

michael999999 wrote: »

No he wouldn't, sure didn't the fa appoint a barrister to get rooneys ban overturned the time he kicked someone from behind!

And he got 2 games banned for swearing. First time ever it happened if I'm not wrong. Ferdinand was banned for 8 months.

Cantona's Collars

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

So why do you think its a witch hunt against suarez?

Would vampire hunt be more appropriate?

Ivanovic has been taken to hospital after displaying strange symptoms such as inexplicably falling to the ground when anyone goes near him then flailing his arms around.

Garzorico

kmart6 wrote: »

Suarez on twitter:

As a Chelsea fan and the only thing I find disappointing is the officials once again making a bawls of all sorts of decisions. Suarez did what he did in a moment of madness but the refs should have spotted it (or have the means to; third eye etc). Sturrdige should have walked for his over the top challenge. 9 men, no chance of equalizing even if there were 16 mins added time. 8 minutes? Jokeshop. Fair result though based on the football played.

What Sturridge did was far worse than what Suarez did.

super_furry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/oct/23/newsstory.sport1

Its crazy contrasting the Defoe bite and the Suarez one. Imagine the uproar if Suarez was to come out and say "This has been blown out of all proportion. The referee was standing right over me and if he felt I had done anything bad he would have sent me off."

Picture the hysteria if Rodgers was to try and play it off by saying "He was nibbling his arm - there will be no mark."

PhlegmyMoses

michael999999 wrote: »

No he wouldn't, sure didn't the fa appoint a barrister to get rooneys ban overturned the time he kicked someone from behind!

From a ban that was given by.......FIFA. It suited the FA to back Rooney in this instance. In the past, they have banned Rooney for cursing at a camera.

Face it, the likes of Rooney and Terry would also be vilified for this. They fall into the most hated players category with Suarez and Barton.

DwightSchrute1

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wow, that's the best response you have got. I'd say a 5 year old would be more creative then that

Nailz

michael999999 wrote: »

No he wouldn't, sure didn't the fa appoint a barrister to get rooneys ban overturned the time he kicked someone from behind!

In that instance it wasn't FA that instigated the ban it was UEFA (or was it FIFA?), and Rooney was playing for the FA's team; England, not United. If it was club football it would be a different matter. For example, the time he got banned for 2 or 3 games for saying "fuck" a couple of times in front of a camera, that's just petty and the FA were still slapping on a ban for it.

opr

This old mock up is probably fairly relevant today Might need to update the starring characters and location though.



Opr

super_furry

Garzorico wrote: »

What Sturridge did was far worse than what Suarez did.

Actually just made made that point to a mate. Sturridge could have broken a leg but everyone's more concerned by the moral outrage of a stupid petulent gesture that caused no harm and was never likely to. Sturbridge could have out a fellow pro out for the rest of the season but no one seems to be concerned about that and you can be sure the papers won't be on about all week.

hefferboi

He was dead right to bite him though. Ivanovic stood on his toes. I would have done the same.

CSF

super_furry wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/oct/23/newsstory.sport1

Its crazy contrasting the Defoe bite and the Suarez one. Imagine the uproar if Suarez was to come out and say "This has been blown out of all proportion. The referee was standing right over me and if he felt I had done anything bad he would have sent me off."

Picture the hysteria if Rodgers was to try and play it off by saying "He was nibbling his arm - there will be no mark."

Nobody gives a **** about Defoe, doesn't make what he did any less though. The only real contrast in the Defoe and Suarez situations, is that the ref acted upon the Defoe situation and therefore the FA can't act retrospectively (stupid rule), whereas in this situation the FA are almost obliged to act as the referee missed it.

Will I Amnt

super_furry wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/oct/23/newsstory.sport1

Its crazy contrasting the Defoe bite and the Suarez one. Imagine the uproar if Suarez was to come out and say "This has been blown out of all proportion. The referee was standing right over me and if he felt I had done anything bad he would have sent me off."

Picture the hysteria if Rodgers was to try and play it off by saying "He was nibbling his arm - there will be no mark."

Don't see why people can't see this.
Defoe did a scummy thing in a moment of madness.
Suarez did another scummy thing in another moment of madness.

If it was Sturridge that bit someone today there would not be near the levels of hysteria.

Players like Suarez or Barton have made their reputations themselves and deserve everything they get IMO.

A one off can be excused a little easier.

Timmyctc

Liverpool Statement

wonderfullife

Wanted: Uruguyan for alleged bite, last seen fleeing on foot from the scene.

The suspect is hatless, i repeat hatless.

murpho999

rarnes1 wrote: »

Good that's he has apologised.

Now over to the club/FA and we can move on.

I think there is a strong chance that is exactly what he'll be asked to do.

Felexicon

murpho999 wrote: »

I think there is a strong chance that is exactly what he'll be asked to do.

No chance. It's not that big an incident that Liverpool will ask him to leave or look to sell him

Cantona's Collars

At least he got 3 bonus points in FF.:)

murpho999

Felexicon wrote: »

No chance. It's not that big an incident that Liverpool will ask him to leave or look to sell him

It is a big incident, it's all over the media and the club's name getting dragged through the dirt again.

Think there definitely is a breaking point and he must be very close to it.

Peppa Pig

Much as I don't like Suarez, that's a very good statement from Liverpool. Accept your guilt, apologise and move on.
The FA will still throw the book at him. If he was captain of England they bend over backwards for him.

Will I Amnt

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Much as I don't like Suarez, that's a very good statement from Liverpool. Accept your guilt, apologise and move on.
The FA will still throw the book at him. If he was captain of England they bend over backwards for him.

Like they did for Terry when they let him off the racism stuff??
Oh no, wait..

Stuxnet

i doubt the c**** even wrote it himself,
media lip service is all that statement is

Cantona's Collars

Phil Thompson calling for a 10 match ban and this man is Liverpool through and through.

Timmyctc

zerks wrote: »

Phil Thompson calling for a 10 match ban and this man is Liverpool through and through.

Well if saying "Fúcking what" is a 3 match ban by that logic biting someone is....

It's funny people using Thompson as a source when they have probably never even listened to his opinion before

Unearthly

Part of me wants the ref and FA to troll everyone by saying it was already dealt with. Internet meltdown

Cantona's Collars

rarnes1 wrote: »

It's funny people using Thompson as a source when they have probably never even listened to his opinion before

Funny having a comment coming from a guy who can't seem to form an opinion of his own.:rolleyes:

Handsome Bob

zerks wrote: »

Phil Thompson calling for a 10 match ban and this man is Liverpool through and through.

He's also the constant point of ridicule. Listen to the man when it suits so.

super_furry

It'll be a max of six and more likely five games. Keep him out for the rest of the season but little else. Look he was stupid, idiotic and petulent but he didn't injury anyone, didn't attempt to break someone's leg and while its an unsavoury and nasty incident, there was no real harm done to Ivanovic.

Sappy404

Unearthly wrote: »

Part of me wants the ref and FA to troll everyone by saying it was already dealt with. Internet meltdown

They've done this for similar/worse incidents but given the coverage they'll likely make an exception, hopefully one that sees them overturn that ridiculous policy of sticking by the referee's report.

Cantona's Collars

Strange how former players are lauded as legends yet when they condemn a guy for scummy behaviour they are vilified by those self same fans.