Suarez Banned for 10 games

daithijjj

rarnes1 wrote: »

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

Cough teen porn cough :P

Ha, that reminded of the lad on BBC news being interviewed at home last week having forgotten to hide the pink dildo on top of the fridge :pac:

Red Crow

daithijjj wrote: »

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.

You forget the part where the guy is a Liverpool fan. That sounds like a quote from the Simpsons too: "Have now read" akin to "Homer hungry now"

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

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

Cough teen porn cough :P

"bad idea t shirts"
You're weird

RasTa

Where Ajax fans this up in arms when he got 7?

ROCKMAN

opr wrote: »

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

Yes once the calibre of the people picked is up to the job...


As for advising a more than 3 game ban ,In this case YES ,,Because the player (Suarez ) had admitted guilt before the panel sat.., therefore it was/is more of a guideline ..

RasTa

RasTa wrote: »

Where Ajax fans this up in arms when he got 7?

Don't you mean Feyenoord fans?

Paul Tergat

opr wrote: »

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

The bit in bold is bs but sadly id be carded if I was able to reply how I'd like to. I maybe able to speak more candidly on IPB. I dont need someone to make my mind up for me and am very capable of reading something and giving my own opinion on it but thanks for the needle.

The ironic thing is, if you read my post (i will give you the benefit here as i edited it at the same time as your original response) I said, having read the article (yes I did read it), thats the bit I agree with. The system there is not flexible - the ref seeing it is not good enough to hand out the appropriate punishment in all situations.

Again, you want to talk about bias of a panel and in doing so are using an article from a guy who very clearly has a bias and agenda himself given what went on not too long ago (involving the same player, same club and same organisation) but rather than look close to home its the FA who are the bad guys here and not someone who inexplicably decided to bite his opponent during a game.

opr

You don't seen to get that I couldn't care less about the Suarez case. Well I do, but it's not what I'm talking about here at all. I've banged the drum for as long as I can remember that the FA is rotten to the core and sucking the life out of football and is in serious need of reform. This joke of a report just cements my views on the topic. You keep bringing the conversation back to something I'm not taking about.

Opr

RasTa

You could say the same about Fifa or Uefa, nothing new and it's not going to change.

Paul Tergat

opr wrote: »

You don't seen to get that I couldn't care less about the Suarez case. Well I do, but it's not what I'm talking about here at all. I've banged the drum for as long as I can remember that the FA is rotten to the core and sucking the life out of football and is in serious need of reform. This joke of a report just cements my views on the topic. You keep bringing the conversation back to something I'm not taking about.

Opr

No, my response was that quoting an article by Kenny is a bit daft. That point stands. He has clear bias and a clear motive and its just really ironic that the point you are making is being backed up by something that flies in the face of that very point

opr

Paul Tergat wrote: »

No, my response was that quoting an article by Kenny is a bit daft. That point stands. He has clear bias and a clear motive and its just really ironic that the point you are making is being backed up by something that flies in the face of that very point

Who cares if he has bias? What point are you trying to make? I know Kenny is a Liverpool fan. I know he's highly biased, why do you keep saying it like I don't know this? I quoted the article because he makes some good points. His points are something I think any sane person would agree with?

A panel which claims to be independent should be just that.
A panel should not prejudice itself before it starts.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make? He has said that Suarez did wrong and deserves to be punished etc. Same as me his points relate to the FA.

Opr

opr

RasTa wrote: »

You could say the same about Fifa or Uefa, nothing new and it's not going to change.

If enough public opinion could see past the fact they're glad about the length of ban Suarez got and focused on this absolute joke of a report then we'd have a shot. The media would follow but of course that will not happen because people only care when the system is working against them directly. Divide and conquer.

Opr

ROCKMAN

opr wrote: »

Who cares if he has bias? What point are you trying to make? I know Kenny is a Liverpool fan. I know he's highly biased, why do you keep saying it like I don't know this? I quoted the article because he makes some good points. His points are something I think any sane person would agree with?

A panel which claims to be independent should be just that.
A panel should not prejudice itself before it starts.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make? He has said that Suarez did wrong and deserves to be punished etc. Same as me his points relate to the FA.

Opr

So if the FA does not pick the panel ,who does???

As For the prejudice ,is it just this panel for like as i have already stated a quilty player that was advised before hand or has there been other cases of the FA advising panels in advance...?

Anyone

ROCKMAN wrote: »

So if the FA does not pick the panel ,who does???

An independent panel!

opr

ROCKMAN wrote: »

So if the FA does not pick the panel ,who does???

Listen I don't know what's going on here. I feel like I'm in some alternative universe this morning. Are you really trying to say that you think the FA should be picking an independent panel? That you don't think another better way exists? Hire a recruitment consultant and put them in charge of bringing together the panel. This is how it's generally done all the time in the real world outside of FA land.

ROCKMAN wrote: »

As For the prejudice ,is it just this panel for like as i have already stated a quilty player that was advised before hand or has there been other cases of the FA advising panels in advance...?

I can't make sense of what you're trying to say above, sorry.

Opr

Lovely Bloke

opr wrote: »

Listen I don't know what's going on here. I feel like I'm in some alternative universe this morning. Are you really trying to say that you think the FA should be picking an independent panel? That you don't think another better way exists? Hire a recruitment consultant and put them in charge of bringing together the panel. This is how it's generally done all the time in the real world outside of FA land.

So the FA should pay someone to pick their panel.

opr

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

So the FA should pay someone to pick their panel.

Yes? Plenty of companies with proven track records in this area that do it all the time in the real world? It would be a fully transparent process for all to scrutinise. I presume you're trolling but tbh I've no idea anymore given some of the mad stuff getting posted around this topic.

Opr

Lovely Bloke

I'm not trolling, never do.

But I can't see the difference between the FA appointing a panel, and the FA paying someone to appoint a panel.

If anything, an outside paid agent is going to appoint someone they "think" the FA would like to see on the panel. If they get their panel wrong, they won't get hired again and the FA will use a different outside agent.

Anyway, why does it have to be an "independent" panel at all? Why not just get a six man panel, three of which sit on any one case. Have them on retainer for a 2 year stint each.

What utterscutter

ROCKMAN

for opr...

ROCKMAN wrote: »

As for the prejudice ,
is it just this panel that was advised before hand or
has there been other cases of the FA advising panels in advance...?

opr

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I'm not trolling, never do.

But I can't see the difference between the FA appointing a panel, and the FA paying someone to appoint a panel.

If anything, an outside paid agent is going to appoint someone they "think" the FA would like to see on the panel. If they get their panel wrong, they won't get hired again and the FA will use a different outside agent.

Anyway, why does it have to be an "independent" panel at all? Why not just get a six man panel, three of which sit on any one case. Have them on retainer for a 2 year stint each.

Listen mate if you're being genuine then fair play. I have no inclination to spend any further time relating to explaining why the panel should be independent. If you believe that the FA picking the panel, naming people on the panel who have had past vested interests in the FA and then prejudicing that panel before they have reviewed anything is all fine then we're so at polar opposites of things that I don't think it's worth me trying to change your beliefs. I'm glad to just accept we see things a little differently.

Opr

opr

opr wrote: »

Listen mate if you're being genuine then fair play. I have no inclination to spend any further time relating to explaining why the panel should be independent. If you believe that the FA picking the panel, naming people on the panel who have had past vested interests in the FA on that panel and then prejudicing that panel before they have reviewed anything is all fine then we're so at polar opposites of things that I don't think it's worth me trying to change your beliefs. I'm glad to just accept we see things a little differently.

Opr

You're wasting your time tbh. I wouldn't bother.

opr

ROCKMAN wrote: »

for opr...

I'm still not really sure what you're asking. I'll have a go though. Basically when this independent panel was put together it is then up to them to decide whether they need to impose sanctions and what those sanctions should be. Contained within the report it states that if the panel so chooses it can reduce the sentence or quash it altogether if it deems appropriate. The FA advised that the panel was put together because they feel that this crime deserves more than three games.

The panel has been instructed already to pass a certain sentence without the independent panel having reviewed anything yet. It would be like a judge instructing a jury that they have to at least imprison someone for five years no matter what finding they make based on the trial itself.

Opr

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

You're wasting your time tbh. I wouldn't bother.

Is that your catchphrase or something?

donalg1

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

Suarez being victimised! Course he is! Just wet myself reading that. Dumbest statement ever.

PhlegmyMoses

Ugh, why is it a surprise that the FA take mass media furores and a player's apparent high profile into account? This has been going on for years.

The thing that weakens the case of so many Liverpool fans is that they have chosen to make their point about this in support of Suarez committing a pretty despicable act, again.

Many on here want us to forget that it is Suarez and to focus on the FA's arbitrary decision making process. That would make sense if the people who were asking us to do this weren't only interested in the case because it is Luis Suarez that is involved.

Where were these people when Rio was banned for missing a drug test and a Man City youth with a lower profile simply got a fine. Where were these people when Rooney got a ban for swearing at a camera? Where were they when Evra got banned for 4 games for getting into a scuffle with a groundsman after the match?

They weren't worried about due process then so forgive me if I'm not going to forget that the man involved has been involved in some pretty horrible things since he came to England.

PhlegmyMoses

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Ugh, why is it a surprise that the FA take mass media furores and a player's apparent high profile into account? This has been going on for years.

The thing that weakens the case of so many Liverpool fans is that they have chosen to make their point about this in support of Suarez committing a pretty despicable act, again.

Many on here want us to forget that it is Suarez and to focus on the FA's arbitrary decision making process. That would make sense if the people who were asking us to do this weren't only interested in the case because it is Luis Suarez that is involved.

Where were these people when Rio was banned for missing a drug test and a Man City youth with a lower profile simply got a fine. Where were these people when Rooney got a ban for swearing at a camera? Where were they when Evra got banned for 4 games for getting into a scuffle with a groundsman after the match?

They weren't worried about due process then so forgive me if I'm not going to forget that the man involved has been involved in some pretty horrible things since he came to England.

There's massive irony in this considering the people who are most outraged in this thread.

Cantona's Collars

rarnes1 wrote: »

There's massive irony in this considering the people who are most outraged in this thread.

Sure why would the people who blindly defend the guy be outraged? That would be hypocrisy of the highest order.

PhlegmyMoses

rarnes1 wrote: »

There's massive irony in this considering the people who are most outraged in this thread.

Make your point instead of having some vague dig at random people on this thread.

Why is it ironic?

Also, who is outraged? Certainly not me. Man bites other man, gets strong punishment for doing so. It's pretty clear cut and its time for Suarez to once again take his medicine.

Just to make my position clear, I think the FA's disciplinary process to be severely lacking. I just find it hilarious that people are asking to think of the process when they never gave a **** about it until their favourite player fell foul of it.

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

There's massive irony in this considering the people who are most outraged in this thread.

The only outrage I can see is from Liverpool fans over the length of the ban.

The majority of everyone else seem fairly satisfied with how it panned out.

smileyj1987

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Just to make my position clear, I think the FA's disciplinary process to be severely lacking. I just find it hilarious that people are asking to think of the process when they never gave a **** about it until their favourite player fell foul of it.

Glad to know you feel this way , maybe they could change the process to the clubs having a say and deciding what punishments get handed out .
Lets say player X swears at a camera or something . Then lets player Y is brought up on a violent conduct charge . The clubs then have to sit down and examine the evidence and give a report on what happened . Lets say Managing Director , Manager and Captain . They have to sit down review all evidence in front of them .
So in the case of violent conduct did the player who had to offence commited on them rile up his opponent in anyway . Did it happen in the tunnel , on the field or anywhere else on the ground . Then when that is reviewed the club has to give a report on their findings and what they see as a fitting punishment .
In the case of player Y it would be more looking at the media and the crowd . Let's say members of the media have been having a pop at the player or the crowd have spent 90 min's riling up player y .
People seem to believe to be a professional football player you have to be a role model at all times . While it is true to some extent you have to realize they are only human at the end of the day . So sometimes they will snap and do something stupid in the heat of the moment .

Will I Amnt

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Glad to know you feel this way , maybe they could change the process to the clubs having a say and deciding what punishments get handed out .
Lets say player X swears at a camera or something . Then lets player Y is brought up on a violent conduct charge . The clubs then have to sit down and examine the evidence and give a report on what happened . Lets say Managing Director , Manager and Captain . They have to sit down review all evidence in front of them .
So in the case of violent conduct did the player who had to offence commited on them rile up his opponent in anyway . Did it happen in the tunnel , on the field or anywhere else on the ground . Then when that is reviewed the club has to give a report on their findings and what they see as a fitting punishment .
In the case of player Y it would be more looking at the media and the crowd . Let's say members of the media have been having a pop at the player or the crowd have spent 90 min's riling up player y .
People seem to believe to be a professional football player you have to be a role model at all times . While it is true to some extent you have to realize they are only human at the end of the day . So sometimes they will snap and do something stupid in the heat of the moment .

So in this case you want Ayre, Rodgers and Gerrard to decide what punishment Suarez gets??

smileyj1987

cambo2008 wrote: »

So in this case you want Ayre, Rodgers and Gerrard to decide what punishment Suarez gets??

Along with all 19 other premier league clubs . So in the case of a player there club has a right to defend them because the way the FA operate seems to be you are guilty and have to prove your innocence which will never happen .

Will I Amnt

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Along with all 19 other premier league clubs .

Ah right, I picked that up wrong.
That just sounds like a lot of unnecessary work and time for people that have nothing to do with it.

Cantona's Collars

cambo2008 wrote: »

Ah right, I picked that up wrong.
That just sounds like a lot of unnecessary work and time for people that have nothing to do with it.

Plus they'd be able to blame United for being biased against him;)

smileyj1987

cambo2008 wrote: »

Ah right, I picked that up wrong.
That just sounds like a lot of unnecessary work and time for people that have nothing to do with it.

It might seem like alot of work but to me it would be worth because players would get a fair punishment . The way the FA seem to punish is wildly in-accurate . They ban some players for longer and let some away with the same thing . It needs to become fair on everybody .
I could only imagine Dave Whelan having his say it would be done on Sky Sports :pac:

Will I Amnt

smileyj1987 wrote: »

It might seem like alot of work but to me it would be worth because players would get a fair punishment . The way the FA seem to punish is wildly in-accurate . They ban some players for longer and let some away with the same thing . It needs to become fair on everybody .
I could only imagine Dave Whelan having his say it would be done on Sky Sports :pac:

The FA and the way they do things are inconsistent and incompetent.
The thing is, that's everybody's problem, not just Liverpool's.

People need to just get over it. You have lads on here before the outcome saying they were expecting at least 10 games and then moaning about it when it's announced.

All this crying about independent panels and the like, it's the same for everybody else.

Cantona's Collars

Rogers has the black suit on.In mourning over Suarez?

wadacrack

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.

Ryan giggs had an affair with his brothers wife. Yet sky potray him as a model professional. Sir alex dosent agree. Jermain Defoe did do the same aswell and no ban.

IvySlayer

wadacrack wrote: »

Ryan giggs had an affair with his brothers wife. Yet sky potray him as a model professional. Sir alex dosent agree. Jermain Defoe did do the same aswell and no ban.

WTF has that got to do with football?

wadacrack

IvySlayer wrote: »

WTF has that got to do with football?

Nothin to do with football.Its an example of how the british media strongly favour there own players and are not objective. No mention of Bale's diving yet Suarez is always mentioned as a diver.

Al Capwned

wadacrack wrote: »

Nothin to do with football.Its an example of how the british media strongly favour there own players and are not objective. No mention of Bale's diving yet Suarez is always mentioned as a diver.

Not true to be fair.

.jacksparrow.

Liverpool have won more games without Suarez since he arrived, strange one that.

Liam O

wadacrack wrote: »

Ryan giggs had an affair with his brothers wife. Yet sky potray him as a model professional. Sir alex dosent agree. Jermain Defoe did do the same aswell and no ban.

Tom down the street had an affair with his brother's wife, he got a divorce.

James down the street bit somebody in broad daylight with loads of cameras on him, he's now in jail.

wadacrack

Liam O wrote: »

Tom down the street had an affair with his brother's wife, he got a divorce.

James down the street bit somebody in broad daylight with loads of cameras on him, he's now in jail.

shrek as he likes to be called was shagging english grannies in a backstreet in manchester but he got bored of them and decided to move to paris this summer for the a more "romantic" setting. Bales diving may have been mentioned but not as the same extent as suarez. I dont support liverpool and he has been very foolish but i think 10 games is too much

Yawns

wadacrack wrote: »

Nothin to do with football.Its an example of how the british media strongly favour there own players and are not objective. No mention of Bale's diving yet Suarez is always mentioned as a diver.

He was just avoiding an injury sure!

Ban them all








Courtesy of Nuri

smileyj1987

^^ Classic !!!! I would say they only deserve 5 games :P

donalg1

rarnes1 wrote: »

Ban them all








Courtesy of Nuri

What a bunch of clowns, just like when they wore their silly white t-shirts supporting racism.

Chucky the tree

donalg1 wrote: »

What a bunch of clowns, just like when they wore their silly white t-shirts supporting racism.

Your dedication throughout this thread has been excellent I have to say.