Liverpool v Chelsea 4:00pm

klose

Ordinary man wrote: »

Was there any announcement on suarez yet? Fantasy football site lists him as suspended until may 19

Sell him now, he wont play again this season.

lpool2k05

klose wrote: »

Sell him now, he wont play again this season.

Sell him???why exactly? hes a world class player!!! so he has caused a few problems...well newsflash, LFC knew what they were buying!!!

A footballing genius (with an issue or two )

CSF

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Jaysus Lad, you're like a broken record. You've been repeating the same statement in every post. It's been said to you several times but what do you really know about Suarez that anyone on here doesn't? He has had 4 on field issues in the last 3 years as far as I can gather. You can draw the conclusion he has some issues but to brandish him a cnut or horrible person is plain ridiculous. You really need to grow up.

Its ridiculous to call someone who racially abused someone a horrible person? Are you for real?

AdamD

lpool2k05 wrote: »

Sell him???why exactly? hes a world class player!!! so he has caused a few problems...well newsflash, LFC knew what they were buying!!!

A footballing genius (with an issue or two )

Liverpool fans. They'll even keep a banned Suarez on FF..

knucklehead6

lpool2k05 wrote: »

Sell him???why exactly? hes a world class player!!! so he has caused a few problems...well newsflash, LFC knew what they were buying!!!

A footballing genius (with an issue or two )

Fantasy football sell him!!!!

Read between the lines!

DoctorGonzo08

CSF wrote: »

Its ridiculous to call someone who racially abused someone a horrible person? Are you for real?

Give it a rest, you're sounding very bitter. If you genuinely want to follow you're logic, there are very very few people who wouldn't be classed as a nice person so. Have you personally never uttered a comment, remark or phrase that would be deemed as racial offensive?

He has bit two players, punished with a lengthy ban for the first and will recieve punishment for the incident at the weekend. He was involved with words with Evra, for which he recieved a lengthy ban as well. He has recieved punishment for when he crossed the line. I'm not standing up for what he's done, I am pointing out that he doesn't deserve the hate campaign you are bringing against him, not that he cares too much to be fair.

I haven't seen you taking so honourably in posting comments like you have about several players that have got away with the same things he has done and not get punished.

What I'm saying is, if you were on the morale side of every argument then you have a genuine right to your opinion. Picking and choosing your judgment on people you have a problem with makes you no better than the 'traits' you are labeling Suarez with.

CSF

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Give it a rest, you're sounding very bitter. If you genuinely want to follow you're logic, there are very very few people who wouldn't be classed as a nice person so. Have you personally never uttered a comment, remark or phrase that would be deemed as racial offensive?

He has bit two players, punished with a lengthy ban for the first and will recieve punishment for the incident at the weekend. He was involved with words with Evra, for which he recieved a lengthy ban as well. He has recieved punishment for when he crossed the line. I'm not standing up for what he's done, I am pointing out that he doesn't deserve the hate campaign you are bringing against him, not that he cares too much to be fair.

I haven't seen you taking so honourably in posting comments like you have about several players that have got away with the same things he has done and not get punished.

What I'm saying is, if you were on the morale side of every argument then you have a genuine right to your opinion. Picking and choosing your judgment on people you have a problem with makes you no better than the 'traits' you are labeling Suarez with.

You clearly weren't around for any of the Terry threads or around the time of the Ferdinand/Hodgson conflict then.... Inconsistency in my views is not something I could be fairly accused of.

pistolpetes11

niallo27 wrote: »

With the FA saying its worse than a red card and a 3 game ban and with liverpool only having 4 games left they are just presuming he is out for the season i would think.

I think he is looking at 7+ games ,

The dutch FA gave him 7 so the English FA wont want to be seen as a soft touch , also Im sure his previous disciplinary record with the English FA will come into play .


I would not be at all surprised to see him get 10 but would be very surprised to see him get less than 6.

niallo27

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

I think he is looking at 7+ games ,

The dutch FA gave him 7 so the English FA wont want to be seen as a soft touch , also Im sure his previous disciplinary record with the English FA will come into play .


I would not be at all surprised to see him get 10 but would be very surprised to see him get less than 6.

I'd be shocked if the FA gave him less than 6, i think they will look to make an example of him, i think he is looking at 9 games.

CSF

niallo27 wrote: »

I'd be shocked if the FA gave him less than 6, i think they will look to make an example of him, i think he is looking at 9 games.

The whole make an example out of people (if it happens) is a load of ****e really. Punishment needs to be consistent.

knucklehead6

CSF wrote: »

The whole make an example out of people (if it happens) is a load of ****e really. Punishment needs to be consistent.

i'm thinking 10 games myself.

The last 4 of this season and the first 6 of next.

The punishment is consistent in terms of escalation, the FA gave him 8 games for racist comments, he's still acting the maggot, give him 10 game ban now.

I say that as a Liverpool supporter

LuckyLloyd

CSF wrote: »

Its ridiculous to call someone who racially abused someone a horrible person? Are you for real?

Not really proven that he racially abused him imo - not by any conclusive and objective standard anyway.

counterlock

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Not really proven that he racially abused him imo - not by any conclusive and objective standard anyway.

Just an independent panel and admission of the player himself?

LuckyLloyd

counterlock wrote: »

Just an independent panel and admission of the player himself?

The methodology and burden of proofs applied by the panel were inadequate imo.

citytillidie

CSF wrote: »

The whole make an example out of people (if it happens) is a load of ****e really. Punishment needs to be consistent.

There we go consistent not worth more than a yellow card and no bans then if we go by previous bites in the premier league.

Crash Bang Wall

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Not really proven that he racially abused him imo - not by any conclusive and objective standard anyway.

counterlock wrote: »

Just an independent panel and admission of the player himself?

He admitted using a word that isnt deemed racist in his own culture. Im not saying he didnt mean to be racist or whatever but there was sod all evidence only his words and that of Evra. And going by Evras behaviour since the incident Im not sure if I could trust him. Im a LFC fan but have respect for Utd players. Actually a big Scholes fan, but I despise Evra. He looks to be a truly horrible person, and I wouldnt have him in a LFC shirt ever.

And I dont for one minute believe that United fans wouldnt want Suarez in a Utd shirt. Hes one of the best players in the world for heavens sake and ye would love to have him. Granted he has serious issues that need managing, but look at Cantona & Rooney to a lesser extent

Dubliner28

CSF wrote: »

The whole make an example out of people (if it happens) is a load of ****e really. Punishment needs to be consistent.

Consistent with what??? previous bans for biting?

JimsAlterEgo

Suarez actions alone since the incident shows he know its an offence worthy of more than 3 matches, he would not have been phoning the victim and issuing public apologies for a normal violent behavior charge.

For those that cant understand the difference vs Defoes read this
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/luis-suarez-bite-fa-seeks-sevengame-suspension-for-liverpool-striker-8583650.html

Though some Liverpool fans will point to the fact that Defoe escaped without punishment after biting Mascherano’s arm – referee Steve Bennett booked both players – the FA was then working within far stronger Fifa constraints governing its capacity to take retrospective action. At that time there was no potential to dish out a stronger punishment when a referee’s action seemed insufficient.

The FA had been ready to implement the so-called Ben Thatcher rule – used when an “extraordinary” incident leads them to punish retrospectively – had Friend seen Sunday’s incident. The level of national indignation about the bite is likely to compel the tribunal to issue a punishment that will stretch well into the start of next season. Liverpool have only four games remaining in the current campaign. “The FA’s contention is that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances,” the FA said in a statement last night.

Mr Alan

That's actually not true Mr Alter Ego. The FA can decide to retrospectively punish any player they want, regardless of whether or not the ref saw it or not. The simple fact is that when Defoe did it, they didn't deem it exceptional enough to warrant re-reffing, yet when Suarez does it they deem it exceptional & worthy of a longer than normal ban. Makes absolutely no sense. But then this is the FA we're talking about. It's not too surprising.

As much as it pains me to say it, Martin Samuel has written a good piece about the whole affair here;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2313724/Luis-Suarez--FA-hide-FIFA-rules-Martin-Samuel-column.html

amiable

Mr Alan wrote: »

That's actually not true Mr Alter Ego. The FA can decide to retrospectively punish any player they want, regardless of whether or not the ref saw it or not. The simple fact is that when Defoe did it, they didn't deem it exceptional enough to warrant re-reffing, yet when Suarez does it they deem it exceptional & worthy of a longer than normal ban. Makes absolutely no sense. But then this is the FA we're talking about. It's not too surprising.

As much as it pains me to say it, Martin Samuel has written a good piece about the whole affair here;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2313724/Luis-Suarez--FA-hide-FIFA-rules-Martin-Samuel-column.html

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