Liverpool v Chelsea 4:00pm

niallo27

cambo2008 wrote: »

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

He got a 4 game ban though. He got off light

cournioni

rarnes1 wrote: »

Good that's he has apologised.

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

Move on to what? It's not the first time he has bitten a player so I find this apology quite hollow.

Hopefully he'll get a lengthy ban, he clearly cannot control himself on the pitch, how many more chances does he have to get?

cournioni

cournioni wrote: »

Move on to what? It's not the first time he has bitten a player so I find this apology quite hollow.

Hopefully he'll get a lengthy ban, he clearly cannot control himself on the pitch, how many more chances does he have to get?

That was in Holland and he was punished for it so your point about getting chances is moot.

zerks

zerks wrote: »

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

You said it

Any more photos?

donfers

liverpool have 4 meaningless games left this season

so a 4 game ban would be good for luis and lfc on account of apology and investigation revealing no bite mark for example

7 game ban would equate with the ban he got in holland and would be about par for the course

10 or above would be just another example of the fa basing their disciplinary process not on the incident itself but how outraged the media is and how unpopular and non-english the player is

i expect them to do a kind of halfway house 8 game ban "look we're stricter than the dutch" but i wouldn't be surprised if they took the easy populist option and hung the guy out to dry

8 is about right but the FA could well go beyond that simply because it's Suarez and they are a reactionary organisation lacking in principle and integrity and instead guided by special interest and level of media vitriol

Royal Legend

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

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.

I do wish people would not add Bartons name to the list, Terry, Rooney, Cantona, Keane, Giggs, Suarez, Ferdinand, Cole etc are all top class footballers, Barton I would not class as a footballer, just a thug who makes a living playing football.

klose

Aguero was left off with 2 footing luiz up the arse so ya never know with the fa suarez might get away :pac:

Cantona's Collars

rarnes1 wrote: »

You said it

Any more photos?

Nice ninja edit there:rolleyes:

Are you not entertained?

I see you aren't so opinionated without your cheerleaders.Isn't it just terrible that a player I despise playing for a team I hate continuosly does scumbag acts which make him such an easy target for opposing fans and the best you can come up with are snide little digs.

eagle eye

Suarez deserves a very harsh punishment for this. Its not the same as Defoe because he only did it once but Suarez has done it before when he was in the Dutch League.
Its just not on to do something like that and he has shown now that he hasn't learned from the punishment handed out which was seven games for that incident.

DM360

Can't understand people making excuses for Suarez. He's got a track record, he clearly has issues with self-control and conduct on the pitch. I reckon he should be banned for 6 games and if it's within control of the FA, he should have to undergo some sort of anger management course.

It's not 'just a nip'. When he bit Ivanovic, he did it to inflict pain on him. For spitting at someone on the pitch you get a nice long ban, an off the ball assault the same. This is a combination of the two. It's just filth and doesn't belong on the football pitch.

It's great seeing so many supporters of LFC speaking out against him but there's still a few making excuses, trying to bring up past cases and just generally distract from what Suarez did.

I thought it was a great match as far as footballing content went, Sturridge's goal was sheer class. Have to say he was a great buy. A bit disappointed with Chelsea, didn't seem to really get comfortable for long periods.

amiable

cournioni wrote: »

Move on to what? It's not the first time he has bitten a player so I find this apology quite hollow.

Hopefully he'll get a lengthy ban, he clearly cannot control himself on the pitch, how many more chances does he have to get?

He's broken some rules and will be punished. What more do you want?

niallo27

zerks wrote: »

Nice ninja edit there:rolleyes:

Are you not entertained?

I see you aren't so opinionated without your cheerleaders.Isn't it just terrible that a player I despise playing for a team I hate continuosly does scumbag acts which make him such an easy target for opposing fans and the best you can come up with are snide little digs.

We want you to hate him. It's was classic today when he scored the equalizer today after all that happened. I couldn't stop laughing. He is a Headerball.

amiable

eagle eye wrote: »

Suarez deserves a very harsh punishment for this. Its not the same as Defoe because he only did it once but Suarez has done it before when he was in the Dutch League.
Its just not on to do something like that and he has shown now that he hasn't learned from the punishment handed out which was seven games for that incident.

It has nothing to do with The FA

eagle eye

amiable wrote: »

It has nothing to do with The FA

He has history and they are entitled to take that into consideration.

donfers

6-8 games would be fair enough, my fear is that the fa will go for more because of the lynch mob mentality endemic in english football

Cantona's Collars

niallo27 wrote: »

We want you to hate him. It's was classic today when he scored the equalizer today after all that happened. I couldn't stop laughing. He is a Headerball.

He got me 11 points for my FF team,sometimes you have to do things that you don't like:D

amiable

eagle eye wrote: »

He has history and they are entitled to take that into consideration.

He has no history under the FA though

DM360

amiable wrote: »

He has no history under the FA though

Remember that whole racism thing with Evra? That might count as a bit of history with the FA

amiable

DM360 wrote: »

Remember that whole racism thing with Evra? That might count as a bit of history with the FA

If you took the time to see I was replying to a specific point

DM360

amiable wrote: »

If you took the time to see I was replying to a specific point

I did take the time. You said he has no history, I disagreed and said he does have history.

Also I see no reason why the FA should choose to ignore the previous biting case. It's of massive relevance.

Nalz

Haha, won't complain though

amiable

DM360 wrote: »

I did take the time. You said he has no history, I disagreed and said he does have history.

Also I see no reason why the FA should choose to ignore the previous biting case. It's of massive relevance.

Well then you'd see I was specifically referring to having no history of biting under the FA's Jurisdiction.
The FA can't use evidence of an offence in another Jurisdiction.
He should be punished for what he's done wrong.

cournioni

rarnes1 wrote: »

That was in Holland and he was punished for it so your point about getting chances is moot.

It really doesn't matter where it has happened before and quite frankly shouldn't. This sort of behavior has no place on a football pitch.

How many more times does it have to happen?

Felexicon

Trilla wrote: »

Haha, won't complain though

I have him as captain. Cheeky 22 points. Nice one.

jive

amiable wrote: »

Well then you'd see I was specifically referring to having no history of biting under the FA's Jurisdiction.
The FA can't use evidence of an offence in another Jurisdiction.

Why? Is there a reason for that or are you just making that up? I don't see what logical reason they would have for not taking an individuals priors into account regardless of where the prior incidents occurred.

cournioni

amiable wrote: »

He's broken some rules and will be punished. What more do you want?

A form of punishment that will keep him from doing it again. The FA need to come down really hard on this guy. A three match ban won't do that.

amiable

jive wrote: »

Why? Is there a reason for that or are you just making that up? I don't see what logical reason they would have for not taking an individuals priors into account regardless of where the prior incidents occurred.

Because you can only make judgements on things that happen in your Jurisdiction

Adamcp898

In regards to speculating on the length of the ban, I think the FA will at least dish out the same punishment the Dutch FA did by way of just avoiding the minor debate of 'Why are the FA here softer on biters than they are in Holland?'

DM360

amiable wrote: »

Well then you'd see I was specifically referring to having no history of biting under the FA's Jurisdiction.
The FA can't use evidence of an offence in another Jurisdiction.
He should be punished for what he's done wrong.

You didn't specify that though, you said "no history".

I don't know if the FA are unable to go 'outside their jurisdiction'. I've never heard of a rule like that and can't see why it wouldn't be allowed. They wouldn't have to talk about any of the disciplinary procedures the Dutch FA handed down, merely illustrate that Suarez exhibited such behaviour and thus the incident is not a once off.

amiable

DM360 wrote: »

You didn't specify that though, you said "no history".

I don't know if the FA are unable to go 'outside their jurisdiction'. I've never heard of a rule like that and can't see why it wouldn't be allowed. They wouldn't have to talk about any of the disciplinary procedures the Dutch FA handed down, merely illustrate that Suarez exhibited such behaviour and thus the incident is not a once off.

I did by quoting the other poster and putting in bold what I was replying to.
It's how a thread works.

amiable

cournioni wrote: »

A form of punishment that will keep him from doing it again. The FA need to come down really hard on this guy. A three match ban won't do that.

Agreed on that and I don't believe he will get a 3 game ban.
I would guess it would be more like another 8 game ban.

gosplan

Apologies if posted already but......


He bites,
He dives,
He hates the Jackson five,
Suarez, Suarez

inforfun

cournioni wrote: »

A form of punishment that will keep him from doing it again. The FA need to come down really hard on this guy. A three match ban won't do that.

He got 7 matches in Holland after biting Otman Bakkal.
He will never learn.

Felexicon

amiable wrote: »

Because you can only make judgements on things that happen in your Jurisdiction

He will not be tried in a court of law so your point here is bollox.

DM360

amiable wrote: »

I did by quoting the other poster and putting in bold what I was replying to.
It's how a thread works.

Well I can't see where that is sorry.

I don't know why you keep saying the FA can't make use of the fact that Suarez committed an offence like this before just because it was in the Dutch League. You haven't offered any proof as to why this true and why you are so certain.

To be honest I don't know if they can, personally I just don't see any reason they wouldn't be allowed.

amiable

Felexicon wrote: »

He will not be tried in a court of law so your point here is bollox.

You obviously did honours English judging by the depth of your post so I bow to your superior knowledge

Chucky the tree

cournioni wrote: »

A form of punishment that will keep him from doing it again. The FA need to come down really hard on this guy. A three match ban won't do that.

Unlikely. The FA don't really care to much about that, just look at rooney's consistently poor behaviour too see that. Although Suarez being foreign will find himself up against the media pressure a lot more than a British player.

Nalz

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Unlikely. The FA don't really care to much about that, just look at rooney's consistently poor behaviour too see that. Although Suarez being foreign will find himself up against the media pressure a lot more than a British player.

I see what you did there.

Great equalizer and nice 11 points in FF to keep me top of my work league.

Good day all round.

Nite

PhlegmyMoses

amiable wrote: »

You obviously did honours English judging by the depth of your post so I bow to your superior knowledge

Username change to Sandy Vagina Attorney at Law pls admins.

Optimalprimerib

Do you know what would be cool. Instead of banning suarez, fine him and put a muzzle on him

niallo27

Why are people getting worked up about. He was stupid. He is a bit mad in the head. He is a world class footballer. He should get banned. Just move on and laugh about it. Nobody was hurt.

copacetic

Friend appeared to deal with the incident and spoke to both players as well as listened to Ivanavics complaint of a bite. He then took no action. How can the FA then take action? They said this re the Defoe case in 2006.

Jermain Defoe will escape further punishment for allegedly biting Javier Mascherano during Tottenham Hotspur's 1-0 victory over West Ham United on Sunday but the ensuing altercation between both sets of players will be subject to a fresh disciplinary investigation.

The Football Association last night confirmed that Fifa regulations prohibit it from taking subsequent action over an incident that was dealt with by a referee. Only if the incident constitutes an "exceptional case", such as Ben Thatcher's forearm smash on Portsmouth's Pedro Mendes, will it be reviewed. In that case the FA banned the Manchester City defender for eight games.

The FA broke these regulations in August last year when a disciplinary commission agreed to downgrade Jermaine Jenas' sending off - then as a Newcastle United player - against Arsenal to a yellow card. On that occasion the world governing body warned the FA that any future transgression would be unacceptable and, as Steve Bennett cautioned Defoe at the time of his clash with the Argentinian midfielder, a retrospective red card is beyond its power.

"There won't be any further action taken against Jermain Defoe because we are not able to take any," an FA spokesman said after Soho Square took an entire day to conclude its deliberations. "If a referee deals with an incident, which he did, we are not allowed to retrospectively take disciplinary action in terms of upgrading or downgrading cards.

"The only exception to that is in terms of a very serious case, such as that of Ben Thatcher, where if the offence is deemed to be such that even if he had been sent off it would have warranted a further charge. In such a situation we can then bring that further charge. I don't think anyone is suggesting that that is the case here."

Felexicon

amiable wrote: »

You obviously did honours English judging by the depth of your post so I bow to your superior knowledge

Well judging by your posts I'd say you have a PhD in Conspiracy Theories.

My post didn't require depth as it was a response to pure nonsense

amiable

Felexicon wrote: »

Well judging by your posts I'd say you have a PhD in Conspiracy Theories.

My post didn't require depth as it was a response to pure nonsense

What conspiracy theories? Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?
I'm record saying he should be punished and he did wrong.
He is not the victim of any conspiracy theory.
I'm fully expecting his ban to extend in to next season.

Felexicon

amiable wrote: »

What conspiracy theories? Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?
I'm record saying he should be punished and he did wrong.
He is not the victim of any conspiracy theory.
I'm fully expecting his ban to extend in to next season.

Not mistaken, but I won't quote all you're tinfoil hat posts in this thread again

PhlegmyMoses

niallo27 wrote: »

Why are people getting worked up about. He was stupid. He is a bit mad in the head. He is a world class footballer. He should get banned. Just move on and laugh about it. Nobody was hurt.

Would you go away out of that, you'd be the first in here if a United player did that with talk of lizard people from the FA and elite refs keeping United at the top.

Your view of the Ferguson, Benitez handshake:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83609054

Chucky the tree

copacetic wrote: »

Friend appeared to deal with the incident and spoke to both players as well as listened to Ivanavics complaint of a bite. He then took no action. How can the FA then take action? They said this re the Defoe case in 2006.

He can't take action if he didn't see it. I'm 99% sure it will say in his report that he didn't see the incident.

JP Liz V1

A very nail biting match

monkey9

Suarez is pure box office. I love the little hero.

niallo27

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Would you go away out of that, you'd be the first in here if a United player did that with talk of lizard people from the FA and elite refs keeping United at the top.

Your view of the Ferguson, Benitez handshake:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83609054

I never mentioned the FA. He will get a ban. Nobody was hurt though I just think people should relax a bit about it.