Suarez Banned for 10 games

donalg1

Suarezistheman wrote: »

Joke of a post TBH

Care to elaborate or are you saying your post is the joke. I think my post hits the nail on the head as far as Kenny, Brendan and LFC go. Their handling of everything is an utter mess and complete joke great to watch though cracks me up.

I'm guessing you are a pool fan by your silly response and even sillier name.

donalg1

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.

What's difficult to grasp about the fact a seven game ban for the same thing didn't deter him, so obviously a higher ban was called for. Although I still doubt he will learn. There'll be another incident next season for sure, who knows what it'll be though popcorn at the ready.

Pro. F

Orange2's posts are often jaw dropping.

markesmith

Neutral opinion.

Suarez got the heavy ban because he's not English.

Everything else is just point-scoring.

CSF

Jesus, the FA have not painted themselves at all well with that report.

donalg1

markesmith wrote: »

Neutral opinion.

Suarez got the heavy ban because he's not English.

Everything else is just point-scoring.

He got the heavy ban as you put it because he deserved it, nothing heavy about it, was perfectly apt for what he did.

Your point has some truth in that if he was English it would have been much less maybe 3-4 games, but still the ban was sufficient.

IvySlayer

Over the confusion about the Cantona thing, Manchester United suspended him for 4 months, the FA then stepped in and banned him for 8 months, FIFA confirmed it as worldwide.

I think Liverpool should of suspended Suarez themselves. After defending him through the Evra thing, he let the club down, again.

josip

I'm a Man Utd supporter and feel that the ban was a bit more than sufficient. 10 games for a thoughtless reaction that looked pathetic on replays but was going to cause what level of injury? Suarez's previous was not taken into account, so it was judged in isolation. Meanwhile, the most that we see for over the ball, leg breaker, tackles are 3 match bans.

CSF

IvySlayer wrote: »

Over the confusion about the Cantona thing, Manchester United suspended him for 4 months, the FA then stepped in and banned him for 8 months, FIFA confirmed it as worldwide.

I think Liverpool should of suspended Suarez themselves. After defending him through the Evra thing, he let the club down, again.

Nothing to suggest though, that if Liverpool had banned Suarez for 3, that the FA wouldn't have still slapped another 10 games on top of that, rather than 7

Anyone

IvySlayer wrote: »

Over the confusion about the Cantona thing, Manchester United suspended him for 4 months, the FA then stepped in and banned him for 8 months, FIFA confirmed it as worldwide.

I think Liverpool should of suspended Suarez themselves. After defending him through the Evra thing, he let the club down, again.

Utd banned Cantona at the request of the FA. How come Utd didnt ban Ferdinand for missing drugs tests? How come they didnt ban Rooney for swearing at the camera?

I'll tell you why, shall I....because clubs wont ban a player when they know the FA is going to ban him incase the FA say the bans have to run one after another.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Will I Amnt

darced wrote: »

Cantona jumped into the crowd and assaulted a supporter,he is lucky he played again.

Suarez bit a player... on 2 seperate occassions and racially abused a player.

If one moment of madness should see you lucky to play again then 3 is miraculous.

Anyone

cambo2008 wrote: »

Suarez bit a player... on 2 seperate occassions and racially abused a player.

If one moment of madness should see you lucky to play again then 3 is miraculous.

Cantona spat at a fan, hit a team mate in the face with football boots, threw a football at a refs face, called his manager a bag of shít on live tv, all prior to jumping into the fan at Crystal Palace.

Whats your point again?

Will I Amnt

Anyone wrote: »

Cantona spat at a fan, hit a team mate in the face with football boots, threw a football at a refs face, called his manager a bag of shít on live tv, all prior to jumping into the fan at Crystal Palace.

Whats your point again?

I could have added more to the Suarez list...

I don't really have a point with the Cantona thing. I just find it funny that darced seems to think he should never have played again for that 1 incident but thinks 10 games is harsh for Suarez.

SlickRic

that report is laughable.

whether you agree with 10 games or not, the fact is the FA just made it up.

this isn't even about Suarez necessarily. it's about the FA making "statements" with big bans when it suits them, usually when there's big interest, with little or no accountability for their decision making process.

pointless document.

Will I Amnt

SlickRic wrote: »

that report is laughable.

whether you agree with 10 games or not, the fact is the FA just made it up.

this isn't even about Suarez necessarily. it's about the FA making "statements" with big bans when it suits them, with little or no accountability.

pointless document.

Isn't that the thing with the exceptional circumstances though?
There are no set punishments.

SlickRic

cambo2008 wrote: »

Isn't that the thing with the exceptional circumstances though?
There are no set punishments.

of course.

but you still should explain in the report how you came to that decision.

no mention of his previous behaviour.
no mention of Holland.
they did mention Ashley Barnes pushing a ref though.

It's just very, very odd. and tbh, it makes the FA look like they're just trolling.

it's literally "we're giving 10 games for this, and that's it".

wadacrack

Suarez is being victimized, If this was a british player it would be crept under the carpet(J.Defoe 2006). He did bite a player which he really odd and in our society a digraceful act. If this was in la liga or italy no way he gets 10 games. A 3 match or 5 gae ban would have been enough

Anyone

This shows how underhand the English FA can be. It also blows away some of what people were saying about how Utd banned Cantona before the FA, they didnt...they banned him at the behest of the FA, and the FA fúcked them over for doing it.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/other/fergie-empathises-with-reds-592674.html

Cantona's Collars

wadacrack wrote: »

Suarez is being victimized, If this was a british player it would be crept under the carpet(J.Defoe 2006). He did bite a player which he really odd and in our society a digraceful act. If this was in la liga or italy no way he gets 10 games. A 3 match or 5 gae ban would have been enough

Facepalm for the first bit.

The FA stated that the fact Suarez didn't accept the seriousness of the initial 3 games warranted a longer ban.Had he come out with the statement he provided sooner it'd probably have ended with a ban of 5 games at most.It's the fact that he just doesn't accept responsibility for his actions that really counts against him.

Nuri Sahin

Sir Alex Ferguson compares Luis Suárez case with Eric Cantona ban

Sir Alex Ferguson has suggested Liverpool will be glad they did not ban Luis Suárez themselves before the Football Association's 10-game suspension for the striker, with the Scot claiming the governing body cannot be trusted.

Ferguson pointed to how Eric Cantona was prohibited from playing for nine months by the FA for kicking a Crystal Palace fan in 1995 having allegedly first promised Manchester United that a club ban would suffice.

Speaking before Suárez decided on Friday to accept the 10-match tariff for biting Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic, Ferguson said: "I think back to Cantona and I have to say that a nine-month ban doesn't equate to a 10-match, does it? I can understand how Liverpool are aggrieved at it, I must say that. I keep going back to [Cantona] – the FA done us that day, we would never allow that to happen now. I would never have listened to them in the first place saying that if 'you make your punishment we'll be happy'.

"We did that, gave him a four-month ban and then they turned round two or three days [later, and said]: 'Right, we're charging him.' We would never allow that to happen again at this club."

Asked if this was why Liverpool did not choose to levy their own ban on Suárez, Ferguson said: "I'll bet they're glad they didn't. It didn't work with us, that's for sure. David Davies [then the FA's spokesman] promised us that, if we did it, there'd be no more action taken – bloody hell. If you think about it – a nine-month ban, its quite incredible, I still can't get round that."

It is understood that Davies has always maintained that he was in no position to give assurances regarding any FA action over Cantona and that he never communicated directly with Ferguson during the episode.

After winning the club's 20th title on Monday Ferguson believes the club's commercial growth over the past few years puts them in prime position to dominate over the coming seasons. "Having spoken with the Glazer family [the owners] I think there's every intention we want to kick on, yeah," he said. "Absolutely. I hope so. It has been fantastic and that's credit to the commercial people, they've done a great job and of course the football team has been platform for that. But they're capitalising on such a great profile of the club – there's no doubt, worldwide it seems to me to be getting bigger."

United's cut of the new £5.5bn television deal, plus tie-ups with Nike, Aon and Chevrolet means they can expect even greater revenues in the immediate future. "We're happy where we are at the moment that's for sure," Ferguson said. "We've attracted some really good sponsors, interesting and valuable partnerships because all the sponsors we're combining with have got the same philosophies as ourselves in terms of trying to make their product the best in their business – that's what we're trying to do."

Ferguson believes that United may need only two players to strengthen this summer. "I don't think that we need to rebuild at all – possibly two players, if possible. It depends of course.If a player came along that we felt met our criteria, I think we'd push the boat out and get him irrespective of how many players we had," the Scot said.

He praised Borussia Dortmund's Robert Lewandowski, who scored all the German club's goals in their 4-1 win over Real Madrid in Wednesday evening's Champions League semi-final first leg. "To score four goals in a game of that nature against Real Madrid is wonderful," said Ferguson of the striker for whom he has previously stated his admiration but who may join Bayern Munich this summer according to reports in Germany..

Ferguson is also happy that Arsenal will form a guard of honour for United when they play against Arsène Wenger's side at the Emirates on Sunday afternoon. Some home fans may vilify the returning Robin van Persie but Ferguson said: "I don't think Robin should be bothered about it. There was a bit of booing when we played [them] at Old Trafford and I think you expect a portion of the fans will do that. That's the modern society I'm afraid. I'm glad that Arsène has done that [guard of honour] because when Arsenal came to Old Trafford some years back we did exactly that and that's what great clubs should do."

Cantona's Collars

Kinda dispels the "FA is run by Fergie" myth.

wadacrack

zerks wrote: »

Facepalm for the first bit.

The FA stated that the fact Suarez didn't accept the seriousness of the initial 3 games warranted a longer ban.Had he come out with the statement he provided sooner it'd probably have ended with a ban of 5 games at most.It's the fact that he just doesn't accept responsibility for his actions that really counts against him.

Facepalm for you . The FA claimed they had independent 3 man commission to make the decision. The FA didn't even make the decision it was an independent panel. The FA bottled the decision so there statement dosent really matter

opr

It must be quite confusing for the hive mentality posters to see things being questioned by these people.

Opr

Will I Amnt

opr wrote: »

It must be quite confusing for the hive mentally posters to see things being questioned by these people.

Opr

Must be even more confusing for you that Fergie thinks the FA f**ked him over :pac:

Lovely Bloke

It must be quite confusing for the hive mentally posters to see things being questioned by these people.

Opr

You'd know

opr

cambo2008 wrote: »

Must be even more confusing for you that Fergie thinks the FA f**ked him over :pac:

Long time ago Cambo :pac: That was the day Batman was born. No more will I suffer injustice at the hands of this showers of jokers thought Fergie. Hopefully Rodger's has a similar watershed moment here although I sincerely doubt it.

Opr

Will I Amnt

opr wrote: »

Long time ago Cambo :pac: That was the day Batman was born. No more will I suffer injustice at the hands of this showers of jokers thought Fergie. Hopefully Rodger's has a similar watershed moment here although I sincerely doubt it.

Opr

Didn't last long then. Unless poor Rio and Rooney weren't worth getting on the bat-phone for.

Will I Amnt

I love the way people are referencing Fergie in a bid to validate their point of view. The same Fergie that was derided for suggesting Liverpool should get rid of Suarez after the racism thing
He doesn't even say anything about how he feels on the length of the ban.

People just shamelessly champion anybody that agrees with them and slate whoever doesn't.

Cantona's Collars

wadacrack wrote: »

Facepalm for you . The FA claimed they had independent 3 man commission to make the decision. The FA didn't even make the decision it was an independent panel. The FA bottled the decision so there statement dosent really matter

Strange how a guy with a record of bad behaviour is suddenly the victim.Whatever about the FA's handling of it,10 games is fair.

If he worked in any other profession and carried on like that,he'd have been sacked by now.

opr

I wasn't specifically referencing Fergie. Pretty much anyone with a brain has said the report stinks.

Opr

Ordinary man

Apparently the fa have released a shortened version of the report - What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men

Will I Amnt

opr wrote: »

I wasn't specifically referencing Fergie. Pretty much anyone with a brain has said the report stinks.

Opr

That post wasn't aimed at you in particular. There's a lot of "even Fergie thinks it's harsh" type comments appearing when he never said that at all.

The report is a pile of shìte, doesn't mean the punishment is though.

opr

Think this should be posted here as well. The report itself is enough of a joke but Kenny below pulls apart the processes which led to the report and how the members of the 'independent' panel are not so.

Kenny Dalglish on Luis Suarez ban: Why the FA panel bit off more than they could chew

The football governing body's so-called 'independent regulatory commission' is anything but, writes Kenny Dalglish

What Luis Suarez did when he bit Branislav Ivanovic was unacceptable. No one is disputing that.

As far as I am aware, no one at Liverpool Football Club is running away from their responsibilities over that.

The club has said that he was wrong. Luis, himself, has admitted that he was wrong, and they were both right and wise to accept the punishment yesterday.

The issue is clearly in the length of the player’s ban and the fact that the FA’s disciplinary system is a horrible mess.

Let’s start with the fact that the FA said before they had appointed the so-called ‘independent’ regulatory commission that Suarez deserved more than the normal three-game ban.

Well, by saying that, they prejudiced the findings of the commission before it has even begun.

They appointed the people to sit on it and they have told them they are there to give him more than three games.

So those three people know they have to give the player more than three games just to justify their existence.

How ‘independent’ does that make the three-man commission?

I wish the FA would just stop playing with words. Because this panel wasn’t truly independent and to say it was is blatantly misleading.

The FA chooses who sits on it to begin with. Does that make it ‘independent’?

And who sits on it? An ex-player, an FA council member and a lawyer already known to the FA.

So there’s an FA council member on an ‘independent’ FA commission. That’s convenient.

And there’s an ex-player, who would probably like to do more work for the FA. That’s convenient, too.

Are they paid, by the way? Are they paid by the FA? Do they do it for free? I don’t know the answer to those questions but

I’d like to know.

The point is that the structure of an FA disciplinary procedure like this is inherently unfair.

If you commit a crime in this country, you get the right for your case to be heard by a jury that has no affiliation or responsibility to the people prosecuting you.

That’s not how the FA works it. In fact, their disciplinary system has now become so confused and riddled with anomalies that it is farcical.

They hide behind excuses about the referee saw it or didn’t see it, punished it or didn’t punish it.

So Jermain Defoe bites Javier Mascherano on the arm and gets a yellow card. Nothing more.

Suarez bites Ivanovic and gets 10 games. Why? Because the referee didn’t see it.

He still spoke to him about something and looked like he was warning him but he didn’t see it.

For the benefit of football in this country, there has got to be greater clarification of the rules and more balance in the way offenders are judged.

The most important thing is not the length of the sentence but how they reach it and that information needs to be made public at the time the punishment is announced. That would have alleviated much of the unnecessary discussion about the ban handed down to Suarez.

The FA has been in need of widespread reform for a long time. The need is getting more and more pressing.

These regulatory commissions have to be independent in more than just name.

It's a complete sham of an organisation. If only people could see beyond this rubbish of he got what he deserved so who cares how they got to that point, they really could have got a proper black lash on this which might lead to proper reform and change.

As someone said who I was listening to yesterday. The FA don't even seem to like football. They treat the fans, players and game with utter contempt.

Opr

Paul Tergat

Quoting Dalglish after last year is quite funny

edit: the only bit I agree with is the only review things the ref hasnt dealt with argument

Lovely Bloke

Nice one Dalglish.

As far as I am aware

who would probably

I don’t know the answer to those questions

looked like he was warning him

:rolleyes:

If you commit a crime in this country, you get the right for your case to be heard by a jury that has no affiliation or responsibility to the people prosecuting you.

Which has what to do with what, exactly?

Suarez was LUCKY it dodn't go to court, he would have ended up convicted.

That’s not how the FA works it.

We know that, so why are they being compared to a court of law?

Bizarre piece, full of supposition and assumptions.

Basically a fluff piece to appeal to outraged Pool fans.

Smacks of Dalglish's M.O.

opr

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Quoting Dalglish after last year is quite funny

Sigh. People wonder why the FA will get away with this. Fans always looking for an angle to get a dig in rather than having anything sensible to say on the subject. Maybe try reading the article eh?

Opr

smileyj1987

zerks wrote: »

Strange how a guy with a record of bad behaviour is suddenly the victim.Whatever about the FA's handling of it,10 games is fair.

If he worked in any other profession and carried on like that,he'd have been sacked by now.

If you did your job aswell as him you wouldn't be sacked :pac:

Paul Tergat

opr wrote: »

Sigh. People wonder why the FA will get away with this. Fans always looking for an angle to get a dig in rather than having anything sensible to say on the subject. Maybe try reading the article eh?

Opr

made my edit pretty much as you made this reply.... he is talking a lot of ****e imo

If you want to write an article on something like that you need to know the facts. You cant be guessing at things like Dalglish is doing

opr

So you think it's fine that the FA picks who sits on an 'independent' panel?

You think it's fine that they advised the panel before it sat to give more than three games which clearly prejudices the case?

Forget this particular case and it's about Luis Suarez. Across the board you think that those things should be allowed?

Opr

Paul Tergat

opr wrote: »

So you think it's fine that the FA picks who sits on an 'independent' panel?

You think it's fine that they advised the panel before it sat to give more than three games which prejudices the case?

Forget this particular case and it's about Luis Suarez. Across the board you think that those things should be allowed?

Opr

Ha. A decent amount of Pool fans have been telling me the last couple of days its only 10 games cause its Suarez. Now its the system to blame.

It looks like more smoke screens to me. Try move the attention from Suarez and not look at his frankly ridiculous ongoing behaviour.

opr

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Ha. A decent amount of Pool fans have been telling me the last couple of days its only 10 games cause its Suarez. Now its the system to blame.

It looks like more smoke screens to me. Try move the attention from Suarez and not look at his frankly ridiculous ongoing behaviour.

Completely avoiding the questions I asked tells its own story. What's so hard to understand that I'm talking about the FA. I've no interest in some stupid Liverpool/United arguments about Suarez that you want to have.

Opr

Will I Amnt

Dalglish gets mentioned and look what pops up as an ad :pac:

Paul Tergat

opr wrote: »

Completely avoiding the questions I asked tells its own story. What's so hard to understand that I'm talking about the FA. I've no interest in some stupid Liverpool/United arguments about Suarez that you want to have.

Opr

Its not Pool/United. I havent mentioned United once in this so dont give me that.

You post an article with from a former manger, player and legend of the club and you want to dicsuss bias... really? By his very admission he doesnt have the full facts but is happy to come to a conclusion and make insinuations. That itself 'tells its own story'

opr

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Its not Pool/United. I havent mentioned United once in this so dont give me that.

You post an article with from a former manger, player and legend of the club and you want to dicsuss bias... really? By his very admission he doesnt the full facts but is happy to come to a conclusion and make insinuations. That itself 'tells its own story'

If you bothered to actually take in the article rather than something that 'Baldy' posted you'd know that just isn't true. His post was so terrible I didn't even bother with a reply.

The report states that the incident was seen but that they had clarified with Suarez that even though the incident was seen that in exceptional circumstances they can still review the matter like they believed was true in the case. So what Kenny has said is 100% correct.

The only bit of piece in which Kenny says anything of which he doesn't know to be factually correct is the part of which is the committee paid by the FA of which he says he would like to know himself.

Who it was posted by doesn't make the points below any less true? So I'll ask again considering you ignored them the first time.

Do you think it's fine that the FA picks who sits on an 'independent' panel?

Do you think it's fine that they advised the panel before it sat to give more than three games which clearly prejudices the case?

Opr

Lovely Bloke

Nice passive aggressive dig there.

daithijjj

Suddenly, randoms on boards are experts and cant help adding their 2 cents on something they wouldn't have a notion on, ie, the credibility of the FA report.

"Have now read full Suarez judgment. Overall, it's an utterly embarrassing decision based on logic that would make Monty Python cringe. The decision is beyond parody & makes a mockery of the disciplinary system".

-Litigation Lawyer and Independent solicitor to the PFAI.

cambo2008

cambo2008 wrote: »

Dalglish gets mentioned and look what pops up as an ad :pac:

Aren't ads generated from what the user is looking at?

Cough teen porn cough :P

Anyone

cambo2008 wrote: »

I love the way people are referencing Fergie in a bid to validate their point of view. The same Fergie that was derided for suggesting Liverpool should get rid of Suarez after the racism thing
He doesn't even say anything about how he feels on the length of the ban.

People just shamelessly champion anybody that agrees with them and slate whoever doesn't.

Nobody said that though. I referenced Fergie because I wanted to shut the sanctimonious fans who were saying that Liverpool should had banned Suarez like Utd did with Cantona, even though Utd only banned Cantona because the FA told them to.

Lovely Bloke

daithijjj wrote: »

Suddenly, randoms on boards are experts and cant help adding their 2 cents on something they wouldn't have a notion on

That is not sudden at all, in fact, it is what Boards.ie, and pretty much all discussion fora on the internet, is built on.