Suarez Banned for 10 games

Reekwind

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

So the next time he gets a straight red (or a series of yellows) he can expect a 12-13 game ban, regardless of the offence?

That's ridiculous and it's excactly the sort of nonsense that gives LFC fans reason to talk of Suarez being targeted. It completely contravenes the fundamental principle that the punishment must fit the crime

Cantona's Collars

SlickRic wrote: »

ha, good one that. well done.

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

Yup,he's gone.Another case of the Rarnes virus.

It causes automatic,irrational defensive behaviour,suspicion of everything and complete removal of any sense of humour.

Kess73

Pro. F wrote: »

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

Is not his first time releasing a statement through his press agent regarding Suarez. Took him less that 24 hours after the bite at the weekend to publically offer a suggestion as to ban length and how it should be more than the norm. Funny how the same man gets tongue tied when the subject matter switches to that of the NHS, taxation, or unemployment.

LiamoSail

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.

I'm not disputing the blame, obviously its Suarez's own fault. My point is simply that anyone who thinks less of the game as a result of this probably has little knowledge or interest in the game in the first place. Their opinions of the game being lowered hardly constitute the game being damaged

RasTa

zerks wrote: »

Yup,he's gone.Another case of the Rarnes virus.

It causes automatic,irrational defensive behaviour,suspicion of everything and complete removal of any sense of humour.

Yup, once they get personal you know they have being bitten.

Hidalgo

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.

Football has had bigger crisis than this and will have bigger in the future.Such as match fixing scandals by players refs etc,
Accusations of vote buying by FIFA members etc

LiamoSail

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.

It's not the responsibility of luis Suarez, or any other footballer for that matter, to act as a role model for anyone else's kids

If you're that worried about kids witnessing the likes of what Suarez did, you should probably stop your kids watching tv in general

tigger123

I heard the interview with David Cameron as it went ou live this morning on BBC. He was talking about local taxation in the UK and at the end of the interview the presenter brought up the Suarez comments again, he wasn't "wading" into again. He really didn't want to discuss the matter.

The deadline for Liverpool to lodge an appeal was midday today ... or did I hear that wrong? Anyone know if they did?

SlickRic

zerks wrote: »

Yup,he's gone.Another case of the Rarnes virus.

It causes automatic,irrational defensive behaviour,suspicion of everything and complete removal of any sense of humour.

RasTa wrote: »

Yup, once they get personal you know they have being bitten.

yup, the problem is my humour.

epic stuff lads.

and in contrast to my irrationality of course, your logical and rational views of LFC are to be greatly admired. well done to you both.

Reekwind

More to the point, wasn't the FA supposed to have released its rationale for the ban yesterday? Can Liverpool really lodge an appeal without access to this?

RasTa

SlickRic wrote: »

yup, the problem is my humour.

epic stuff lads.

and in contrast to my irrationality of course, your logical and rational views of LFC are to be greatly admired. well done to you both.

Thank you, I have barely commented on this thread btw

Kess73

tigger123 wrote: »

I heard the interview with David Cameron as it went ou live this morning on BBC. He was talking about local taxation in the UK and at the end of the interview the presenter brought up the Suarez comments again, he wasn't "wading" into again. He really didn't want to discuss the matter.

The deadline for Liverpool to lodge an appeal was midday today ... or did I hear that wrong? Anyone know if they did?

He issued a statement on it through his press agent on Monday. The only reason he was asked again today imo was because of the fact he was so quick to release statements on the issue earlier in the week.

His earlier statements this week have been repeated on a number of tv channels and also in the printed media.

Does not in the slightest change the fact that what Suarez did was 100% wrong, but it yet again showed Cameron's willingness to release statements on controversial issues without being prompted.

But whilst I think Cameron should not have released a statement last Monday saying that he thought the punishment should be harsher than normal, as I don't think the Prime Minister of the country needs to be getting involved off of his own back, if Suarez had not done the scummy act in the first place there would have been nothing to comment on.

Cantona's Collars

SlickRic wrote: »

your logical and rational views of LFC are to be greatly admired. well done to you both.

Of course LFC have been nothing but logical and rational when it comes to Suarez:rolleyes:

Kettle-Pot.

CSF

Poor form from Cameron. Great to see politicians with opinions on football but he should keep them to the pub with his mates. If he is that desperate to tell the world, he should set up an anonymous boards.ie account like the rest of us.

Cantona's Collars

Suarez has not appealed the ban,SSN now.

Hidalgo

Reekwind wrote: »

More to the point, wasn't the FA supposed to have released its rationale for the ban yesterday? Can Liverpool really lodge an appeal without access to this?

i think the written report was supposed to have been given to Liverpool by 6pm yesterday.
Not sure if it was being publicly released or just for the eyes of the club.

SlickRic

zerks wrote: »

Of course LFC have been nothing but logical and rational when it comes to Suarez:rolleyes:

Kettle-Pot.

what's that got to do with my views, or yours for that matter? and whether they're sane/insane, or rational/irrational?

Hidalgo

zerks wrote: »

Suarez has not appealed the ban,SSN now.

Best case scenario imo,
The chances of him getting it reduced were slim to none, and a lot closer to the none bracket. All an appeal would have achieved is dragging it out even more with the culmination of probably another few games added to his ban.

Xavi6

See you in October

http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/luis-suarez-suspension-to-begin-260413.aspx

Liverpool forward Luis Suarez has not appealed the suspension issued to him by an Independent Regulatory Commission this week.

A three-person Independent Regulatory Commission upheld The FA’s claim that a suspension of three matches was clearly insufficient and the player will now serve a further seven first-team matches in addition to the standard three.

The suspension begins with immediate effect and applies to Liverpool FC’s next ten domestic first-team fixtures.

This sanction followed an incident with Chelsea’s Branislav Ivanovic in Sunday’s fixture at Anfield (21 April 2013).

The FA intends to publicise the Independent Regulatory Commission’s written reasons in due course.

Cantona's Collars

SlickRic wrote: »

what's that got to do with my views, or yours for that matter? and whether they're sane/insane, or rational/irrational?

You brought it up and then you don't like the reply.What did you expect it to be?

Johnny Utah

Pro. F wrote: »

Cameron getting himself involved is disgusting. Typical Tory nonsense.

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

One incident won't make a significant difference, but football has been on a slippery slope since the 70s, and this will only add to it imo.

Do you not think that that there is a thuggish element that follows football?

I don't think you'd get this carry on with rugby or cricket, which are traditionally more associated with posh people...

What do you think?

citytillidie

Xavi6 wrote: »

See you in October

http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/luis-suarez-suspension-to-begin-260413.aspx

Going by this year fixtures he will be back in September

Hidalgo

Johnny Utah wrote: »

One incident won't make a significant difference, but football has been on a slippery slope since the 70s, and this will only add to it imo.

Do you not think that that there is a thuggish element that follows football?

I don't think you'd get this carry on with rugby or cricket, which are traditionally more associated with posh people...

What do you think?

would football not be far more family orientated today than the 70s. I'm sure there's still violence but to say its sliding since the 70s is overreacting imo

SlickRic

zerks wrote: »

You brought it up and then you don't like the reply.What did you expect it to be?

you say my views aren't sane.

you say it's a joke.

i say your views on LFC aren't rational.

you then tell me Liverpool FC have been nothing but irrational about the whole episode.

i say what Liverpool have done has nothing to do with my views on what should happen.

you then say the above.

my head hurts, i'm out.

probably a good decision not to appeal. very slim chance he'd have had anything reduced.

Red Crow

Liverpool knew where this was heading. The two week wages fine was simple discourse to appear to be punishing the player. As Neil3030 said you can't issue a statement condemning something but fill it with a big 'but' in the middle. It's laughable PR and you get the sense that the fine was PR rabble when the statement makes it look like they are very much afraid of the possibility of losing Suarez and have argued against the lenght of the ban.

Over the course of events they have managed to condemn him and then back him. If it was a lesser player he would of been hung out to dry.

It would probably happen at most clubs however.

citytillidie

Johnny Utah wrote: »

One incident won't make a significant difference, but football has been on a slippery slope since the 70s, and this will only add to it imo.

Do you not think that that there is a thuggish element that follows football?

I don't think you'd get this carry on with rugby or cricket, which are traditionally more associated with posh people...

What do you think?

Was there not a player done recently for spitting in rugby and not a peep from Mr Cameron

Johnny Utah

Hidalgo wrote: »

would football not be far more family orientated today than the 70s. I'm sure there's still violence but to say its sliding since the 70s is overreacting imo

Hmmm... not sure!

Maybe the Prem League promotes the family section and the prawn sandwich brigade, but we've had plenty of posters here in this very forum giving out about LofI games where the atmosphere was less than family firendly. I mean, do you want to bring your 7 year kid to his first game and all he hears is overweight grown men in ill-fitting nylon jerseys chanting about the 'referee being a wanker' or 'somebody taking it up the arse'?

And don't tell me that this doesn't go on, because it does...

greendom

citytillidie wrote: »

Was there not a player done recently for spitting in rugby and not a peep from Mr Cameron

Was he not playing for a French teams? Relations between the 2 countries are strained enough without Cameron wading in with his tuppence here.

But there's plenty of stuff that goes on in Rugby that you wouldn't see anywhere near a football pitch.

Johnny Utah

citytillidie wrote: »

Was there not a player done recently for spitting in rugby and not a peep from Mr Cameron

GAA maybe? I think P Galvin said it happened to him recently...

I haven't read all the thread so don't know if its been mentioned before but is there anything stopping us loaning out Suarez to a league 1 club at the start of the season say like QPR were considering doing with Barton last year.

He would serve the ban in less than 6 liverpool games (4 served this season) due to the earlier start of the league and an earlier league cup start and then we could recall him when the ban is up.

If nothing else it would p*ss off the FA no end which would be a result in itself.

Johnny Utah

Aliana Salty Gesture wrote: »

I haven't read all the thread so don't know if its been mentioned before but is there anything stopping us loaning out Suarez to a league 1 club at the start of the season say like QPR were considering doing with Barton last year.

He would serve the ban in less than 6 liverpool games (4 gone served this season) due to the earlier start of the league and an earlier league cup start and then we could recall him when the ban is up.

If nothing else it would p*ss off the FA no end which would be a result in itself.

Imo, UEFA & FIFA should step in and prevent this!

It effectively makes the punishment meaningless to both Lpool and the player in question.

citytillidie

Aliana Salty Gesture wrote: »

I haven't read all the thread so don't know if its been mentioned before but is there anything stopping us loaning out Suarez to a league 1 club at the start of the season say like QPR were considering doing with Barton last year.

He would serve the ban in less than 6 liverpool games (4 served this season) due to the earlier start of the league and an earlier league cup start and then we could recall him when the ban is up.

If nothing else it would p*ss off the FA no end which would be a result in itself.

Or off to a summer league like League of Ireland there would only be 1 weeks difference between the start of football league and premier league

Will I Amnt

Suarez was front page of a lot of British papers. Probably the most talked about incident in world sport at the time.

Cameron shouldn't have stuck his oar in but you can certainly see why he would have done for this incident rather than some French rugby player spitting that was probably news to most people here until a few minutes ago.

Being a Tory shouldn't make any difference either. He should have kept his mouth shut regardless.

cruiserweight

citytillidie wrote: »

Was there not a player done recently for spitting in rugby and not a peep from Mr Cameron

Dylan Hartley was banned for biting in last years 6 nations http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/mar/27/dylan-hartley-stephen-ferris-ban

I think there was an suggestion of spitting by Tom Crofts in this years, but there was nothing in it

SlickRic

i think the fact he was even asked bothers me more than him feeling as though he should answer when asked.

definitely should've still shut up though.

citytillidie

SlickRic wrote: »

i think the fact he was even asked bothers me more than him feeling as though he should answer when asked.

definitely should've still shut up though.

He waded in about it on Monday, Rogers had a go at him yesterday, and I guess today he was asked about it because Rogers had a go at him yesterday

CSF

Aliana Salty Gesture wrote: »

I haven't read all the thread so don't know if its been mentioned before but is there anything stopping us loaning out Suarez to a league 1 club at the start of the season say like QPR were considering doing with Barton last year.

He would serve the ban in less than 6 liverpool games (4 served this season) due to the earlier start of the league and an earlier league cup start and then we could recall him when the ban is up.

If nothing else it would p*ss off the FA no end which would be a result in itself.

PR disaster and you can bet there would be consequences. Gotta take it on the chin.

5live

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.

Wow.

Just for the record, nobody died.
No families were broken up, never to be united again.
Nobody is in intensive care recovering.
Nobody has anything more than bruising that will be gone in 2 weeks.

It was a s*itty thing to do, something that you would be embarrased to see your 3 year old doing.

But if your 3 year old did it, your first response wouldnt be to put them up for adoption while locking them in a cellar until the deal was done.

He is a repeat offender, yes surely, but was he given the tools and mechanisms from the incident with Bakkal to deal with his frustrations?

It is very easy to decide on the death sentence when a more appropriate solution might be counselling and mechanisms to deal with situations like this. I would like to presume that would be the method that Liverpool would pursue, whether or not they decide to sell him on this summer. It is the least the club should do for one of its players.

Just for the record, it is after all, the 21st century and not the dark ages

Pro. F

Johnny Utah wrote: »

One incident won't make a significant difference, but football has been on a slippery slope since the 70s, and this will only add to it imo.

Do you not think that that there is a thuggish element that follows football?

I don't think you'd get this carry on with rugby or cricket, which are traditionally more associated with posh people...

What do you think?

On the pitch I think football has seen a massive decrease in violence since the 70s. Off the pitch in England the same is true. Around the world I would say it's up and down. So I think any description of football being on a slippery slope since the 70s is very wide of the mark.

You definitely get biting in Rugby, it's quite common. But rugby union is posh as you say, so Cameron wouldn't want to be seen to be criticising it. This isn't me having a go at rugby, I think their rules and enforcement are by far the best of any team sport.

citytillidie

citytillidie wrote: »

Or off to a summer league like League of Ireland there would only be 1 weeks difference between the start of football league and premier league

Has to be served in one of the English leagues. It might be only a week earlier but they play two matches a some weeks early on, don't have an international break and would have an earlier league cup game.

Even if it only gained two games it might be worth it.

CSF wrote: »

PR disaster and you can bet there would be consequences. Gotta take it on the chin.

Feck PR, it would be genius!

How could there be consequences, they needed spell out why they are doing it

citytillidie

Aliana Salty Gesture wrote: »

Has to be served in one of the English leagues. It might be only a week earlier but they play two matches a some weeks early on, don't have an international break and would have an earlier league cup game.

Even if it only gained two games it might be worth it.



Feck PR, it would be genius!

How could there be consequences, they needed spell out why they are doing it

Liverpool will also have more than likely have 2 league cup games so he might just miss 4 league games next season, and with it being a World Cup season the premier league usually has two games in the opening week Saturday and Wednesday. We shall find out in June when the fixtures are out

Hidalgo

cambo2008 wrote: »

Suarez was front page of a lot of British papers. Probably the most talked about incident in world sport at the time.

Cameron shouldn't have stuck his oar in but you can certainly see why he would have done for this incident rather than some French rugby player spitting that was probably news to most people here until a few minutes ago.

Being a Tory shouldn't make any difference either. He should have kept his mouth shut regardless.

This has a lot to do with it imo.
similar to other incidents if something makes mainstream/front page news, there might be more pressure on the FA to appear to crack down as wider society is watching in.
i.e Rooney ban for swearing at the camera

Kess73

Suarez has released his statement regarding not appealing

Xavi6

Kess73 wrote: »

Suarez has released his statement regarding not appealing

And finished by saying "I hope to come back early to play".

He knows what accepting something means I presume...

citytillidie

Xavi6 wrote: »

And finished by saying "I hope to come back early to play".

He knows what accepting something means I presume...

Could mean anything you do know he is allowed to take part in pre season friendly games maybe he was talking about them.

Kess73

Xavi6 wrote: »

And finished by saying "I hope to come back early to play".

He knows what accepting something means I presume...

Took that to mean him referring to preseason tbh, but it is an odd line alright.

brick tamland

citytillidie wrote: »

Could mean anything you do know he is allowed to take part in pre season friendly games maybe he was talking about them.

Cantona wasnt allowed play in pre-season season games, so unless the rules have changed I'm not sure he can. It was a long time ago though so may well have changed

As far as I rememeber the FA allowed special dispensation on appeal for him to play a couple of behind closed doors friendlys just prior to his come back.

GavRedKing

Not much left to discuss here really?

The ban isnt being appealed, rightly or wrongly it stands and there's not much more to be said is there?

GavRedKing

GavRedKing wrote: »

Not much left to discuss here really?

The ban isnt being appealed, rightly or wrongly it stands and there's not much more to be said is there?

No, all over. Once it doesn't spill into the superthread for the next 2 weeks!

SlickRic

i can't believe the mods aren't enjoying this thread.