Liverpool v Chelsea 4:00pm

amiable

cambo2008 wrote: »

Well Knex, what ya think?

So we are agreed Knex is to blame?

Essien

super_furry wrote: »

Not at all. You can ban him for as long as you want.

I lol'd

monkey9

I don't see why the English FA should be looking towards the Dutch or any other FA for guidelines to a punishment. They should be looking to their own.

If they were happy to let Defoe have a yellow card as punishment and not deem biting someone on the arm of needing any extra punishment under special circumstances, I don't see why they'd be handing out 8 match bans or whatever.

We'll see what comes from the referee's match report first.

fryup

its not the first time this sort of thing has happened

anyone remember this ??

Leftist

odd that some people are questioning why does suarez get this attention, he's a repeat offender, same reason cantona got attention.
And to the latter, I've even heard of some people are claiming cantona didn't get this press or fa attention. He got banned for 8 months and rightly so. at least be honest about it, Suarez should get a 7/8 game ban for it. And people will still treat him with more attention after he's finished his ban, why?, because he'll do something else when he gets back.

AdamD

monkey9 wrote: »

I don't see why the English FA should be looking towards the Dutch or any other FA for guidelines to a punishment. They should be looking to their own.

If they were happy to let Defoe have a yellow card as punishment and not deem biting someone on the arm of needing any extra punishment under special circumstances, I don't see why they'd be handing out 8 match bans or whatever.

We'll see what comes from the referee's match report first.

Defoe couldn't get punished further because he had a yellow card - therefore dealt with in the FA's rules. How difficult is that to understand?

Xavi6

Suarez says he's been fined by the club.

SlickRic

it's funny.

we seem to be handling it the exact opposite way to the last time :P

intellectual dosser

Part of being a high profile player at a high profile club means that you get attention when you do something like this. Its unfortunate that if some Norwich player did it in a game against Wigan there wouldn't be such a storm. I think the Defoe incident was handled poorly, there should have been an exception made, it doesn't justify Suarez not being punished.

Tackles, good or bad, are part of the game. Biting is a deliberate act to cause harm to an opponent.

Ban him for 5 games and move on. Liverpool shouldn't sell him - amongst all reasons it would be directly against the YNWA ethos. H'e s agood player and hopefully he'll learn.

Red Crow

Give him a 14 game ban with most of those suspended. Let him stay off the field for the rest of the season and two games next season. That way if he does it again he has to serve an additional 8 game ban if he does it again or commits any other offense of that ilk.

Tom.D.BJJ

SlickRic wrote: »

it's funny.

we seem to be handling it the exact opposite way to the last time :P

Have to say, fair play to Liverpool football club for the way they have dealt this with so far. The restraint and class shown by Ivanovic here is admirable.

The hysteria here is another thing entirely. Suarez deserves and will get 3-5 games and a fine. As an opposition fan, i really dont like the guy because he is so good. It wont take long for the media to chase him out of England, they just love a villian.

amiable

AdamD wrote: »

Defoe couldn't get punished further because he had a yellow card - therefore dealt with in the FA's rules. How difficult is that to understand?

Like Ben Thatcher was? How difficult is that to understand?

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

Thatcher was only booked at the time by referee Dermot Gallagher, who failed to spot the former Wales international smashing his forearm into Mendes' face as the pair chased for possession during the second half of the game.

Aware of the severity of the incident, the FA circumvented its own rules to lodge a charge of "serious foul play" against Thatcher.

amiable

Eli Manning wrote: »

Give him a 14 game ban with most of those suspended. Let him stay off the field for the rest of the season and two games next season. That way if he does it again he has to serve an additional 8 game ban if he does it again or commits any other offense of that ilk.

If Suarez was to do it again though surely he'd deserve more than an 8 game ban?

JimsAlterEgo

amiable wrote: »

Like Ben Thatcher was? How difficult is that to understand?

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

forget the past, are you seriously trying to justify him not being banned?

Dubliner28

Xavi6 wrote: »

Suarez says he's been fined by the club.

Source ????

amiable

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

forget the past, are you seriously trying to justify him not being banned?

No. I've said on several occassions now he should be banned.
I was answering a specific point being made in an open discussion forum and quoted a particular poster in reply to their comment.

Xavi6

Dubliner28 wrote: »

Source ????

Suarez and every other site that's now running the story.

quarryman

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's unmanly behaviour and should be detested on that basis. But, to be fair

No. There are no "buts". No excuses or justification. He bit another person on the arm for f*ck sake.

What part of that do you find acceptable?

"Unmanly behavior". Stop talking horse****. It was complete scumbag behavior.

The guy is a disgrace. Liverpool hanging onto him just harms whatever good name they have left at this stage.

amiable

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

forget the past, are you seriously trying to justify him not being banned?

Precedents get set and laws within organisations make their laws on these precedents so you can't just say forget the past.
Even if the FA decide to take the same course of action as the FA did with Defoe I still believe Liverpool should ban him.

Dubliner28

Xavi6 wrote: »

Suarez says he's been fined by the club.

Source

amiable

Dubliner28 wrote: »

Source

Luis Suarez has tweeted it himself

amiable

Dubliner28 wrote: »

I think the club should come out before the player no?? I presume the club are not taking further action ?

The club have said it is being dealt with internally

amiable

http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1179321/liverpool-football-club-praised-handling-luis-suarez-biting-incident/

Liverpool Football Club has 'learned well' from previous incidents in dealing with yesterday's Luis Suarez biting incident, it has been claimed.

The controversial striker has apologised to Branislav Ivanovic after he bit the Chelsea defender during yesterday’s 2-2 draw.

Following the incident, Suarez’s actions were condemned in strong terms by both his manager Brendan Rodgers and club MD Ian Ayre, who cancelled a trip to Australia to deal with the incident.

It is the latest in a long line of controversies for Suarez, who was previously embroiled in a race row with Patrice Evra after allegations of racism from the Manchester United defender.

Jon Deacon, business director at Fast Track, praised the club’s reaction and said it had ‘learned well and moved forward’ from previous incidents involving Suarez.

‘There was a common consensus that the Evra-Suarez affair was not handled in the best way, whereas this time you have seen clear and decisive action.'

After yesterday’s match, which ended in a 2-2 draw, Suarez initially tweeted an apology to Ivanovic and the ‘football world’ for his ‘inexcusable behaviour’.

Following this, statements from Suarez, Rodgers and Ayre were placed on the club’s website, including Ayre's reaction that Suarez’s behaviour ‘was not befitting of any player wearing the Liverpool shirt’.

‘We will deal with the matter internally and await any action from the FA,’ he added.

Deacon praised the speed and clarity of the responses, which also included Rodgers calling Suarez’s actions ‘unacceptable’.

‘Twitter has become an instant news line and accepted medium when it comes to making a statement, as long as that is not deemed to be the end of it,' said Deacon.

'Ayre’s decision to cancel his trip is on the face of it a good move as this is a big incident that needs addressing. It is now an internal disciplinary matter.’

Yesterday’s incident follows last week's appointment of Susan Black as Liverpool's director of comms.

amiable

Other things match related I do think Sturridge was lucky not to get sent off for his tackle on Bertrand.
After seeing Giroud and Sidwell sent off the day before for similar tackles he's a lucky boy IMO.

quarryman

quarryman wrote: »

No. There are no "buts". No excuses or justification. He bit another person on the arm for f*ck sake.

What part of that do you find acceptable?

"Unmanly behavior". Stop talking horse****. It was complete scumbag behavior.

The guy is a disgrace. Liverpool hanging onto him just harms whatever good name they have left at this stage.

Stop the hysteria, believe it or not Suarez did not stab a number of people to death yesterday though you would think he did reading some posts. He deserves a standard 3 match ban for a red card and no more.

There were two worse incidents yesterday. Torres's elbow and Nasri's tackle on Walker both were intentional and deserve just as much talk as this. I believe Sturridges tackle wasn't intentional but it still could have hurt the player.

citytillidie

amiable wrote: »

Other things match related I do think Sturridge was lucky not to get sent off for his tackle on Bertrand.
After seeing Giroud and Sidwell sent off the day before for similar tackles he's a lucky boy IMO.

And everyone on Goals on Sunday said those were harsh red cards for Giroud and Sidwell so Yellow was right going by that

amiable

citytillidie wrote: »

And everyone on Goals on Sunday said those were harsh red cards for Giroud and Sidwell so Yellow was right going by that

And Phil Thompson and others said those decisions on Saturday were correct when he was covering the game on Saturday.

citytillidie

amiable wrote: »

And Phil Thompson and others said those decisions on Saturday were correct when he was covering the game on Saturday.

All about the ref, he was lucky with Friend which is surprising really maybe if it had of been at the bridge he would have been sent off

amiable

citytillidie wrote: »

All about the ref, he was lucky with Friend which is surprising really maybe if it had of been at the bridge he would have been sent off

Agreed. I think Friend was the ref that sent Jay Spearing off last season at Craven Cottage

Edit; Confirmed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/05/fulham-liverpool-premier-league-mbm

ROCKMAN

amiable wrote: »

The club have said it is being dealt with internally

2 weeks wages and no ban

Abit soft IMHO...

Oranage2

I've been very quiet on the Suarez thing but it was a very cowardly thing to do, as long as he is with Liverpool the fans are going to have to accept all the stick he and the club gets, on a positive note a top team are very unlikely to want him after that so he'll most likely be a pool; player next season.

As for Downing, I think it'll be very though for pool to of load him, he's currently playing at the highest level he'll be able to and on wages that another club wont give him.

amiable

ROCKMAN wrote: »

2 weeks wages and no ban

Abit soft IMHO...

They are not allowed to fine him more than two weeks wages so it's not soft. It's the maximum they can fine him.
They seem to be fully expecting the FA to dish out a ban so it would appear there is no need for the club to ban him.

CSF

Amari Immense Magnet wrote: »

Stop the hysteria, believe it or not Suarez did not stab a number of people to death yesterday though you would think he did reading some posts. He deserves a standard 3 match ban for a red card and no more.

There were two worse incidents yesterday. Torres's elbow and Nasri's tackle on Walker both were intentional and deserve just as much talk as this. I believe Sturridges tackle wasn't intentional but it still could have hurt the player.

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading...

amiable

Oranage2 wrote: »

I've been very quiet on the Suarez thing but it was a very cowardly thing to do, as long as he is with Liverpool the fans are going to have to accept all the stick he and the club gets, on a positive note a top team are very unlikely to want him after that so he'll most likely be a pool; player next season.

As for Downing, I think it'll be very though for pool to of load him, he's currently playing at the highest level he'll be able to and on wages that another club wont give him.

I think there would still be a queue of clubs there for Suarez.
PSG, Man City, Real Madrid and a few Russian clubs would still be interested IMHO.

On Downing I would think a payoff on some of his contract would help with him leaving.

quarryman

Amari Immense Magnet wrote: »

There were two worse incidents yesterday. Torres's elbow and Nasri's tackle on Walker both were intentional and deserve just as much talk as this. I believe Sturridges tackle wasn't intentional but it still could have hurt the player.

Is this a joke? Do you actually believe you what you've said there?

Imagine for a second you have a 10 year old boy watching the game yesterday.

He says "Dad, did Suarez just bite that guy?"

"He sure did son, but it's ok, you go ahead and do that on the pitch if you like. Just don't let me see you catching anyone with an elbow, like Torres did there".

ROCKMAN

amiable wrote: »

They are not allowed to fine him more than two weeks wages so it's not soft. It's the maximum they can fine him.
They seem to be fully expecting the FA to dish out a ban so it would appear there is no need for the club to ban him.

Yes 2 weeks wages max
But thought Liverpool could have followed Ajax example and handed him a 2/3 match ban themselves...

CSF

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Yes 2 weeks wages max
But thought Liverpool could have followed Ajax example and handed him a 2/3 match ban themselves...

Liverpool should leave the banning of him to the FA.

Anyone

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Yes 2 weeks wages max
But thought Liverpool could have followed Ajax example and handed him a 2/3 match ban themselves...

They will wait until the FA ban him otherwise the FA will ban him on top of the Liverpool ban.

amiable

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Yes 2 weeks wages max
But thought Liverpool could have followed Ajax example and handed him a 2/3 match ban themselves...

They've more or less invited the FA to ban him so a cheap PR exercise of banning him would be pointless IMHO.
The Ajax ban was pointless given the Dutch FA then imposed a lengthier ban.
Better off letting the FA make their judgement and just accepting it.

monkey9

quarryman wrote: »

Is this a joke? Do you actually believe you what you've said there?

Imagine for a second you have a 10 year old boy watching the game yesterday.

He says "Dad, did Suarez just bite that guy?"

"He sure did son, but it's ok, you go ahead and do that on the pitch if you like. Just don't let me see you catching anyone with an elbow, like Torres did there".

Where did he say what Suarez did was ok and acceptable?

amiable

quarryman wrote: »

Is this a joke? Do you actually believe you what you've said there?

Imagine for a second you have a 10 year old boy watching the game yesterday.

He says "Dad, did Suarez just bite that guy?"

"He sure did son, but it's ok, you go ahead and do that on the pitch if you like. Just don't let me see you catching anyone with an elbow, like Torres did there".

I have kids myself and it's silly to even think you may use spoilt brat millionaire footballers as a moral compass for how you raise them.

ROCKMAN

Anyone wrote: »

They will wait until the FA ban him otherwise the FA will ban him on top of the Liverpool ban.

My thoughts are if the club ban him themselves in makes a statement and shows the club will not except this sort of behaviour from any player.

Waiting for the FA to deal with the matter is kind of taking the easy way out IMO.

ricero

ROCKMAN wrote: »

My thoughts are if the club ban him themselves in makes a statement and shows the club will not except this sort of behaviour from any player.

Waiting for the FA to deal with the matter is kind of taking the easy way out IMO.

Theres no easy way out, theres no shortcut home.

Anyone

ROCKMAN wrote: »

My thoughts are if the club ban him themselves in makes a statement and shows the club will not except this sort of behaviour from any player.

Waiting for the FA to deal with the matter is kind of taking the easy way out IMO.

I cant remember a case where any team has banned a player before the FA has imposed their ban. Why do you think it should be the case with Suarez and Liverpool?

Just to add....the club has publicly denounced him and fined him the max they are allowed to. Can imagine they have also spoken the player privatley, but thats just an educated guess.

amiable

Anyone wrote: »

I cant remember a case where any team has banned a player before the FA has imposed their ban. Why do you think it should be the case with Suarez and Liverpool?

Just to add....the club has publicly denounced him and fined him the max they are allowed to. Can imagine they have also spoken the player privatley, but thats just an educated guess.

Eric Cantona and Ben Thatcher

ROCKMAN

Anyone wrote: »

I cant remember a case where any team has banned a player before the FA has imposed their ban. Why do you think it should be the case with Suarez and Liverpool?

Just to add....the club has publicly denounced him and fined him the max they are allowed to. Can imagine they have also spoken the player privatley, but thats just an educated guess.

ok this will look like typical Utd fan putting in the boot but theres nothing i can do about that...

99% Sure Utd banned Cantona before the FA ..


Why do I think liverpool should ban him ,,because it would send Suarez and the watching world that no one player is bigger than the club ,that they will not except this behaviour from anyone associated with the club. And its not just a well worded PR statement. Actions speak louder than words etc etc....

Anyone

amiable wrote: »

Eric Cantona and Ben Thatcher

Cantona's ban was done at the request of the FA. No idea about Thatcher tbh. From wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantona

"In accordance with the Football Association's wishes, Manchester United suspended Cantona for the remaining four months of the 1994–95 season, which ruled him out of first team action as United were still in the hunt for a second double. He was also fined £20,000.

The Football Association then increased the ban to eight months (up to and including 30 September 1995) and fined him a further £10,000. The FA Chief Executive Graham Kelly described his attack as "a stain on our game" that brought shame on football. FIFA then confirmed the suspension as worldwide, meaning that Cantona couldn't escape the ban by transferring to a foreign club.[20] Manchester United also fined Cantona two weeks' wages and he was stripped of the French captaincy.[21] His club eventually lost the Premier League title to Blackburn Rovers."

amiable

Anyone wrote: »

Cantona's ban was done at the request of the FA. No idea about Thatcher tbh. From wiki:

"In accordance with the Football Association's wishes, Manchester United suspended Cantona for the remaining four months of the 1994–95 season, which ruled him out of first team action as United were still in the hunt for a second double. He was also fined £20,000."

Ben Thatcher was banned by Man City for a horrific elbow on Pedro Mendes.
I posted the link already.
I'm pretty certain Man United banned Cantona for approx 8 games

Anyone

amiable wrote: »

Ben Thatcher was banned by Man City for a horrific elbow on Pedro Mendes.
I posted the link already.
I'm pretty certain Man United banned Cantona for approx 8 games

Yeah at the request of the FA. So the FA told Utd to ban him for the season. Utd did that, then the FA banned him for longer. Who knows what Utd would have done had the FA not told them to ban him.

amiable

Anyone wrote: »

Yeah at the request of the FA. So the FA told Utd to ban him for the season. Utd did that, then the FA banned him for longer. Who knows what Utd would have done had the FA not told them to ban him.

Have you a source for that besides Wiki?