Suarez Banned for 10 games

GavRedKing

SlickRic wrote: »

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

My ban/cards issued count is on the up thanks to the thread.

<insert MJ popcron gif>

citytillidie

brick tamland wrote: »

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.

Cantona was banned from playing football, Suarez is banned from playing competitive 1st team club games for the club that hold his license. He can still play friendly games and international games.


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

Rekop dog

There hasn't been an original point made itt since about page 2.

Was a good thread for sorting and calibrating.

ciaran76

I think its time for the FA to look at themselves and rewrite the rule book. Stupid laws like if a player was booked further action isn't taken needs to be reexamined etc.

At least something good might come out if all this for the FA.

andyman

ciaran76 wrote: »

I think its time for the FA to look at themselves and rewrite the rule book. Stupid laws like if a player was booked further action isn't taken needs to be reexamined etc.

At least something good might come out if all this for the FA.

There's no law against this. The FA have intervened on numerous occasions when a player's been booked. The just make up the rule as they go along.

It's mad that, after his statement, Suarez is probably the person who talks the most sense out of this ordeal. While his club have been crying and playing the victim, he's apologised and got on with it.

quarryman

Liverpool fans trying to get the thread closed eh?

Suarez's decision not to appeal only came out a few hours ago, it's still quite relevant and should be allowed to be discussed.

quarryman

quarryman wrote: »

Liverpool fans trying to get the thread closed eh?

Suarez's decision not to appeal only came out a few hours ago, it's still quite relevant and should be allowed to be discussed.

Gav is a hardcore pool fan alright.

YNWA tatooed on his forehead

Kess73

rarnes1 wrote: »

Gav is a hardcore pool fan alright.

YNWA tattoed on his forehead

Looks at the forehead in question


YNWA is not spelt W-A-N-...............:pac:

Kess73

Kess73 wrote: »

Looks at the forehead in question


YNWA is not spelt W-A-N-...............:pac:

I can hear the ban hammer being warmed up

Kess73

rarnes1 wrote: »

I can hear the ban hammer being warmed up

Depends on what word I was about to spell.

Dubliner28

citytillidie wrote: »

Cantona was banned from playing football, Suarez is banned from playing competitive 1st team club games for the club that hold his license. He can still play friendly games and international games.


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

Is'int he currently banned from international football too?

Tippex

Decision and reason behind the ban have been published:
http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/~/media/164A568A93784FE391CC1FDAB4D7313F.ashx

Kess73

Dubliner28 wrote: »

Is'int he currently banned from international football too?

That's a one game ban for reaching a set number of yellow cards.

Don't think he has received a longer ban for the punch he threw in the game against Chile after the other guy grabbed his nuts.

Nalz

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.

hardly now

Will I Amnt

Tippex wrote: »

Decision and reason behind the ban have been published:
http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/~/media/164A568A93784FE391CC1FDAB4D7313F.ashx

Now it's a Suarez thread. Just like old times. Can't wait for the "have you read the report" posts :pac:

opr

Tippex wrote: »

Decision and reason behind the ban have been published:
http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/~/media/164A568A93784FE391CC1FDAB4D7313F.ashx

Now I think reasons is stretching the meaning of the word somewhat. The report might as well contain one page with one sentence.

'We banned him for 10 games cause we can do what we like'

I'm serious too because nothing in the report points to why he was banned for 10 games. They haven't as far as I can see given one unique reason as to why the ban is so long. They haven't taken into account previous offences so all this means he got the normal 3 and they've just tagged on 7.

Opr

Liamalone

Wow, a very long winded report for such a clear cut situation.

opr

Some of the report is very funny. I think whoever wrote it has to trolling Liverpool.

They make the point that similar incidents have occurred in the past like the Defoe incident but at the same time they say this is a unique case which can't be compared to other incidents. Only truly exceptional incidents could be used as a comparison. So the incident of the same thing happening isn't deemed the same? They can't compare it to other bites but somehow Ashley Barnes pushing over a ref is comparable?

77. However, we were mindful that we need to be concentrating on the circumstances of this incident and comparable violent conduct offences as a guide and not be tempted to compare with other dissimilar cases.

80. Another such case was of Ashley Barnes, of Brighton & Hove Albion, who was charged after tripping the Referee...

Opr

dfx-

SlickRic wrote: »

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

I'm glad both teams are out of the FA Cup..

Sappy404

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

People saying its too much ,

Its his second offense , albeit the first was in another Jurisdiction,

He has a poor disciplinary record with the English FA ,

I am sure the combination of the above have led to this ban.

I dont see how you can feel its harsh , Its an absolutely disgusting and horrible thing to do , you would do well to see something like it in a Children's playground

He has made his bed and now needs to lie in it

Haven't read the whole thing but have heard his previous behaviour/record wasn't considered, and no reference was made to the last biting incident. The length of the ban seems totally arbitrary.

Do you think a player with a cleaner history would have got off lighter?

opr

Also can the idea that some rule change happened which prevented the FA at the time in going after Defoe but it allows them now to go after Suarez be called as bollox.

This has been mentioned a couple of times by the media without any source. it seems to be something which has been completely made up and propagated. The report doesn't mention it all and would have if it was the case.

Defoe’s alleged biting incident against a West Ham player in 2006, we noted the submission that the Referee did see the incident and issued the player with a caution, and The FA took no further action. We were unable to comment about The FA’s position at that time to possibly pursue additional sanctions.

It's clear they would have said in the report had the rules prevented them for pursuing him further.

Opr

monkey9

Defoe is lucky Twitter wasn't around when he bit his opponent. If he trended, the FA would have had no choice but to take action. :rolleyes:

Everything about this is laughable. The incident itself, the reaction and the jumping onto the media bandwagon and finally, the ridiculous length of ban.

Blatter

opr wrote: »

Also can the idea that some rule change happened which prevented the FA at the time in going after Defoe but it allows them now to go after Suarez be called as bollox.

This has been mentioned a couple of times by the media without any source. it seems to be something which has been completely made up and propagated. The report doesn't mention it all and would have if it was the case.



It's clear they would have said in the report had the rules prevented them for pursuing him further.

Opr

Amazing how some of the media could just make that up? :eek:

Shocked that they felt the need to, most people were just swallowing the yellow card excuse.

opr

71. We noted that Mr Suarez had recognised and accepted that The FA does reserve the right even in cases which were seen by the Referee to request that a Regulatory Commission determine whether a standard punishment was clearly insufficient. We wished to add that current Regulations also allow a request for decreasing the standard punishment if it is deemed clearly excessive.

I guess McManaman tackle or Huth stamping on someones chest just wasn't worth the hassle.

Opr

RasTa

However, the incident of biting an opponent is alien to football and must
remains so. It is completely unacceptable and such truly disgraceful behaviour
could also lead to possible health issues.

87. We also felt that the purpose of our decision should not only be a punishment
to Mr Suarez for the offence committed, but must also be sending a strong
message that such deplorable behaviours do not have a place in football.

Bravo. I was happy when they banned Tyson for life.

Reekwind

Tippex wrote: »

Decision and reason behind the ban have been published:
http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/~/media/164A568A93784FE391CC1FDAB4D7313F.ashx

Wowsers. So there was no consideration of the Dutch FA's ban and no consideration of Suarez's previous conduct in England. This was a straight ten game ban for biting someone (because apparently it's more appaling than anything else you can do on the pitch)

citytillidie

58. The FA submitted that Mr Suarez’s action took place in the 65th minute of the match between Liverpool and Chelsea, two of the most distinguished and heralded clubs in England. The match was televised live to millions of viewers
both domestic and overseas. Within a few hours of the match, reference to the incident was both headline news around the country and the top trend on twitter worldwide.
59. The FA added that Mr Suarez is an international and one of the best known and lauded players in the country. He plays for Liverpool, one of the most successful clubs in English football history. A player at this level of the game has a duty to uphold the highest standards of conduct and to set an example to minors. Mr Suarez’s conduct on this occasion fell far below the standards expected of him.

So basically the factored in social media and if it was not live and Saurez was not a top player things might have been different

Benimar

Seems that 10 games was selected as it was a nice round figure. There doesn't seem to be any reason why 7 extra games were added, rather than 3, or 33 for that matter!

Blatter

Blatter wrote: »

Amazing how some of the media could just make that up? :eek:

Shocked that they felt the need to, most people were just swallowing the yellow card excuse.

It was pointed out by a few of the lads that is was bóllox as I'd asked the question.

People are like sheep and believe what they read without doing their research.

Oranage2

how can anyone defend suarez with the agreement 'but the other boy did this'. Its about time people take his actions into account and stop focusing on what others have done.

I would like to ask people who think the ban is too long, firstly

- Did suarez bite ivanovic?
- Has suarez a history of biting people?
- Has suarez a history of stamping, diving and general cheating?
- Has suarez served a lengthy ban for being a racist?

All these things are facts, he's not a victim, he's the guilty party and that's why he's got a deserved ban, and no doubt he'll be involved in something else next season

he's a bad egg and the type of person football doesn't need!

opr

The fact that the FA has shown a complete lack of transparency damages everyone that deals with them as the governing organisation. The fact they have the power to ban players for an arbitrary number of games without proper reasoning just isn't right. You need to be accountable in a fit and proper way for the judgements you make.

By all means make this into a Suarez got what he deserved rubbish if you want without seeing the bigger picture. The fact is this bunch of jokers govern everyone in the game and the fact they are so inept should worry any football fan. Honestly it feels like that report was written and put together by an 11 year old. Just because the system got the result you wanted shouldn't prevent you looking beyond at the jokers in charge of things.

Opr

Oranage2

Oranage2 wrote: »

how can anyone defend suarez with the agreement 'but the other boy did this'. Its about time people take his actions into account and stop focusing on what others have done.

I would like to ask people who think the ban is too long, firstly

- Did suarez bite ivanovic?
- Has suarez a history of biting people?
- Has suarez a history of stamping, diving and general cheating?
- Has suarez served a lengthy ban for being a racist?

All these things are facts, he's not a victim, he's the guilty party and that's why he's got a deserved ban, and no doubt he'll be involved in something else next season

he's a bad egg and the type of person football doesn't need!

The biting is inexcusable.

Whether you like him or not he's a joy to watch. If you can't enjoy watching skills like he posesses, I think you are watching the wrong sport.

Oranage2

rarnes1 wrote: »

The biting is inexcusable.

Whether you like him or not he's a joy to watch. If you can't enjoy watching skills like he posesses, I think you are watching the wrong sport.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

He's had ONE good season in top flight football, he's nowhere nears Ronaldo or messI, he'd be no loss to the game.

Hidalgo

Oranage2 wrote: »

how can anyone defend suarez with the agreement 'but the other boy did this'. Its about time people take his actions into account and stop focusing on what others have done.

I would like to ask people who think the ban is too long, firstly

- Did suarez bite ivanovic?
- Has suarez a history of biting people?
- Has suarez a history of stamping, diving and general cheating?
- Has suarez served a lengthy ban for being a racist?

All these things are facts, he's not a victim, he's the guilty party and that's why he's got a deserved ban, and no doubt he'll be involved in something else next season

he's a bad egg and the type of person football doesn't need!

While some may argue the ban is too much,
my opinion is
I have no problem with a 10 game ban, what I would like to see on future is consistency.
By that I mean that if a player is guilty of continuous problems regarding violent conduct that bans are increased with each offence.
That the FA use their power to give bans in exceptional circumstances, not just pick and choose what does and doesn't fall into that category and not hide behind 'the ref too action excuse'. If a player deserves further punishment he should receive it. Had Suarez been booked, I think the FA would still have acted, and rightly so.

Also, if you feel Suarez deserved the ban partly because he dives, then another player guilty of diving should have their ban increased if found guilty of violent conduct.

Hidalgo

Oranage2 wrote: »

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

He's had ONE good season in top flight football, he's nowhere nears Ronaldo or messI, he'd be no loss to the game.

Going by that logic, any player not up to the Ronaldo/Messi ability would be no loss to the game.

Oranage2

Oranage2 wrote: »

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

He's had ONE good season in top flight football, he's nowhere nears Ronaldo or messI, he'd be no loss to the game.

Good logic.

Tens of thousands of footballers should hang up their boots immediately.

This thread keeps on giving

Oranage2

rarnes1 wrote: »

Good logic.

Tens of thousands of footballers should hang up their boots immediately.

This thread keeps on giving

I'm specifically on about suarez if you can read. Name something good he's done in football?

Hardly any I bet, though he's filled many column inches with his nasty racist cheating behaviour!

monkey9

What's this now? Suarez isn't even that good??? Jaysus.....

Hidalgo

opr wrote: »

Now I think reasons is stretching the meaning of the word somewhat. The report might as well contain one page with one sentence.

'We banned him for 10 games cause we can do what we like'

I'm serious too because nothing in the report points to why he was banned for 10 games. They haven't as far as I can see given one unique reason as to why the ban is so long. They haven't taken into account previous offences so all this means he got the normal 3 and they've just tagged on 7.

Opr

I think paragraph 84 is part of the reason they justify the length of the suspension. Although he admitted the charge, the fact that he maintained the ban shouldn't be any more than the regular didn't help his case as he didn't fully realise the gravity of the situation.

Dcully

Bizzare posts there Orange2 bizzare!

monkey9

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm specifically on about suarez if you can read. Name something good he's done in football?

Hardly any I bet, though he's filled many column inches with his nasty racist cheating behaviour!

You obviously read more about Suarez than you do watching him.

Hidalgo

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm specifically on about suarez if you can read. Name something good he's done in football?

Hardly any I bet, though he's filled many column inches with his nasty racist cheating behaviour!

Well he's scored 30 goals this season,
or are you looking for players to rescue puppies in the middle of games.

I'm sorry, I replied first

I wouldn't bother

opr

Hidalgo wrote: »

I think paragraph 84 is part of the reason they justify the length of the suspension. Although he admitted the charge, the fact that he maintained the ban shouldn't be any more than the regular didn't help his case as he didn't fully realise the gravity of the situation.

Don't forget the fact the game was on live TV or that the incident was trending on ****ing Twitter. These seems to have had a direct influence on the severe nature of the ban.

They also want to send out a message that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated. An epidemic of biting could break out at any minute so we want to make sure others see that biting is wrong :P

The rest of the bad stuff that might actually make a difference to the game if we tried to stop it we'll leave those alone and deal with something which isn't really a problem anyway.

Opr

Hidalgo

I never said he didn't deserve a 10 game ban, all I'd like to see is consistency in both application of the rules by referees and punishment by the authorities.
I'd like to see the same for every sport.

Whilst Suarez isn't in the Messi/Ronaldo class (who is), I think he'd still be in demand if he was put up for sale.
I assume you believe that no big club would come in for him so???

Hidalgo

opr wrote: »

Don't forget the fact the game was on live TV or that the incident was trending on ****ing Twitter. These seems to have had a direct influence on the severe nature of the ban.

They also want to send out a message that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated. An epidemic of biting could break out at any minute so we want to make sure others see that biting is wrong :P

The rest of the bad stuff that might actually make a difference to the game if we tried to stop it we'll leave those alone and deal with something which isn't really a problem anyway.

Opr

I posted earlier today that I think the FA can be swayed, not on this incident alone, the Rooney suspension is another.
If a story makes big news, I think the FA want to be seen to take tough action. as its not just sports news but mainstream news also

Oranage2

Hidalgo wrote: »

I never said he didn't deserve a 10 game ban, all I'd like to see is consistency in both application of the rules by referees and punishment by the authorities.
I'd like to see the same for every sport.

Whilst Suarez isn't in the Messi/Ronaldo class (who is), I think he'd still be in demand if he was put up for sale.
I assume you believe that no big club would come in for him so???[/QUOTE

well my opinion on the matter would be no top 2 teams in the top leagues would be after him, maybe a lot of teams that finish 3rd to 5th would but will be priced out, nobody will buy him at what price Liverpool want and they're not going to sell him at the price they bought him which again in my opinion his actual worth.

And as for consistency, just don't break the rules if you don't want to face a punishment.

Hidalgo

Oranage2 wrote: »

Hidalgo wrote: »

I never said he didn't deserve a 10 game ban, all I'd like to see is consistency in both application of the rules by referees and punishment by the authorities.
I'd like to see the same for every sport.

Whilst Suarez isn't in the Messi/Ronaldo class (who is), I think he'd still be in demand if he was put up for sale.
I assume you believe that no big club would come in for him so???[/QUOTE

well my opinion on the matter would be no top 2 teams in the top leagues would be after him, maybe a lot of teams that finish 3rd to 5th would but will be priced out, nobody will buy him at what price Liverpool want and they're not going to sell him at the price they bought him which again in my opinion his actual worth.

And as for consistency, just don't break the rules if you don't want to face a punishment.

Players do break the rules, therefore the punishments should be consistent. Suarez broke the rules, therefore deserved to be punished.

Regarding, potential buyers, Bayern and Juve are 2 clubs that have been consistently over the last 12 months. (no guarantee of course that there's truth in those rumours), but both are waltzing to domestic titles this year.