Liverpool v Chelsea 4:00pm

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Anyone

amiable wrote: »

Have you a source for that besides Wiki?

Only the letter the FA sent to Utd..but I have no scanner.

Cypher_sounds

Suarez should get a 32 match ban. One for each tooth IMO

quarryman

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 didn't say it was acceptable hence why he should get a 3 match ban for it but no more imo. I would say what Augero did was a lot worse than what Suarez did and he didn't even get a ban for it, Augero could have done serious damage. What Suarez did was stupid (and very funny) but it was never going to hurt anyone. People are gone off the rails about this altogether. It was a relatively minor incident.

.jacksparrow.

It's amazing to think Liverpool fans are still tryin to brush his behavior off as a small incident.

Anyone

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

It's amazing to think Liverpool fans are still tryin to brush his behavior off as a small incident.

Its amazing to see people post things like the above, when from what I have read, nearly every Liverpool fan has condoned what he did and are saying he will be rightfully banned.

thorbarry

Amari Immense Magnet wrote: »

I didn't say it was acceptable hence why he should get a 3 match ban for it but no more imo. I would say what Augero did was a lot worse than what Suarez did and he didn't even get a ban for it, Augero could have done serious damage. What Suarez did was stupid (and very funny) but it was never going to hurt anyone. People are gone off the rails about this altogether. It was a relatively minor incident.

Biting anyone, in any professional area is just plain wrong. Its not minor at all. Im not going to justify what Aguero did, what annoys me about football is incidents like this Suarez one get singled out, and other things go unpunished.

The FA should be retrospectively banning players after matches if they deserve it. What annoys me is, if the ref had of seen it and given Suarez a yellow card, then the FA (following their own rules) could not take further action on Suarez .

monkey9

If the FA are able to punish him retrospectively, then it should be three games for the violent conduct charge.

.jacksparrow.

Anyone wrote: »

Its amazing to see people post things like the above, when from what I have read, nearly every Liverpool fan has condoned what he did and are saying he will be rightfully banned.

Every Liverpool fan? Sure look at the post above mine, its saying how its a minor incident.

Have a look at rawk 90 percent is blaming th media for the situation.

amiable

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Have a look at rawk 90 percent is blaming th media for the situation.

Have you been on RAWK to check this?

Felexicon

Amari Immense Magnet wrote: »

I didn't say it was acceptable hence why he should get a 3 match ban for it but no more imo. I would say what Augero did was a lot worse than what Suarez did and he didn't even get a ban for it, Augero could have done serious damage. What Suarez did was stupid (and very funny) but it was never going to hurt anyone. People are gone off the rails about this altogether. It was a relatively minor incident.

Ah here mate,you're embarrasing yourself now and showing your fellow Liverpool fans in a bad light, just leave it.

amiable

Felexicon wrote: »

Ah here mate,you're embarrasing yourself now and showing your fellow Liverpool fans in a bad light, just leave it.

How's the hangover?

.jacksparrow.

amiable wrote: »

Have you been on RAWK to check this?

Yes, last night I was, not today though.

Felexicon

amiable wrote: »

How's the hangover?

What?

amiable

Felexicon wrote: »

What?

Would you prefer it in a different language?
In French perhaps? Comment est votre gueule de bois?

Felexicon

amiable wrote: »

Would you prefer it any a different language?
In French perhaps? Comment est votre gueule de bois?

You must be high off your ass on PCP because I've no idea what you're talking about mate

amiable

Felexicon wrote: »

You must be high off your ass on PCP because I've no idea what you're talking about mate

I'm not high at all ''mate''

Felexicon

amiable wrote: »

I'm not high at all ''mate''

Don't call me mate, pal

Will I Amnt

amiable wrote: »

I'm not high at all ''mate''

You're gone a bit mad in fairness :pac:

amiable

cambo2008 wrote: »

You're gone a bit mad in fairness :pac:

It must be one of those conspiracy theories

Will I Amnt

amiable wrote: »

It must be one of those conspiracy theories

LSD in the water supply?

Felexicon

amiable wrote: »

It must be one of those conspiracy theories

Ah right, you think I was drunk because of my posts last night. Not at all buddy

eagle eye

(Has twice bitten guys, racial comments, saved a ball on the line with his hand in the World Cup to screw Ghana) vs very gifted footballer.

I think its easy to understand why he is so detested as there are plenty of reasons. I think its understandable to expect a big ban for this too.

On the other side he is a gifted footballer and its easy to see why Liverpool fans would be defending him. They just want to see him play every week regardless because he makes their team so much better.

citytillidie

eagle eye wrote: »

(Has twice bitten guys, racial comments, saved a ball on the line with his hand in the World Cup to screw Ghana) vs very gifted footballer.

I think its easy to understand why he is so detested as there are plenty of reasons. I think its understandable to expect a big ban for this too.

On the other side he is a gifted footballer and its easy to see why Liverpool fans would be defending him. They just want to see him play every week regardless because he makes their team so much better.

Why is this always brought up? Other players have handled the ball on the line and I would say when playing and you had the chance to do that and did not your manager would go crazy at you.

Ghana still had a pen not Suarez fault that the player missed

amiable

Felexicon wrote: »

Ah right, you think I was drunk because of my posts last night. Not at all buddy

So you were just talking out your arse for no reason last night and failed to back up your allegations.
Excellent forum debating sir. I tip my hat to you.

Blatter

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 since when are the lads on Goals on Sunday arbiters as to what's a yellow/red card offense?

---

Away from the Sturridge tackle/bite for a second, was there a breakdown of why 6 mins added on time was given, and why 45 seconds over that was added on?

I've probably watched thousands of football matches at this stage and generally I'd be pretty good at estimating the time added on at the end, and I was honestly shocked at 6 mins. I thought 4, maybe 5 at the very most would have been appropriate. I really couldn't understand 6 and then I couldn't understand the extra 45 seconds after the 6. Was there that much time wasting from Chelsea during the 6 mins? Didn't think it was anymore than the norm of what teams do (taking their time a bit), which usually results in nothing added on. But the 6 mins in the first place was the thing I found most bizarre.

amiable

citytillidie wrote: »

Why is this always brought up? Other players have handled the ball on the line and I would say when playing and you had the chance to do that and did not your manager would go crazy at you.

Ghana still had a pen not Suarez fault that the player missed

Some people were disgusted by that. Is it because the BBC told them to be? I don't know. But again Suarez broke the rules on that occasion and was punished.

amiable

Blatter wrote: »

And since when are the lads on Goals on Sunday arbiters as to what's a yellow/red card offense?

---

Away from the Sturridge tackle/bite for a second, was there a breakdown of why 6 mins added on time was given, and why 45 seconds over that was added on?

I've probably watched thousands of football matches at this stage and generally I'd be pretty good at estimating the time added on at the end, and I was honestly shocked at 6 mins. I thought 4, maybe 5 at the very most would have been appropriate. I really couldn't understand 6 and then I couldn't understand the extra 45 seconds after the 6. Was there that much time wasting from Chelsea during the 6 mins? Didn't think it was anymore than the norm of what teams do (taking their time a bit), which usually results in nothing added on. But the 6 mins in the first place was the thing I found most bizarre.

Was there not another injury in the stoppage time itself?

Blatter

amiable wrote: »

Was there not another injury in the stoppage time itself?

I don't remember it if there was! Maybe, I could be wrong on that.

amiable

Blatter wrote: »

I don't remember it if there was! Maybe, I could be wrong on that.

I'm not sure myself. I just assumed there was.
I remember thinking when Agger had the ball in his own half after the 6th minute if he was ever going to launch it

Felexicon

amiable wrote: »

So you were just talking out your arse for no reason last night and failed to back up your allegations.
Excellent forum debating sir. I tip my hat to you.

Not at all. I find it strange that you seem so upset by this.

Felexicon

Felexicon wrote: »

Ah here mate,you're embarrasing yourself now and showing your fellow Liverpool fans in a bad light, just leave it.

It's you who is embarrassing yourself lapping up the mountain of bull sh1t the media is feeding you.

I really cant understand why this should be more than a 3 match ban, I just cant. It just not that bad, its a nip on the arm through a mans jersey, he probably barely felt it, absolutely no danger of any injury etc. People are nuts if they think this is worse than your day to day poor tackles etc which could actually injure someone.

Mr.Crinklewood

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

It's amazing to think Liverpool fans are still tryin to brush his behavior off as a small incident.

In fairness most Liverpool fans I know are embarassed by it. The only ones to try and defend him were my nephew, one of his school friends and a work colleague.

Blatter

amiable wrote: »

I'm not sure myself. I just assumed there was.
I remember thinking when Agger had the ball in his own half after the 6th minute if he was ever going to launch it

I read back over the match thread there and a couple of Liverpool fans said they missed Suarez' equaliser because they turned the game off when Johnson kicked the ball out of play at the end. I probably would have done the same in their shoes, the feeling I got at the time was that there normally wouldn't be anything added on. Rafa went on about it in his post match interview as well, he couldn't understand it.

Felexicon

Amari Immense Magnet wrote: »

It's you who is embarrassing yourself lapping up the mountain of bull sh1t the media is feeding you.

I really cant understand why this should be more than a 3 match ban, I just cant. It just not that bad, its a nip on the arm through a mans jersey, he probably barely felt it, absolutely no danger of any injury etc. People are nuts if they think this is worse than your day to day poor tackles etc which could actually injure someone.

His reaction would lead me to beleive he felt it.
A bite, no matter how hard it is, is much worse than a dodgey tackle in that is an act of a savage.

Lets say my dog bit you but didn't break the skin. Would you be ok with me leaving him out running around an estate

amiable

Blatter wrote: »

I read back over the match thread there and a couple of Liverpool fans said they missed Suarez' equaliser because they turned the game off when Johnson kicked the ball out of play at the end. I probably would have done the same in their shoes, the feeling I got at the time was that there normally wouldn't be anything added on. Rafa went on about it in his post match interview as well, he couldn't understand it.

Another conspiracy theory?

Cypher_sounds

Rodgers has talked of Suarez's appetite for the game but this was ridiculous. He's eaten plenty of defenders for breakfast this season, but not literally. One of the better lines doing the rounds was that Suarez was just desperate for a taste of the Champions League.

Blatter

amiable wrote: »

Another conspiracy theory?

Ha, no. I would just say very bad timekeeping from the ref on first viewing.

Cypher_sounds

Felexicon wrote: »

His reaction would lead me to beleive he felt it.
A bite, no matter how hard it is, is much worse than a dodgey tackle in that is an act of a savage.

Lets say my dog bit you but didn't break the skin. Would you be ok with me leaving him out running around an estate

I doubt Suarez lives in an estate so he shouldn't be an immediate danger to anyone else :pac:

DM360

Amari Immense Magnet wrote: »

It's you who is embarrassing yourself lapping up the mountain of bull sh1t the media is feeding you.

I really cant understand why this should be more than a 3 match ban, I just cant. It just not that bad, its a nip on the arm through a mans jersey, he probably barely felt it, absolutely no danger of any injury etc. People are nuts if they think this is worse than your day to day poor tackles etc which could actually injure someone.

There's no point arguing with this guy. He's not going to stop coming out with childish excuses for Suarez's behaviour.

For those saying the biting incident that occurred when Suarez was at Ajax is out of the FA's jurisdiction, Sky Sports has an interview with former head Mark Palios who said he "would think that the FA does not take into account behaviour like that taken in a different league in a different competition notunder their jurisdiction".

He then went on to say: "They do have the ability to look at something and say is it exceptional, and if it's exceptional then they can go beyond on the standard punishment that they would otherwise meter out in a retrospective look at what was done on the pitch if it was missed by the referee."

In particular he said they would focus on the "wider impact of behaviour like this on the best interests of the game".

Interview

DM360

DM360 wrote: »

There's no point arguing with this guy. He's not going to stop coming out with childish excuses for Suarez's behaviour.

Its the people talking like he killed someone yesterday who are being childish.

pistolpetes11

Sam Wallace ‏@SamWallaceIndy 1m
Woman just called 5 Live to blame Suarez for her son being bitten by a fellow pupil at school today. I think the debate's reached its limit

Breaking news. The FA have reached a compromise with Liverpool and Luis Suarez.
In exchange for a greatly reduced ban, Suarez is going to assist the Metropolitan Police Dog Support Unit at Millwall's next home fixture

DoctorGonzo08

Amari Immense Magnet wrote: »

Its the people talking like he killed someone yesterday who are being childish.

Completely agree. There is probably a very logical solution to this. As mentioned earlier, he serve the same suspension as he would have if he had recieved a red card. Seeing as I doubt there is a set protocol for dealing with biting someone during a game, you might just add a stipulation that Suarez will have to wear a muzzle when he plays. You could therefore have a resonable suspension whilst removing the threat of a Suarez attack.

Seriously though, I don't get the defence of what he did, nor they calls for him to be banned. I'm just mystified as to what must go through someones head to think the correct course of action here is to bite him?!? That's surely the mentality of a two year old.

GavRedKing

The only sane course of action is a 38 game ban starting next season.

SlickRic

Blatter wrote: »

Ha, no. I would just say very bad timekeeping from the ref on first viewing.

yup, i got up to go to the jacks all píssed off when it went out for a Chelsea throw.

the wife pipes up about 30 seconds later shouting "Suarez scored!"

we were quite fortunate, though Chelsea's final sub took place on 90 minutes, so Friend could have been taking that into account, adding an extra circa 30 seconds.

Unearthly

Yes there was a sub so 30 seconds added.

Think the goal was scored after 96:31 seconds

So there was 1 second Fergie time

Here Precious2

It really does defeat the purpose the FA giving him a ban now as Liverpool have nothing to play for.

Hit him where it hurts and ban him for 8 games start of next season.

Cyrus

Here Precious2 wrote: »

It really does defeat the purpose the FA giving him a ban now as Liverpool have nothing to play for.

Hit him where it hurts and ban him for 8 games start of next season.

cant do that,

next year is our year

Anyone

Here Precious2 wrote: »

It really does defeat the purpose the FA giving him a ban now as Liverpool have nothing to play for.

Hit him where it hurts and ban him for 8 games start of next season.

Well he wont win the League's top scorer now. And I recon it could have harmed him getting Player of the Year as well.