Suarez Banned for 10 games

citytillidie

SlickRic wrote: »

you'd swear Liverpool were claiming innocence the way some sections of the media, and some on here, are going on.

the club know he should be banned, and they want Suarez to get help too.

the ban seems disproportionate according to the club. that's literally all the problem is.

i don't see what's difficult to grasp about this.

As per usual media and other club "fans" are making a mountain out of a mole hill

greendom

quarryman wrote: »

Can a Liverpool fan explain exactly why a ten game ban is too much?

I'm not a Liverpool fan, but I would say the inconsistency of the whole disciplinary process is something that could be pointed to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/apr/25/luis-suarez-fa-disciplinary-system

inmyday

SlickRic wrote: »

the ban seems disproportionate according to the club. that's literally all the problem is.

i don't see what's difficult to grasp about this.

Its difficult to grasp because 10 games is correct, maybe it should be more for a repeat offender. He bit someone in the middle of a football match. Nutter! Scum! etc...

Is this difficult for liverpool fans to grasp????

osarusan

inmyday wrote: »

Its difficult to grasp because 10 games is correct, maybe it should be more for a repeat offender.

Is this difficult for liverpool fans to grasp????

Whether it's correct or not is a matter of opinion, as is obvious going by this thread.

Is that so difficult for you to grasp?

inmyday

osarusan wrote: »

Whether it's correct or not is a matter of opinion, as is obvious going by this thread.

Is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Of course I know its a matter of opinion, but the reasons for your(and other liverpool fans') opinion doesnt hold up well in an argument.
I cannot grasp your argument, because I think 10 is ok, but I would have thought more than 10 was deserved. For purposely biting someone in the middle of a football match.
And no one has answered why the fans defend this man non stop? But if it was another player with another club, he would be the scum of the earth.

Red Crow

It would seem that the jist of the argument against the lenght of the ban is due to the inconsistencies of totally irrelevant, unrelated bans which in reality is no argument at all.

The only precedence set here was the ban by the Dutch FA which was 7 games. The nature of a ban is to deter the offender and anybody else from committing the offence again. Suarez obviously hasn't taken the first ban very seriously so the FA have given him a 10 game ban.

That's common sense and probably only ban that the FA have issued that actually makes any sense.

jaykay74

I presume if he appeals he can play this weekend and I guess if the 10 games is upheld then miss 7 next season instead of 6 depending of course on how long the appeal would take. Tricky decision to appeal or not given that I guess he would prefer to run down 4 games of it this season..

citytillidie

Eli Manning wrote: »

It would seem that the jist of the argument against the lenght of the ban is due to the inconsistencies of totally irrelevant, unrelated bans which in reality is no argument at all.

The only precedence set here was the ban by the Dutch FA which was 7 games. The nature of a ban is to deter the offender and anybody else from committing the offence again. Suarez obviously hasn't taken the first ban very seriously so the FA have given him a 10 game ban.

That's common sense and probably only ban that the FA have issued that actually makes any sense.

Not really when the English FA banned a player for 5 games before for biting

greendom

jaykay74 wrote: »

I presume if he appeals he can play this weekend and I guess if the 10 games is upheld then miss 7 next season instead of 6 depending of course on how long the appeal would take. Tricky decision to appeal or not given that I guess he would prefer to run down 4 games of it this season..

The first 3 games are not up for appeal so he won't play this weekend.

Neil3030

The club shouldn't have commented on the length of the ban, in any way shape or form.

Any time, in any context, when you use the phrase something resembling, "we condemn X's actions... but...", you are leaving yourself open to interpretation that you don't, in fact, condemn the actions. Be that interpretation fair or not, it's at best a rookie PR mistake, at worst a hackneyed jujitsu-like manoeuvre to try and shift blame away from a perpetrator - in any case it will inevitably lead to needlessly prolonged discussion, accusations and argument.

In light of all the surrounding context in this sh1t storm, the club should have simply taken the ban with a bit of poise, made a final apology to Ivanovic, and moved on. They would have shown themselves to have a bit of dignity in an otherwise embarrassing affair and set a pretty decent yardstick for how a club should manage such situations.

/my2c

SlickRic

quarryman wrote: »

Can a Liverpool fan explain exactly why a ten game ban is too much?

i could easily ask why 10 games is deemed by rival fans as the correct amount. just because it sounds good? or because there's sound reasoning behind it?

how did the FA come to the decision?
did they use precedent?
did they use an outside FA's guidelines with Suarez before (Dutch) to help them come to their decision?
on the above point, has that been done before?
is it the fact that Suarez is a repeat offender that he got such a large ban? have repeat offences over a period of time got others longer bans before?
is this deemed violent conduct or something different?
why did the likes of Ben Thatcher get less than this?
why does a single count of racism count for 4 matches (Suarez got 8 because he was found to have repeated it), and a bite count for 7 on top of the initial 3?

there are just lots of questions that need to be answered in terms of how the FA come to their decisions.

even the most ardent defenders of the 10 game length would agree (that I've seen), that the FA need to make their processes a bit more transparent, as well as getting a whole lot more consistent with how they dish them out.

if the FA give a good reason for 10, then fine, I'm actually quite sure it'll be accepted.

greendom

citytillidie wrote: »

Not really when the English FA banned a player for 5 games before for biting

Or no suspension at all for Defoe, when he carried out the same vile act.

SlickRic

Neil3030 wrote: »

The club shouldn't have commented on the length of the ban, in any way shape or form.

this was indeed very silly. i definitely agree. pre-empting the FA on that was a little naive.

Neil3030

SlickRic wrote: »

this was indeed very silly. i definitely agree. pre-empting the FA on that was a little naive.

Wait... I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I am referring to the statement immediately following the ban, where they state how "shocked and disappointed" they were at the severity of the punishment.

Red Crow

citytillidie wrote: »

Not really when the English FA banned a player for 5 games before for biting

In Suarez's case how could they justify any less than 7 games? Considering that he received a ban for 7 games and it obviously hasn't deterred him from committing the offence again?

All incidents are reviewed on a case by case basis you would imagine and you would like to think the FA have taken into consideration his previous history of biting players.

It's common sense being applies for the first time by the FA IMO.

SlickRic

Eli Manning wrote: »

It would seem that the jist of the argument against the lenght of the ban is due to the inconsistencies of totally irrelevant, unrelated bans which in reality is no argument at all.

The only precedence set here was the ban by the Dutch FA which was 7 games. The nature of a ban is to deter the offender and anybody else from committing the offence again. Suarez obviously hasn't taken the first ban very seriously so the FA have given him a 10 game ban.

That's common sense and probably only ban that the FA have issued that actually makes any sense.

all fine, but even taking your lead from another FA is worthy of a question there.

also, by the reasoning of "he didn't learn his lesson", anyone who repeatedly offends should get bigger bans each time.

as i've said before, i look forward to that being consistently applied so; and it's actually something I wouldn't have a problem with if it was consistently implemented.

Benimar

jaykay74 wrote: »

I presume if he appeals he can play this weekend and I guess if the 10 games is upheld then miss 7 next season instead of 6 depending of course on how long the appeal would take. Tricky decision to appeal or not given that I guess he would prefer to run down 4 games of it this season..

No, he has accepted the charge, but not the punishment.

The automatic 3 game ban kicks in immediately and the appeal (assuming there is one) will be of the additional 7 games. Theoretically, he could play the last game of the season as the 3 game ban would be up so if the appeal isn't dealt with by then he would be free to play.

citytillidie

greendom wrote: »

Or no suspension at all for Defoe, when he carried out the same vile act.

Not talking about Defoe, there was another biting incident in the lower leagues that seen a player get a 5 game ban but not much media attention

citytillidie

SlickRic wrote: »

all fine, but even taking your lead from another FA is worthy of a question there.

also, by the reasoning of "he didn't learn his lesson", anyone who repeatedly offends should get bigger bans each time.

as i've said before, i look forward to that being consistently applied so; and it's actually something I wouldn't have a problem with if it was consistently implemented.

Going by that reasoning then Steve Sidwell should get more than 3 game ban for his most recent red card as well he did not learn his lesson from his last red card and only last 12 mins on his 1st game back

citytillidie

Eli Manning wrote: »

In Suarez's case how could they justify any less than 7 games? Considering that he received a ban for 7 games and it obviously hasn't deterred him from committing the offence again?

All incidents are reviewed on a case by case basis you would imagine and you would like to think the FA have taken into consideration his previous history of biting players.

It's common sense being applies for the first time by the FA IMO.

Well considering people who worked with the FA have been saying the FA cant take that into account since it was handed to him by the Dutch FA

quarryman

SlickRic wrote: »

i could easily ask why 10 games is deemed by rival fans as the correct amount. just because it sounds good? or because there's sound reasoning behind it?

how did the FA come to the decision?
did they use precedent?
did they use an outside FA's guidelines with Suarez before (Dutch) to help them come to their decision?
on the above point, has that been done before?
is it the fact that Suarez is a repeat offender that he got such a large ban? have repeat offences over a period of time got others longer bans before?
is this deemed violent conduct or something different?
why did the likes of Ben Thatcher get less than this?
why does a single count of racism count for 4 matches (Suarez got 8 because he was found to have repeated it), and a bite count for 7 on top of the initial 3?

there are just lots of questions that need to be answered in terms of how the FA come to their decisions.

even the most ardent defenders of the 10 game length would agree (that I've seen), that the FA need to make their processes a bit more transparent, as well as getting a whole lot more consistent with how they dish them out.

if the FA give a good reason for 10, then fine, I'm actually quite sure it'll be accepted.

I think it's pretty simple. He has received 7 for biting previously (albeit in the Dutch league), 8 for racism and so 10 for this. It's a case of increasing the punishment until it deters the offender.

IMO 10 games is bang on. His carry on isn't just harming Liverpool's image at this stage, it's damaging football in general.

Will I Amnt

citytillidie wrote: »

Going by that reasoning then Steve Sidwell should get more than 3 game ban for his most recent red card as well he did not learn his lesson from his last red card and only last 12 mins on his 1st game back

If you can't see the difference between tackling and biting there is no hope of you understanding where people are coming from in their opinions.

If Sidwell had head butted or punched his opponents on both occassions you might have a point.

Johnny Utah

Cantona got a longer ban for less...

RasTa

It's funny watching logic and rational thinking going out the window from now slick on this topic.

LiamoSail

quarryman wrote: »

I

IMO 10 games is bang on. His carry on isn't just harming Liverpool's image at this stage, it's damaging football in general.

While I agree that 10 games is probably fair given its his second such offence and he got seven the first time, to say he's damaging football is ridiculous.

Johnny Utah

It wasn't too bad in fairness... it was just a little nibble and Suarez is a hungry young striker.

I'd prefer that than a broken nose!

opr

Mancini on Suarez ban: "This is strange. I don't know if this is more important than tackles but for me, 10 games is too much"

Only Liverpool fan though think it was harsh.

Opr

Xavi6

greendom wrote: »

Or no suspension at all for Defoe, when he carried out the same vile act.

Please stop using the Defoe incident, it's not the same thing.

The reasons why have been posted numerous times as well.

Will I Amnt

opr wrote: »

Mancini on Suarez ban: "This is strange. I don't know if this is more important than tackles but for me, 10 games is too much"

Only Liverpool fan though think it was harsh.

Opr

Oh great. Is this what it's resorted to?

Red Crow

opr wrote: »

Mancini on Suarez ban: "This is strange. I don't know if this is more important than tackles but for me, 10 games is too much"

Only Liverpool fan though think it was harsh.

Opr

Liverpool fans or a manager about to submit a bid for Suarez

LiamoSail

When Barton went to marseille, his ban stood over there, but did he serve it over there? What I mean is, was he unavailable until qpr had played 10 league games or until marseille had played 10 league games (or however long he was banned for)?

Theoretically, could Suarez be loaned to a club like cork city for example, and serve his ban over the summer? Much like what qpr were planning with Barton in sending him on loan to notts county, or where ever it was he went

Hidalgo

quarryman wrote: »

I think it's pretty simple. He has received 7 for biting previously (albeit in the Dutch league), 8 for racism and so 10 for this. It's a case of increasing the punishment until it deters the offender.

IMO 10 games is bang on. His carry on isn't just harming Liverpool's image at this stage, it's damaging football in general.

ah now,
insert will someone think of the children clip here

Blatter

Xavi6 wrote: »

Please stop using the Defoe incident, it's not the same thing.

The reasons why have been posted numerous times as well.

Most of the reasons that have been posted are wrong though, ie. ''he got a yellow so the FA couldn't take retrospective action''

What makes it different is the FA have since updated their 'exceptional circumstances' criteria.

SantryRed

opr wrote: »

Mancini on Suarez ban: "This is strange. I don't know if this is more important than tackles but for me, 10 games is too much"

Only Liverpool fan though think it was harsh.

Opr

Thay's only because he wants to buy him in the summer

quarryman

LiamoSail wrote: »

While I agree that 10 games is probably fair given its his second such offence and he got seven the first time, to say he's damaging football is ridiculous.

Why? The exposure is being picked up well outside football circles at this stage.

It's the front page of reddit.com at the moment. It needs to be a pretty big story to get there.

Even David Cameron is wading in now.

Liverpool fans can accuse the media of stirring this up but Suarez has no one to blame but himself and getting the punishment he deserves.

greendom

Xavi6 wrote: »

Please stop using the Defoe incident, it's not the same thing.

The reasons why have been posted numerous times as well.

Because he was booked by the ref ? Because the FA then didn't deem it "exceptional". If it wasn't "exceptional" how can the FA hand out a 10 game ban for doing the same thing ? It's absolute rubbish imo, unless there's something else I've missed which makes it "not the same thing".

Pro. F

Neil3030 wrote: »

The club shouldn't have commented on the length of the ban, in any way shape or form.

Any time, in any context, when you use the phrase something resembling, "we condemn X's actions... but...", you are leaving yourself open to interpretation that you don't, in fact, condemn the actions. Be that interpretation fair or not, it's at best a rookie PR mistake, at worst a hackneyed jujitsu-like manoeuvre to try and shift blame away from a perpetrator - in any case it will inevitably lead to needlessly prolonged discussion, accusations and argument.

In light of all the surrounding context in this sh1t storm, the club should have simply taken the ban with a bit of poise, made a final apology to Ivanovic, and moved on. They would have shown themselves to have a bit of dignity in an otherwise embarrassing affair and set a pretty decent yardstick for how a club should manage such situations.

/my2c

Having their statement picked apart by opposition fans and media is a tiny price to pay if the act of making such a statement makes Suarez feel like the club are supporting him. Player relations trump public relations and Suarez is their most important player.

Pro. F

quarryman wrote: »

Why? The exposure is being picked up well outside football circles at this stage.

It's the front page of reddit.com at the moment. It needs to be a pretty big story to get there.

Even David Cameron is wading in now.

Liverpool fans can accuse the media of stirring this up but Suarez has no one to blame but himself and getting the punishment he deserves.

Cameron getting himself involved is disgusting. Typical Tory nonsense.

Football won't be in the slightest bit damaged by this incident.

SlickRic

quarryman wrote: »

Even David Cameron is wading in now.

which is, quite frankly, fúcking ludicrous on so many levels.

quarryman

SlickRic wrote: »

which is, quite frankly, fúcking ludicrous on so many levels.

Why? He's speaking as a father. His 7 year old saw it.

These are exactly the kind of scum that we're trying to protect young kids from being influenced by.

outsourced_ire

quarryman wrote: »

Why? He's speaking as a father. His 7 year old saw it.

These are exactly the kind of scum that we're trying to protect young kids from being influenced by.

Is that the same 7 year old he left in the pub?

greendom

quarryman wrote: »

Why? He's speaking as a father. His 7 year old saw it.

These are exactly the kind of scum that we're trying to protect young kids from being influenced by.

He didn't say that his 7 year old saw the incident, just that he watches football.

Another piece of blatant electioneering imo - speaking for the common man. Liverpool is pretty much a lost cause for them anyhow.

Cantona's Collars

RasTa wrote: »

It's funny watching logic and rational thinking going out the window from now slick on this topic.

And he was one of the sane 'pool fans.

Don't worry Slick,head to the FF forum and take 5.There are more important concerns there.

SlickRic

quarryman wrote: »

Why? He's speaking as a father. His 7 year old saw it.

These are exactly the kind of scum that we're trying to protect young kids from being influenced by.

yeah, you're right actually.

the PM should comment every time a sportsperson does something unsavoury that might influence the poor children. he definitely has nothing better to be doing.

fúcking hell.

The fcuking cheek of a politician getting involved, and a bloody Tory too. Seriously fcuk off.

outsourced_ire

outsourced_ire wrote: »

Is that the same 7 year old he left in the pub?

Game, set and match.

Wp Sir

Cantona's Collars

SlickRic wrote: »

yeah, you're right actually.

the PM should comment every time a sportsperson does something unsavoury that might influence the poor children. he definitely has nothing better to be doing.

fúcking hell.

Notice how there was a wall of silence over operation Yewtree when some politicians were implicated in the Savile case.Yet when it comes to football they suddenly have an opinion,Thatcher will never truly die.

SlickRic

zerks wrote: »

And he was one of the sane 'pool fans.

Don't worry Slick,head to the FF forum and take 5.There are more important concerns there.

ha, good one that. well done.

luckily though, your opinion on what is deemed sane and rational is of no real importance.

Red Crow

What have the society of black lawyers had to say about it?

Their good for a good laugh.

Pro. F

quarryman wrote: »

Why? He's speaking as a father. His 7 year old saw it.

These are exactly the kind of scum that we're trying to protect young kids from being influenced by.

He was speaking as a Tory PM having a pop at football and Johnny Foreigner to distract from his oppressive tax and spending policies.