Suarez Banned for 10 games

Cantona's Collars

RasTa wrote: »

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.

We await the open letter to the FA eagerly.:pac:

Ilik Urgee

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Clench?

Only one type of clenching went on last weekend and that involved a set of Uruguyan gnashers.

SlickRic

you're all making it sound like most fans on fansites are reasonable.

RAWK is not for objectivity.

it, and places of its ilk, are the last places for reasoned or objective anything.

IvySlayer

SlickRic wrote: »

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...

But they can just hand a piece of paper saying...HE BIT SOMEONE! :P

thebaz

in no way condoning what Suarez did , biting is a cowards method of aggression , BUT ther seams to be a witch hunt in England to get rid of Suarez - McMennamin , a young English lad, makes a rash career ending chop , and gets zilch , whilst the book is thrown at Suarez again , is it any wonder himself and many other top class foreign players question the viability of staying in England, when the dices are so loaded

Cantona's Collars

Even Reina has been brainwashed: "It's because he's Uruguayan"

MD1990

Ilik Urgee wrote: »

Clench?

Only one type of clenching went on last weekend and that involved a set of Uruguyan gnashers.

sad attempt at trying to be smart

Ilik Urgee

MD1990 wrote: »

sad attempt at trying to be smart

United romped home with the fuckin thing.

Look up clench,learn something new today.

Your Airbag

SlickRic wrote: »

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.



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.



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.

I agree with a lot of that but for the first bolded part. Cmon now it was a bloody bite. Its so out of the ordinary that like you said there is no precedent.

Your right we are guessing that the FA upped this decision makes sense when you consider that (a) the FA want to nip this in the bud now. It should have never happened and we don't want to see it again (b) Suarez seems not to learn or unwilling to learn from his mistakes, his punishments are righlty getting lengthier for the extraordinary incidents such as racism and biting because he is re-offending. He is not being victimised and will get a 3 match ban for the usual kicking stuff.


Suarez has a history as long as your arm through out his career of misconduct. Sent off in his international debut, coming to blows with his Ajax team mate in the dressing room. The less serious but frowned upon stuff such as blatant diving against stoke, against Everton to get Rodwell sent off and a diving celebration in front of Moyes. He has his finger in every pie of misconduct.

It seems he goes out of his way to create these moments on the pitch, he needs saving from himself in a way.

Souness had a good point that the most important thing in all of this is the name of LFC. He is giving the unreasonable supporter a lot of ammunition to tarnish the club for many years.

I have no hatred of LFC or Saurez tbh but its getting slightly embarrassing especially when you see some LFC fans trying to understandably stand up for their star player, its getting close to defending the indefensible.

Cantona's Collars

thebaz wrote: »

in no way condoning what Suarez did , biting is a cowards method of aggression , BUT ther seams to be a witch hunt in England to get rid of Suarez - McMennamin , a young English lad, makes a rash career ending chop , and gets zilch , whilst the book is thrown at Suarez again , is it any wonder himself and many other top class foreign players question the viability of staying in England, when the dices are so loaded

Racism,check.Deliberately injuring an opponent,check.Cheating,check.Diving,check.Lying,check.

People here have mentioned Terry,Keane,Cantona,Rooney,Thatcher,McManaman and more crossing the line.Suarez has managed in his couple of seasons here to roll them all into one.

Yup the dice are really loaded against him.:rolleyes:

darced

This post has been deleted.

nucker

inforfun wrote: »

Doesnt mean this ban is wrong.
3 match ban by default for a red card is wrong. Pull someone down by his shirt when he is going through on goal > red and 3 matches.
A tackle that leaves someone's leg in 3 pieces > red and 3 matches.

A (straight) red card is usually given for something out of the ordinairy and shouldnt be punished with a default ban.

I agree he should of been banned, but not that much. Others get away with career ending tackles by having no bans imposed on them

Reekwind

Your Airbag wrote: »

I agree with a lot of that but for the first bolded part. Cmon now it was a bloody bite. Its so out of the ordinary that like you said there is no precedent

Is it that much worse than spitting at someone? It's disgusting but certainly one of the less violent offences you can commit on a pitch

Suarez seems not to learn or unwilling to learn from his mistakes, his punishments are righlty getting lengthier for the extraordinary incidents such as racism and biting because he is re-offending

Now that I take issue with. Just because he was previously banned for eight games doesn't mean that his next (completely different) charge has to be nine or higher

Taking past behaviour into account does not mean that all punishments keep escalating. Slapping an extra game or two on top of the original charge, to account for past behaviour, is fine. In this case the FA have apparently decided that biting a player is at least as bad as repeatedly hurling racist at someone, with the following top up pushing it up to ten games

That's just not right

Pedro K

For all the people posting something to the effect of 'oh it was only a bite, no harm was done', have any of you people ever seen the damage a human bite can do? People have had entire facial features removed. Nose, ears, lips and sizeable portions of cheek.

It is not at all inconceivable that, had Suarez gotten a better grip of the arm, he could have taken a nice chunk out of it, causing permanent muscle damage and scarring.

There was no harm done, this time. Thuggish thing to do.

Hulk Hands

zerks wrote: »

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

Had some laugh at their reaction to Evras fake arm joke! Amazing how some people get so upset about us looking at a sight that they themselves say is full of idiots and has nothing to do with them. It's the same as looking at funny videos on youtube, we just look for a laugh

eagle eye

Reekwind wrote: »

Is it that much worse than spitting at someone? It's disgusting but certainly one of the less violent offences you can commit on a pitch

Now that I take issue with. Just because he was previously banned for eight games doesn't mean that his next (completely different) charge has to be nine or higher

Taking past behaviour into account does not mean that all punishments keep escalating. Slapping an extra game or two on top of the original charge, to account for past behaviour, is fine. In this case the FA have apparently decided that biting a player is at least as bad as repeatedly hurling racist at someone, with the following top up pushing it up to ten games

That's just not right

But he has previous for biting in the Netherlands. He got a seven game ban for it and has done it again.

Are you suggesting that because it was in a different league it should be ignored?

Leftist

zerks wrote: »

Even Reina has been brainwashed: "It's because he's Uruguayan"

they're like some sort of cult.

some liverpool are even blaming united for this and others are suddenly shocked at how violently biting a man out is worse than the ban for racism they still don't accept happened.

What a week for football.

SlickRic

Your Airbag wrote: »

I have no hatred of LFC or Saurez tbh but its getting slightly embarrassing especially when you see some LFC fans trying to understandably stand up for their star player, its getting close to defending the indefensible.

i've seen very few actually defend him, honestly.

any qualms are to do with the length of the ban, which some see as too lengthy. that's all.

Reekwind

eagle eye wrote: »

But he has previous for biting in the Netherlands. He got a seven game ban for it and has done it again.

Are you suggesting that because it was in a different league it should be ignored?

Pretty much. That ban was not handed down by the FA and it was not in line with FA regulations/guidelines. How can it be considered a precedent in England?

Or do we want the FA trawling through every foreign player's history when considering a punishment? 'Oh, he made a crude tackle for a U17s team in Columbia a decade ago, that's an extra two games this time round!'

SlickRic

Pedro K wrote: »

For all the people posting something to the effect of 'oh it was only a bite, no harm was done', have any of you people ever seen the damage a human bite can do? People have had entire facial features removed. Nose, ears, lips and sizeable portions of cheek.

It is not at all inconceivable that, had Suarez gotten a better grip of the arm, he could have taken a nice chunk out of it, causing permanent muscle damage and scarring.

Christ Almighty.

what he did was scummy, but good grief, what hyperbolic nonsense.

Suarez was never going to take a chunk out of the lad's arm. he wasn't going to stand there and have a snack. honestly. what he did was bad enough without making shít up.

Reekwind

Leftist wrote: »

some liverpool are even blaming united for this

Who has? Who are these Liverpool fans casting conspiracy nets or denying that Suarez did no wrong?

There's a lot of gob****ery strawman-knocking going on in this thread from those who are essentially gloating at a rival's misfortune

Crash Bang Wall

Pedro K wrote: »

For all the people posting something to the effect of 'oh it was only a bite, no harm was done', have any of you people ever seen the damage a human bite can do? People have had entire facial features removed. Nose, ears, lips and sizeable portions of cheek.

It is not at all inconceivable that, had Suarez gotten a better grip of the arm, he could have taken a nice chunk out of it, causing permanent muscle damage and scarring.

There was no harm done, this time. Thuggish thing to do.

So by your logic, a sliding tackle should be a red because if you mis time it you could break a guys leg or end a career.

get a grip pal

Leftist

Reekwind wrote: »

Who has? Who are these Liverpool fans casting conspiracy nets or denying that Suarez did no wrong?

There's a lot of gob****ery strawman-knocking going on in this thread from those who are essentially gloating at a rival's misfortune

how dare they!

Don't know if it's been done here, arsed to read through a mountain of posts trying to suggest biting someone isn't a big deal.


Saw this yesterday for instance.

Cantona's Collars

Vito Corleone wrote: »

So this post is for 0 people then.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84316495&postcount=414

Necronomicon

I think the only question that needs to be asked in a case like this is: "does the punishment fit the crime?" For me, in this case, the answer is a resounding "yes". A lot of people don't think so; that's fine, I won't try to change your mind, apart from asking if someone doesn't learn from a 7-game ban then what is harsh about increasing the punishment the second time it occurs? A lot of people are looking at the punishment in the context of bans handed out to others for previous incidents (or no bans, in some cases). But it's okay to criticise the FA for only giving 8 games to Ben Thatcher for damn-near killing someone, and still think Suarez deserves 10 games for the biting incident. I think it is erroneous to say it should be less severe because the bite wasn't as bad as the forearm smash.

Do I understand why Liverpool fans are pissed that Huth received no punishment for his stamp on Suarez? Absolutely. Should that detract in any way from the severity of Suarez' punishment? Absolutely not.

sfwcork

wrote:

by Pedro K
For all the people posting something to the effect of 'oh it was only a bite, no harm was done', have any of you people ever seen the damage a human bite can do? People have had entire facial features removed. Nose, ears, lips and sizeable portions of cheek.

It is not at all inconceivable that, had Suarez gotten a better grip of the arm, he could have taken a nice chunk out of it, causing permanent muscle damage and scarring.

Congrats sir tha was by far the biggest Toss I have read on this thread.

I bow to your extreme ability to exaggerate the ****e outta it

Leftist

google bitten ears/nose and see what can happen. any jackass knows that biting with force can cause a wound. Dur, that's how we tear meat ffs.

osarusan

Necronomicon wrote: »

Do I understand why Liverpool fans are pissed that Huth received no punishment for his stamp on Suarez? Absolutely. Should that detract in any way from the severity of Suarez' punishment? Absolutely not.

But severity is relative, isn't it? How else can we decide if a punishment is severe except in comparison with other punishment?

Looking back over the season, I think it is easy to recall incidents in which far more dangerous fouls received far more lenient punishment. It's the lack of consistency that some are complaining about.

Now I can see that because it's a bite, it is difficult in some ways to compare it with a tackle, no matter how bad the tackle. But the charge he was faced with was violent conduct - this can be applied to a range of foul behaviour. Under the banner of 'violent conduct', was Suarez's action really the most violent incident of the season?

Montroseee

Suarez should in custody at the moment. No matter how talented or famous he is, nobody is above the law. If you or I did that to someone on the street, we would be arrested + charged.

SlickRic

Montroseee wrote: »

Suarez should in custody at the moment. No matter how talented or famous he is, nobody is above the law. If you or I did that to someone on the street, we would be arrested + charged.

yup.

so should anyone whose ever elbowed, punched, stamped on or kicked an opponent.

Reekwind

Reekwind wrote: »

Pretty much. That ban was not handed down by the FA and it was not in line with FA regulations/guidelines. How can it be considered a precedent in England?

Or do we want the FA trawling through every foreign player's history when considering a punishment? 'Oh, he made a crude tackle for a U17s team in Columbia a decade ago, that's an extra two games this time round!'

Yeah because that's the same.

Montroseee

SlickRic wrote: »

yup.

so should anyone whose ever elbowed, punched, stamped on or kicked an opponent.

Biting is far worse than any of the above. At least if it ever went to court, Suarez could use insanity as a defense because the guy is not all there.
I feel pity aswell as disgust.

SlickRic

Montroseee wrote: »

Biting is far worse than any of the above.

it's weirder, slimier, creepier.

not worse IMO. certainly not "far" worse.

Your Airbag

SlickRic wrote: »

i've seen very few actually defend him, honestly.

any qualms are to do with the length of the ban, which some see as too lengthy. that's all.

There are many, check back through this thread and twitter

Reekwind wrote: »

Is it that much worse than spitting at someone? It's disgusting but certainly one of the less violent offences you can commit on a pitch

Now that I take issue with. Just because he was previously banned for eight games doesn't mean that his next (completely different) charge has to be nine or higher

Taking past behaviour into account does not mean that all punishments keep escalating. Slapping an extra game or two on top of the original charge, to account for past behaviour, is fine. In this case the FA have apparently decided that biting a player is at least as bad as repeatedly hurling racist at someone, with the following top up pushing it up to ten games

That's just not right

If someone is not learning from their mistakes or previous punishments and is re-offending then they are left with little choice. Slapping an extra game or two on top of the original charge is what the FA have done. He got seven for his first bite so they are looking at a precedent set in Holland which he didn't learn from, what did he think? the FA would not take charge or the cameras would not pick it up. He got 8 already in the EPL. He either doesn't learn or care about the rules of the game. 10 games is fair. If it was his first offence it would not be. Its not even his first bite ffs.

The shame about this is we are takling about biting and racism and not his talent which he has loads of. He is one of the best fox in the box dribblers you will see but he could end up at the end of his career being remembered for all the wrong reasons.

Reekwind

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah because that's the same.

Yeah it is. What's your point?

Mine was, to reiterate, if the FA is looking to other countries/jurisdictions to determine whether or not a player 'had previous' then where do you stop? Should a suspension for stamping in a Serbian league game ten years ago count against a player in the PL today? Should incrementally increasing bans for rash tackles begin at underage levels?

It's a mess. And until the FA actually puts some policy in place to define what amounts to 'past behaviour' then they're only victiming Suarez due to the high-profile nature of his previous suspensions

Your Airbag

Your Airbag wrote: »

There are many, check back through this thread and twitter



If someone is not learning from their mistakes or previous punishments and is re-offending then they are left with little choice. Slapping an extra game or two on top of the original charge is what the FA have done. He got seven for his first bite so they are looking at a precedent set in Holland which he didn't learn from, what did he think? the FA would not take charge or the cameras would not pick it up. He got 8 already in the EPL. He either doesn't learn or care about the rules of the game. 10 games is fair. If it was his first offence it would not be. Its not even his first bite ffs.

The shame about this is we are takling about biting and racism and not his talent which he has loads of. He is one of the best fox in the box dribblers you will see but he could end up at the end of his career being remembered for all the wrong reasons.

Not sure if serious

Your Airbag

rarnes1 wrote: »

Not sure if serious

As ridiculous as you may find twitter, the fact remains it is used by more ppl then boards.ie

kippy

Your Airbag wrote: »

As ridiculous as you may find twitter, the fact remains it is used by more ppl then boards.ie

Yeah, and the National Enquirer is read by more people than the times.......
Makes it a relevant and trustworthy object for measuring public opinion?

noodler

Querying the length of the ban

DOES NOT EQUAL

defending Suarez

Reekwind

Your Airbag wrote: »

He got seven for his first bite so they are looking at a precedent set in Holland...

Which is the problem: the Netherlands, obviously enough, is not England and its punishments are not identical to those of the FA

To use an analogy, assume County X hands out a six game ban to someone for spitting and that player moves to England before committing the same foul. Should the FA dole out a 7-8 game ban even though the punishment in England for spitting is 3-4 games? Or take the reverse, the player gets a one game ban in Country X, should the FA use that as its base when punishing the player, even if it's significantly less than a first-time offender in England would get?

Your Airbag

kippy wrote: »

Yeah, and the National Enquirer is read by more people than the times.......
Makes it a relevant and trustworthy object for measuring public opinion?

I never claimed it was. The reality is it is used and abused like any other messge forum on the internet, just like boards.ie
Are you saying this site is a relevant and trustworthy object for measuring public opinion?

kippy

Reekwind wrote: »

Which is the problem: the Netherlands, obviously enough, is not England and its punishments are not identical to those of the FA

To use an analogy, assume County X hands out a six game ban to someone for spitting and that player moves to England before committing the same foul. Should the FA dole out a 7-8 game ban even though the punishment in England for spitting is 3-4 games? Or take the reverse, the player gets a one game ban in Country X, should the FA use that as its base when punishing the player, even if it's significantly less than a first-time offender in England would get?

There seem to be plenty on this thread that say Suarez is being singled out by the media and English FA.
The point is, he got a SIMILAR sentence in Holland by a different FA etc so it's difficult to say that it's only because he is "foreign" he is getting what is perceived to be a harsher sentence.

The whole thing is pretty hilarious though, isn't it?

kippy

Your Airbag wrote: »

I never claimed it was. The reality is it is used and abused like any other messge forum on the internet, just like boards.ie
Are you saying this site is a relevant and trustworthy object for measuring public opinion?

Not at all,
just pointing out that public opinion is almost irrelevant in a case such as this.

Public opinion is hardly going to change Luis Suarez, now is it?

Reekwind

kippy wrote: »

The point is, he got a SIMILAR sentence in Holland by a different FA etc so it's difficult to say that it's only because he is "foreign" he is getting what is perceived to be a harsher sentence

Big difference between seven and ten games though. Almost a month of domestic football. Personally, I think that if he'd gotten seven games then there'd be minimal fuss

The other big question is what do the Dutch FA dole out as punishment for racism? Because for me that was the big doubletake

Lovely Bloke

Reekwind wrote: »

Big difference between seven and ten games though. Almost a month of domestic football. Personally, I think that if he'd gotten seven games then there'd be minimal fuss

more hyperbole - 3 games is a week of domestic football at that stage of the season.

Reekwind wrote: »

The other big question is what do the Dutch FA dole out as punishment for racism? Because for me that was the big doubletake

Why are you concerned with the Dutch FA's punishment for racism?

Your Airbag

Reekwind wrote: »

Which is the problem: the Netherlands, obviously enough, is not England and its punishments are not identical to those of the FA

To use an analogy, assume County X hands out a six game ban to someone for spitting and that player moves to England before committing the same foul. Should the FA dole out a 7-8 game ban even though the punishment in England for spitting is 3-4 games? Or take the reverse, the player gets a one game ban in Country X, should the FA use that as its base when punishing the player, even if it's significantly less than a first-time offender in England would get?

No but what is the EPL punishemnt for spitting? Whatever it is they should apply that.

What is the FA punishment for biting? They probably dont have one as its so rare. Then you look to set a precedent and its common for busniess and organisations to look at each others SOP's and take them on board. In this case the FA may have seen what the Netherlands did and seen that Surez also didn't think the ban was serious enough to deter him from locking his teeth onto someone else's flesh yet again and therefore they might have thought it was too lenient of the dutch FA, that coupled with his previous blatant disregard for the rules of the game and respect for his fellow opponent could have lead them to the figure 10. Its perfectly reasonable for a player who spits in the face of common decency when on the pitch.

I expect if another player bites some soon enough, don't hold your breath waiting for this, that he would get a minimum of 8-10 games.

Your Airbag

Your Airbag wrote: »

As ridiculous as you may find twitter, the fact remains it is used by more ppl then boards.ie

In fairness, there's a lot of total trolls on twitter. I wouldn't take what people say there serious.

At least here, the trolls are kept at bay most of the time.

citytillidie

Your Airbag wrote: »

No but what is the EPL punishemnt for spitting? Whatever it is they should apply that.

What is the FA punishment for biting? They probably dont have one as its so rare. Then you look to set a precedent and its common for busniess and organisations to look at each others SOP's and take them on board. In this case the FA may have seen what the Netherlands did and seen that Surez also didn't think the ban was serious enough to deter him from locking his teeth onto someone else's flesh yet again and therefore they might have thought it was too lenient of the dutch FA, that coupled with his previous blatant disregard for the rules of the game and respect for his fellow opponent could have lead them to the figure 10. Its perfectly reasonable for a player who spits in the face of common decency when on the pitch.

I expect if another player bites some soon enough, don't hold your breath waiting for this, that he would get a minimum of 8-10 games.

5 games was the punishment for Sean Hessey when he bit a player in 2006

Reekwind

Reekwind wrote: »

Yeah it is. What's your point?

Mine was, to reiterate, if the FA is looking to other countries/jurisdictions to determine whether or not a player 'had previous' then where do you stop? Should a suspension for stamping in a Serbian league game ten years ago count against a player in the PL today? Should incrementally increasing bans for rash tackles begin at underage levels?

It's a mess. And until the FA actually puts some policy in place to define what amounts to 'past behaviour' then they're only victiming Suarez due to the high-profile nature of his previous suspensions

There's a huge difference between a tackle in an underage game and something that involved charges, a hearing and a 7-game ban.

Crash Bang Wall

zerks wrote: »

Racism,check.Deliberately injuring an opponent,check.Cheating,check.Diving,check.Lying,check.

People here have mentioned Terry,Keane,Cantona,Rooney,Thatcher,McManaman and more crossing the line.Suarez has managed in his couple of seasons here to roll them all into one.

Yup the dice are really loaded against him.:rolleyes:

Racism,check.Deliberately injuring an opponent,check.Cheating,check.Diving,check.Lying,check.

Pretty much every player lies and cheats, calling for a penalty when its not is both.....Bale booked 4 or 5 times this season and yet hes set to get player of the year!! Every 50/50 challenge has an some sort of intention to hurt an opposition player, or you at least acknowledge the fact that it may happen.

Thatcher almost ended a career and got 6 matches I think.

The Racism case is aload of BS as far as the FA is concerned. Any court would have thrown it out due to lack of evidence, yet with Terry you have all the evidence you need and he gets 4 matches!!!