Suarez Banned for 10 games

SlickRic

lots of hyperbolic nonsense from both sides of this debate at times, honestly.

some rival fans unequivocally vouching for the newfound fairness of the FA is funny, while some of our fans who are unequivocally saying that Suarez was completely fúcked over are also quite funny.

i said yesterday that 10 games was fúcking mental. a little heat of the moment, and in reality I thought 6-8 was coming, so 10 isn't a wild stretch. i still think it's a bit much. that's only my opinion. just like it's only another's opinion that it was spot on.

anyway, I, the majority of my Liverpool fan friends, or sane ones I respect online, and even sane rival fans, reckon the following...and those here can agree or disagree, that's fine...but this is my thinking, cutting through some of the bullshít I hope.

1) first and foremost, this is Suarez's fault. if he didn't do it, there would be no ban. i'm primarily annoyed at him.

2) it was a disgusting act, and he should be taken to task - banned and fined.

3) when I say the bite didn't hurt, I'm not defending the act FFS. i'm just stating a fact. it doesn't mean I don't still think biting is horrible and worthy of punishment. it just means that the FA are seemingly saying something that could injure or end a career, is not as worthy of extreme punishment as a bite. that's fine. clarity needed then. for instance, spitting doesn't get 10 games, and is as bad IMO. so we need clarity.

3) the FA like their high profile cases. Utd fans in particular need look no further than Rio and Rooney for evidence. there is little doubt that those of higher profile are treated differently, and the FA see it as an opportunity to make a point.

4) there is no real precedent for what Suarez did, so the FA have had to, in essence, come up with a sentence to fit the crime. they obviously see it as more than your regular violent conduct. that's fine. it then needs to be specified. i look forward to clarity in the FA report.

5) if the FA say that this is just the new precedent for violent behaviour, then fine. i look forward to consistency across the board.

6) yes, I'm partly annoyed because we could lose our best player for a lot of games at the start of next season. we could even lose him completely. my anger is still predominantly at Suarez for being an idiot, but it does bring the FA's process into question, again. they may have got it right this time, but their process needs to be seen.

7) retrospective banning needs to be implemented properly. all violent acts, even if the ref thinks he's seen them, should potentially be under review. McManaman and Aguero getting away with their actions this season is mental.

8) football fans are brilliant. we're all so tribal. all of us. we're right, you're wrong. we're good, you're bad. we're smart, you're stupid. as I say, it's brilliant. you have to love it really.

all in all, I am looking forward to this report, because at the moment, it really is all glorified guesswork.

Your Airbag

osarusan wrote: »

Really? You think that what Suarez did is worse for kids to be imitating than leg-breaking knee-high tackles, headbutts, pushing referees, kicking fans of opposing teams in the chest, for example?

Knee high taclkes are not all cut and dry from all players, sometimes the ball is bouncing high and they are going for it.

Headbutts? Cmon now, how many proper headbutts do you see on the pitch, the life threathening type that you see drunk scumbags do, most of them are foreheads touhing and a players throws himself to the ground.

Pushing refs? Very rare. You are really struggling here.

Biting is a dirty nasty act. Biting with no provication paints Suarez in a very poor light, it paints him in the light of someone who would probably dish out a proper headbutt.

He is an amazing footballer but I'm sad to say Suarez is heading for Joey Barton territory.

osarusan

Your Airbag wrote: »

Knee high taclkes are not all cut and dry from all players, sometimes the ball is bouncing high and they are going for it.

Headbutts? Cmon now, how many proper headbutts do you see on the pitch, the life threathening type that you see drunk scumbags do, most of them are foreheads touhing and a players throws himself to the ground.

Pushing refs? Very rare. You are really struggling here.

Biting is a dirty nasty act. Biting with no provication paints Suarez in a very poor light, it paints him in the light of someone who would probably dish out a proper headbutt.

You said there was nothing that kids should be imitating less than a bite. I'm asking if these are less terrible in your opinion. How rare they are is irrelevant, and ironic, given that biting is more rare than any of them.

Hulk Hands

SantryRed wrote: »

Biting is as bad as spitting on someone. It is an outrageously scummy thing to do. And given his track record already, I'm not surprised at all at the ten games, he deserves it.

Regardless of the severity of the ban etc, this is the real story from the incident. Proof of what many have thought for a while, that Suarez is a cowardly scumbag. Biting doesnt cause much injury or pain or emotional trauma or anything really, its like spitting, just a horribly scummy thing to do. When you think of the utter hatred for El Hadji Diouf mainly over one spitting incident, you can understand the similar hatred for Suarez after two worse incidents

Hidalgo

Your Airbag wrote: »

Knee high taclkes are not all cut and dry from all players, sometimes the ball is bouncing high and they are going for it.

Headbutts? Cmon now, how many proper headbutts do you see on the pitch, the life threathening type that you see drunk scumbags do, most of them are foreheads touhing and a players throws himself to the ground.

Pushing refs? Very rare. You are really struggling here.

Biting is a dirty nasty act. Biting with no provication paints Suarez in a very poor light, it paints him in the light of someone who would probably dish out a proper headbutt.

He is an amazing footballer but I'm sad to say Suarez is heading for Joey Barton territory.

So you expect him to be in more trouble off the field than on it???

For me Suarez is one of those players that has a win at all costs mentality. Brilliant to see it but there has to be a line.
With the massive money players are on its good to see some that still want to win more than anything, but that inner rage needs to be controlled when things aren't going your way.
Fair enough, player wants to win, but he's doing his team's chances damage by getting suspended for stupid on field actions.

Hidalgo

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Regardless of the severity of the ban etc, this is the real story from the incident. Proof of what many have thought for a while, that Suarez is a cowardly scumbag. Biting doesnt cause much injury or pain or emotional trauma or anything really, its like spitting, just a horribly scummy thing to do. When you think of the utter hatred for El Hadji Diouf mainly over one spitting incident, you can understand the similar hatred for Suarez after two worse incidents

Diouf was involved in more than 1 spitting incident, at least 2 if not 3.

Yes both spitting and biting are complete scumbag actions and whatever punishment a [player guilty of the offence gets is his own tough s*it,
but are that any more cowardly than a sneaky elbow in the jaw from the blindside?
Or raking the studs on the calf of an opposing player??

sfwcork

As a Huge LFC my opinion is

1) Suarez should never have done what he did.It was just simpley strange.What went through his head and what drove him to bite somebody is beyond me.It was a stupid act and his 100000% responsible

2) Saying that I feel that the 10 match ban is harsh.Listening to lawron on today FM and listening to other ex footie players they feel its 10 because suarez questioned the charge.I dont undertand on why that means a worse ban? In this day and age you should be allowed question a decision.Espically in this multi Billion pound league

3) The FA should be also looking to rehabilite the player.They would well have given a 6 game ban and a few games suspended if he attended anger management class or didnt step out of line again. They just went down the route of setting an example

4) In my eyes they also pissed all over the "Kick racism Out of football" campaign. They have implied by this ban that a bite was and is alot worse than extreme racism

5) By such a lengthy ban they also have taken the ability to ban suarez away.the club could well have enforced a ban also.As steve McLaren said on sky that was still an option and the FA removed that from LFC hands

Your Airbag

SlickRic wrote: »

4) there is no real precedent for what Suarez did, so the FA have had to, in essence, come up with a sentence to fit the crime. they obviously see it as more than your regular violent conduct. that's fine. it then needs to be specified. i look forward to clarity in the FA report.

5) if the FA say that this is just the new precedent for violent behaviour, then fine. i look forward to consistency across the board.



.

Rubbish. Suarez is a serial offender. They have upped his ban from his last indiscretion. What did you expect? A shorter ban for the racism case which he still denied after being found guilty, which he clearly was.

"The new precedent for violent behaviour" oh great, so the next time someone goes in with a high tackle or kicks a player off the ball like Rooney against Montenegro, all Pool fans will be calling for ten game bans or else Suarez is being victimised by the FA :rolleyes:

You say there is no real precedent for what Suarez did and then pigeon hole it into the violent behaviour code of punishment which is the new precedent the FA have set. You realise that makes no sense and how can you speak for the FA, they are calling it violent conduct, somewhat politely as it more act of lunacy to me, but each act of violence can and should be treated differently such as this one because its so nasty.

The FA should have labeled it "gross misconduct" and its so rare the FA won't have to worry about this "new precedent" as it will be long time, maybe never before it happens again.

peteeeed

Hidalgo wrote: »

Diouf was involved in more than 1 spitting incident, at least 2 if not 3.

Yes both spitting and biting are complete scumbag actions and whatever punishment a [player guilty of the offence gets is his own tough s*it,
but are that any more cowardly than a sneaky elbow in the jaw from the blindside?
Or raking the studs on the calf of an opposing player??

and suarez has now committed 2 biting offenses

Giggsy11

SlickRic wrote: »

i said yesterday that 10 games was fúcking mental. a little heat of the moment, and in reality I thought 6-8 was coming, so 10 isn't a wild stretch. i still think it's a bit much. that's only my opinion. just like it's only another's opinion that it was spot on.
.

I think Ajax accepted the 7 match ban without appealing. We can go on about various tackles and incidents but looking at this incident alone it doesn't look some injustice as the different FA gave almost similar number of games for similar incident.

Kess73

peteeeed wrote: »

#justiceforsuarez HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Classless. Plenty of funny ways to slag of Suarez or to wind up LFC supporters that don't involve trying to riff on the name of the campaign for those that died at Hillsborough.

Samba

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Biting doesnt cause much injury or pain or emotional trauma or anything really, its like spitting, just a horribly scummy thing to do.

I'm amazed at the amount of people that think a human bite is totally harmless, far from it, they are far worse than animal bites and all sorts of nasty diseases can be transmitted.

There's just no argument to be had here, the ban is fair and anyone claiming otherwise is deluded.

Giggsy11

Ajax striker Luis Suárez has accepted a seven-match ban for biting PSV Eindhoven midfielder Otman Bakkal.

Ajax had already fined Suárez and banned him for two matches, but said it would not appeal against the Dutch Football Federation's longer ban, meaning no disciplinary hearing will be held and Suarez's ban will start immediately.

The federation accused Suárez of "a violent act – biting an opponent."

Suárez's domestic ban will keep him out on the sidelines until 4 February next year. He remains eligible to play in the final Champions League Group G match against AC Milan on 8 December.

The referee did not see the incident in injury time of Saturday's 0-0 draw and Suárez was not punished, despite Bakkal pulling down his shirt to show a red mark on his collarbone.

The incident has drawn comparisons to boxer Mike Tyson biting off part of Evander Holyfield's right ear in a 1997 bout, while Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf branded Suarez the "Cannibal of Ajax."

The federation said it had taken the Uruguay striker's previous conduct into account in reaching its punishment. Suárez still had a suspended one-match ban on his record him following a red card in the season-opening Johan Cruyff Bowl match in July.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/24/luis-suarez-ban-biting-opponent

So he accepted 7 match ban at Ajax but feels more than 3 games is harsh this time.

Ajax fined him and banned him for 2 games and accepted 7 match ban without any problem.

They took his previous actions into considerations to come up with lengthy ban and I'm sure English FA did the same and tbh his record is not very clean in England either.

Timmyctc

Kess73 wrote: »

Classless. Plenty of funny ways to slag of Suarez or to wind up LFC supporters that don't involve trying to riff on the name of the campaign for those that died at Hillsborough.

Tch don't bring Hillsborough into this; people on twitter, LFC fans infact, are actually using this hashtag. He's slagging them nothing to do with Hillsborough ffs

Lovely Bloke

Kess73 wrote: »

Classless. Plenty of funny ways to slag of Suarez or to wind up LFC supporters that don't involve trying to riff on the name of the campaign for those that died at Hillsborough.

Ah heyor, that is not what that is.

Stop looking for stuff to be offended by.

Will I Amnt

Hulk Hands wrote: »

When you think of the utter hatred for El Hadji Diouf mainly over one spitting incident, you can understand the similar hatred for Suarez after two worse incidents

Here's one poster's take on Diouf

"Diouf is a disgrace of a player. Absolute vermin. At Liverpool, when he spat at the Celtic fans, i never wanted him in a red shirt again"

The same poster on Suarez just days ago.

"Suarez is pure box office, I love the little hero"

SlickRic

Your Airbag wrote: »

Rubbish. Suarez is a serial offender. They have upped his ban from his last indiscretion. What did you expect? A shorter ban for the racism case which he still denied after being found guilty, which he clearly was.

it was 4 games per racist insult.

as i said in my post, if you'd read it properly, i expected 6-8 games.

and this "upping" of a ban isn't something the FA normally do with players. each ban normally fits the specific crime. if this "upping" is something the FA are going to do, then awesome, i look forward to it being consistent across the board. it would actually do a lot of good I reckon.

"The new precedent for violent behaviour" oh great, so the next time someone goes in with a high tackle or kicks a player off the ball like Rooney against Montenegro, all Pool fans will be calling for ten game bans or else Suarez is being victimised by the FA :rolleyes:

fúcking rolleys. no need.

anyway, no I won't be calling for 10 game bans on every high tackle. you'd have to be a moron to do that.

but if the FA in this report say this was a ban for violent conduct, I'd expect every punch or kick to get 10 games, yes.

if they've simply decided that a bite is worth 7 extra games now, well ok, but you are putting a lot of gravitas on simply being a knacker. actually hurting someone gets less. that's fine, but I'd like to get clarity from the FA on that.

You say there is no real precedent for what Suarez did and then pigeon hole it into the violent behaviour code of punishment which is the new precedent the FA have set. You realise that makes no sense and how can you speak for the FA, they are calling it violent conduct, somewhat politely as it more act of lunacy to me, but each act of violence can and should be treated differently such as this one because its so nasty. The FA should have labeled it "gross misconduct" and its so rare the FA won't have to worry about this "new precedent" as it will be long time, maybe never before it happens again.

we'll see what the FA say.

as I've said, it's all glorified guesswork, from all of us, including me. I just shared my thoughts. I'm not speaking for the fúcking FA. I'm making assumptions.

it's just like you've made assumptions on the "upping" of the ban due to being a serial offender. you may be right, i may be right. we'll see, won't we? that was the concluding point of my long post.

SlickRic

Giggsy11 wrote: »

I think Ajax accepted the 7 match ban without appealing. We can go on about various tackles and incidents but looking at this incident alone it doesn't look some injustice as the different FA gave almost similar number of games for similar incident.

thanks for posting that Guardian article.

interesting, and I do wonder whether the FA took that into consideration. it seems likely, but we'll see.

Kess73

Timmyctc wrote: »

Tch don't bring Hillsborough into this; people on twitter, LFC fans infact, are actually using this hashtag. He's slagging them nothing to do with Hillsborough ffs

Massive coincidence then given today has the hearing for the new inquest into the deaths and last week was the anniversary.

And yeah I saw some of the stuff put on twitter by w@nkers. Things like the Justice for the 96 slogan with "the 96" with a line through it and Suarez put in after it. Yeah I am sure that stuff is being down by Liverpool supporters alright.

DrumSteve

Timmyctc wrote: »

Tch don't bring Hillsborough into this; people on twitter, LFC fans infact, are actually using this hashtag. He's slagging them nothing to do with Hillsborough ffs

Then why use the justice hashtag? Its mostly used in relation to hillsborough.

Kess73

DrumSteve wrote: »

Then why use the justice hashtag? Its mostly used in relation to hillsborough.

Because it is a way for classless types to get a cheap dig in, and then claim it meant nothing when challenged.

Idiots have been doing it for years at grounds and on various forums.

Lovely Bloke

Kess73 wrote: »

Massive coincidence then given today has the hearing for the new inquest into the deaths and last week was the anniversary.

And yeah I saw some of the stuff put on twitter by w@nkers. Things like the Justice for the 96 slogan with "the 96" with a line through it and Suarez put in after it. Yeah I am sure that stuff is being down by Liverpool supporters alright.

There are not enough rolleyes in the world.

Stop trying to get offended, it's unbecoming of someone in your position.

Xavi6

Kess73 wrote: »

Because it is a way for classless types to get a cheap dig in, and then claim it meant nothing when challenged.

Idiots have been doing it for years at grounds and on various forums.

You're completely overreacting, seriously.

It's like you want to be offended for some reason

Jax Teller

Loved this comment from a Norwich fan on the ban .

Giggsy11

SlickRic wrote: »

thanks for posting that Guardian article.

interesting, and I do wonder whether the FA took that into consideration. it seems likely, but we'll see.

I think yes. But what's more important is Suaerz accepted the ban without appealing at Ajax. Why should be it any different this time for the same incident?

Will I Amnt

Timmyctc

cambo2008 wrote: »

Hardly a non LFC fan in sight

Kess73

Xavi6 wrote: »

You're completely overreacting, seriously.

It's like you want to be offended for some reason

Or maybe I am just sick of some of the shyte online over the past 24 hours using the Justice slogan, not to mention a few of the sly digs from some on here last week regarding victim comments and a comment about it being understandable that Liverpool people were left to rot (which got no card and no inthread warning despite being reported).


Probably means nothing to lads from other countries, but it p1sses me off to no end to see it being used as some sort of cheap laugh getter. Especially when it is being lumped in with a scumbag act like what Suarez did. Don't really give a **** if you or anyone else thinks I am overreacting, I don't like what caused some of my family never to come home being used as a joke and won't apologize for that.

SlickRic

Giggsy11 wrote: »

I think yes. But what's more important is Suaerz accepted the ban without appealing at Ajax. Why should be it any different this time for the same incident?

i don't know.

maybe they feel precedent in England should come into it or something?

maybe they feel 10 is excessive, and wouldn't have had a problem with 7 or 8?

Will I Amnt

Kess73 wrote: »

Or maybe I am just sick of some of the shyte online over the past 24 hours using the Justice slogan, not to mention a few of the sly digs from some on here last week regarding victim comments and a comment about it being understandable that Liverpool people were left to rot (which got no card and no inthread warning despite being reported).


Probably means nothing to lads from other countries, but it p1sses me off to no end to see it being used as some sort of cheap laugh getter. Especially when it is being lumped in with a scumbag act like what Suarez did. Don't really give a **** if you or anyone else thinks I am overreacting, I don't like what caused some of my family never to come home being used as a joke and won't apologize for that.

It's Liverpool fans using the justice for Suarez hash tag.
The poster you called out found the whole thing funny.
Nothing to do with Hillsborough in any way, you decided to take offence to it.

kippy

I've read a bit more of this thread.
Isn't it mad how sane (mostly) individuals like the majority of us here, get absolutely riled up over something that has absolutely no impact on our lives whatsoever (for the majority of us)?

I mean, it's not like it's an "injustice" to rival that of the starving in Africa, cheap labout etc etc.

This guy is a multimillionaire footballer, the club are a massive business and I daresay any one of us here would gladly swap most/all of what we have to be in Luis Suarez' shoes right now...........

Xavi6

Kess73 wrote: »

Or maybe I am just sick of some of the shyte online over the past 24 hours using the Justice slogan, not to mention a few of the sly digs from some on here last week regarding victim comments and a comment about it being understandable that Liverpool people were left to rot (which got no card and no inthread warning despite being reported).


Probably means nothing to lads from other countries, but it p1sses me off to no end to see it being used as some sort of cheap laugh getter. Especially when it is being lumped in with a scumbag act like what Suarez did. Don't really give a **** if you or anyone else thinks I am overreacting, I don't like what caused some of my family never to come home being used as a joke and won't apologize for that.

Except in this case it wasn't being used in a joke. Go on to Twitter and have a rant at the thousands of Liverpool fans using #justiceforsuarez because they came up with it and the poster just added it here as a reference to the social media nonsense.

Normally I would understand where you're coming from and respect the fact that you've been through something most of us won't every fully comprehend but this time you are looking for something that isn't there.

Sorry but it has to be said sometimes.

Kess73

cambo2008 wrote: »

It's Liverpool fans using the justice for Suarez hash tag.
The poster you called out found the whole thing funny.
Nothing to do with Hillsborough in any way, you decided to take offence to it.

Yeah because there is no reason at all why I would take offence to it. I just decided to do so for a laugh.:rolleyes:

Will I Amnt

Kess73 wrote: »

Yeah because there is no reason at all why I would take offence to it. I just decided to do so for a laugh.:rolleyes:

Ok then, let me rephrase it. You decided to associate it with something that would cause you to be offended.

Nalz

You think if Suarez had spat instead of biting, spat at the crowd, or even bit someone in the crowd, like a child or an OAP maybe... would the uproar from the Liverpool fans be anyway different? Seeing as it's all getting technical, ifs and buts and specific "breaking skin" "that other bite was in Holland" "Cantona did worse" bla bla bla.

Just thinking out loud.

Giggsy11

SlickRic wrote: »

i don't know.

maybe they feel precedent in England should come into it or something?

maybe they feel 10 is excessive, and wouldn't have had a problem with 7 or 8?

10 is excessive maybe but you can't forget he got 7 for the first time so repeated offender all that. I know it was different FA but you can't just ignore it and along with his previous conducts. Will be interesting to see what FA mentions about how they came to 10 and what all they considered.

Kess73

Xavi6 wrote: »

Except in this case it wasn't being used in a joke. Go on to Twitter and have a rant at the thousands of Liverpool fans using #justiceforsuarez because they came up with it and the poster just added it here as a reference to the social media nonsense.

Normally I would understand where you're coming from and respect the fact that you've been through something most of us won't every fully comprehend but this time you are looking for something that isn't there.

Sorry but it has to be said sometimes.

I have been on twitter and I have seen plenty of #justiceforSuarez#alwaysthevictim and #justiceforSuarez#oneminutessilence

I regard any so called Liverpool supporter using it as a fcuking idiot, and I really don't think it is being used in a lot of cases as innocent banter.

I do pay a bit more attention to some of what you say as despiet a few snarky moments between us over the years I regard you (or at least your internet persona) as a pretty decent straight up type. But I am not going to apologize for finding something offensive because I did not just simply decide to be offended. I could be totally wronging the poster in question and maybe when I cool down I will see that and apologize for wronging him, but my instinct upon reading a post that contains nothing other than the hastag and a hahahahaha was that it was a cheap laugh at the expense of something important. I can say sorry for being wrong if I am, but I am not going to do so simply for finding something offensive because it is not a faux outrage for me.

fullstop

Timmyctc wrote: »

Hardly a non LFC fan in sight

Some of those tweets are pretty cringe

Kess73

cambo2008 wrote: »

Ok then, let me rephrase it. You decided to associate it with something that would cause you to be offended.

Yeah I decided I would do that. Decided.:rolleyes:

You are not a dumb person based on your posts here, and as such you are not good at acting like one. And yeah there is a hint of a compliment in that, but don't worry I won't let it become a habit.

Cantona's Collars

RAWK is taking the news well. http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=305346.40

Will I Amnt

Kess73 wrote: »

Yeah I decided I would do that. Decided.:rolleyes:

You are not a dumb person based on your posts here, and as such you are not good at acting like one. And yeah there is a hint of a compliment in that, but don't worry I won't let it become a habit.

Oh I can be pretty dumb at times, same as everybody really. No point in dragging this out any further though so it's best to leave it there.

Things must be bad when Utd fans have to visit RAWK. Most Liverpool fans wouldn't even bother with it. It's on a Red Café scale.

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

Things must be bad when Utd fans have to visit RAWK. Most Liverpool fans wouldn't even bother with it. It's on a Red Café scale.

It's a Liverpool fan site. :pac:

Cantona's Collars

rarnes1 wrote: »

Things must be bad when Utd fans have to visit RAWK. Most Liverpool fans wouldn't even bother with it. It's on a Red Café scale.

I'd like to thank Flah for reminding me of the link.Wouldn't visit it otherwise,enough delusion here without going looking for more.

BTW,he says hi.

IvySlayer

If Liverpool appeal this they'll only damage their reputation even further. I cannot see any way you can argue against the ban. He bit someone, got banned, bit someone again, got a longer ban.

And bringing up Hillsborough as an attempt to point score is absolutely disgusting btw.

zerks

zerks wrote: »

I'd like to thank Flah for reminding me of the link.Wouldn't visit it otherwise,enough delusion here without going looking for more.

BTW,he says hi.

Haha, things make sense now

SlickRic

IvySlayer wrote: »

I cannot see any way you can argue against the ban.

they're waiting for the FA report to see how they came to the conclusion.

if there's nothing arguable there, there's no chance of appeal, nor should there be IMO.

but you never know with the FA...

Cantona's Collars

rarnes1 wrote: »

Haha, things make sense now

You make sense,lol.

darced

This post has been deleted.

RasTa

cambo2008 wrote: »

It's a Liverpool fan site. :pac:

lol, they really have lost the plot. I think we should all meet up in the living room this weekend to discuss the ban. Something is happening to people sitting behind their computer screens.