Suarez Banned for 10 games

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

RodgersLFC

I'd say he'll appeal but he'd do well not to. This is completely his own fault but considering the crusade that the English game is on when it comes to Suarez, they'll only increase the ban if he appeals.

Blatter

I'd be shocked if Liverpool appealed tbh.

It's unlikely to be reduced and an appeal would mean the ban would run longer into next season (as he wouldn't be banned at the weekend, I think)

As I said in the Liverpool thread, my first impression is that 10 games is OTT.

CSF

That is too much.

Leftist

if he appeals he'll get another 3 games if it fails.

It's a fair punishment. A lot of deludeds shuffling about, trying to claim it's 'not that bad' in comparison to car crashes or in some cases and quite laughably, in comparison to badly timed tackles, but in reality it was worth 10 games.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

That is too much.

He was banned for 7 when he bit someone last time, 10 seems fair to me. Increased ban of 3 more than last time for not learning his lesson

Al Capwned

But I am not at all surprised at the length of the ban, nor are many other football supporters i'd imagine. Of any club, Liverpool included...

Was really a nasty thing to do in fairness.

Edit - it seems many people are surprised. Just to add that not being surprised by the length of it, does not necessarily mean that it might not be a bit ott, harsh or whatever.

Montroseee

10 games is definitely overkill, I'd say its highly likely he will be sold in the summer.

Clareman

Second time being suspended for that offence, second major ban in the English game, it had to be an increase from the first bans.

RVP is top scorer for the season now

Sully

Do the FA take into consideration previous incidents? Considering he was given an eight match ban before, and then 7 games outside of the FA for a similar incident. Perhaps the FA feel he wasn't getting the message and his conduct is not appropriate for the game?

aidan24326

What he did was well out of order but 10 games does seem harsh.

However he does have 'previous' in terms of his disciplinary record, which may be taken into account same as a judge would take into account your 10 previous convictions.

I couldn't believe when I heard he actually bit a player before when at Ajax. It just seems such a strange way for a grown man to react, more like something kids would do.

Xavi6

What we learned today is that you're better off racially abusing someone than biting them.

theteal

Sacramento wrote: »

He was banned for 7 when he bit someone last time, 10 seems fair to me. Increased ban of 3 more than last time for not learning his lesson

this is the crux of it, it had to be more than the previous 7. Once bitten, twice. . oh :pac:

CSF

Sacramento wrote: »

He was banned for 7 when he bit someone last time, 10 seems fair to me. Increased ban of 3 more than last time for not learning his lesson

Different FA, different jurisdiction in terms of dealing with this. Shouldn't have been considered. 7 (or 8 at most) would have been enough given Suarez has previous with this FA.

micar

10 games, are they for really!!!!!!
I totally agree that he should have been banned but that's excessive.
The club will just have to accept it.
Do we write off next season now?????

RikkFlair

Does ban start now? Or can he play next game while preparing an appeal?

Edit -never mind saw the article

markc1184

Little excessive IMO.

CSF

Xavi6 wrote: »

What we learned today is that you're better off racially abusing someone than biting them.

Not exactly, even though I think the 10 is too much. But you have to take the racism charge, and 8 match ban from a year ago into account when judging this.

TouchingVirus

He bit an opponent. He meant to do that, it wasn't an accident. 10 matches is perfectly acceptable. The next time it should be a season and after that a lifetime ban.

The same for all teams and all players because there is no place for it in any sport regardless of the damage caused by the bite.

Mr Alan

Xavi6 wrote: »

What we learned today is that you're better off racially abusing someone than biting them.

This.

Or just go in over the top and smash their leg ending their career.

Or maybe a headbutt. Break their face & you'll only get a 3 game ban.

The FA continues to act as a beacon of absolute idiocy.

Leftist

Clareman wrote: »

Second time being suspended for that offence, second major ban in the English game, it had to be an increase from the first bans.

RVP is top scorer for the season now

Yep, he was banned in Holland for it but apparently it's just an english media driven agenda. They hated him then and pressured the dutch fa to penalise him because they were afraid of king kenny's future dominance.

And where is evra's ban for biting that fake severed arm? Did he somehow convince the fa to ban him for 10 games with that dramatised version of the suarez event?

Neil3030

Xavi6 wrote: »

What we learned today is that you're better off racially abusing someone than biting them.

Yeah, that's pretty reasonable tbh. As disgusting as racism is, it doesn't carry a risk of infection.

Will I Amnt

I'd have given him 50 games. Got off lightly.

kellso81

Xavi6 wrote: »

What we learned today is that you're better off racially abusing someone than biting them.

I'd rather be racially abused than bitten! Seems fair to me.

Kankan14

Don't get how people think its harsh. If I murder someone in Holland and get 7 years how would it be fair to murder someone in England and get less?

fullstop

Spot on from the FA.

mike65

(apologies for this but the superthread can't do polls)

Bearing in mind the track record of Luis Suarez and his forthcoming 10 game ban (subject to possible appeal) will FSG cash in this summer?

Xavi6

Xavi6 wrote: »

What we learned today is that you're better off racially abusing someone than biting them.

This incident was a bit more clear cut, they went on probability and such last time rather than fully conclusive evidence. Won't go on about it much but I can see what you're saying.

CSF wrote: »

Different FA, different jurisdiction in terms of dealing with this. Shouldn't have been considered. 7 (or 8 at most) would have been enough given Suarez has previous with this FA.

I don't agree, it would have to be considered, not sure if that's what they did but common sense would dictate that for a repeat offender of the same offense, they need a more severe punishment the second time round as the previous punishment didn't encourage them to reform their behaviour.

gimli2112

So looking at it mathematically the FA consider this about 25% worse than racism.
One for the looney right brigade.
At least it was another "independant" panel, we cant complain lads.

Xavi6

JLS broke up today meaning the acronym can now take on a new meaning - Justice for Luis Suarez.

CSF

cambo2008 wrote: »

I'd have given him 50 games. Got off lightly.

Solid, reasoned analysis of events.

Pudsy33

He bit someone. Thats disgusting and has no place in football (or anywhere for that matter). The ban is a fine length, fitting the crime. he doesn't deserve any leniency.

CSF

mike65 wrote: »

(apologies for this but the superthread can't do polls)

Bearing in mind the track record of Luis Suarez and his forthcoming 10 game ban (subject to possible appeal) will FSG cash in this summer?

Of course not, who would want to join Liverpool that is as good as him or close?

dfx-

What would you have to do to 'beat' a 10 game ban? Punch the referee? Fail a drugs test?

Mr_A

This is certainly a kick in the teeth for Suarez. He'll be chomping at the bit to get back into football after that suspension.

klose

I wish the fa just had consistency in their dealings with incidents, it really is a farce of an association. I can deal with a ten game ban, but aguero getting off scott free last week for luizs tackle makes it hard to accept. There is no balance.

Leftist

gimli2112 wrote: »

So looking at it mathematically the FA consider this about 25% worse than racism.
One for the looney right brigade.
At least it was another "independant" panel, we cant complain lads.

yeah that's what happened, they based it on a percentage driven matrix.

Another stitch up from the ferguson controlled-fa/media.

Cantona assaults a supporter, almost killing him and the media love him and he gets away scot-free.

Keeping the redmen down.

CSF

Sacramento wrote: »

This incident was a bit more clear cut, they went on probability and such last time rather than fully conclusive evidence. Won't go on about it much but I can see what you're saying.



I don't agree, it would have to be considered, not sure if that's what they did but common sense would dictate that for a repeat offender of the same offense, they need a more severe punishment the second time round as the previous punishment didn't encourage them to reform their behaviour.

But eh, they're not allowed consider it. Regardless of if we think they should.

Wichita Lineman

Ouch in every sense of the word!

RandolphEsq

If the right price comes in, how could they not sell him?

The real questions are who, and how much?

iDave

Justice

mirwillbeback

Xavi6 wrote: »

What we learned today is that you're better off racially abusing someone than biting them.

I think if he racially abused someone again he would get a longer ban.

This is what they have done here - he was obviously too stupid to learn the first time.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

But eh, they're not allowed consider it. Regardless of if we think they should.

Not sure of the rules on consideration, but maybe the English FA take the offense more seriously than their Dutch counterparts? I think the ban length is justified nonetheless. Do you know for certain they are not allowed consider it?

JaMarcus Hustle

dfx- wrote: »

What would you have to do to 'beat' a 10 game ban? Punch the referee? Fail a drugs test?

Bite somebody for the third time in your career?

RandolphEsq

Xavi6 wrote: »

What we learned today is that you're better off racially abusing someone than biting them.

Sticks and stones.

keith16

Thinly veiled "are Liverpool and Suarez done?" thread.

donalg1

Seems fair for what he did I mean who bites other people? Was disgraceful of him so at least ten is fair.

He did it before got seven games obviously that wasnt enough games to be a deterrent so maybe ten will discourage him from doing it again

Montroseee

RandolphEsq wrote: »

If the right price comes in, how could they not sell him?

The real questions are who, and how much?

Munich, Madrid or Barca.

barone

if it were anyone else bar suarez it would be a 3 game ban and a warning plus fine, but because its suarez its 10 games,there has been a lot worse done on the pitch without even close to this kinda ban.

would he have got banned if his name was wayne rooney or steven gerrard ?

Neil3030

dfx- wrote: »

What would you have to do to 'beat' a 10 game ban? Punch the referee? Fail a drugs test?

Well in the case of Joey Barton, knee someone up the hoop (12 games).

#perspective