Suarez Banned for 10 games

That_Guy

How many Liverpool threads do we need?

Mr Alan

mirwillbeback wrote: »

I think if he racially abused someone again he would get a longer ban.

Unlikely.

Racial abuse is 4 games according to the FA (see John Terry's case).

The reason Suarez got more was because he repeated the apparent abuse. So if he racially abused someone & they decided to double his ban lets say, it'd be 8 games. Or 20% less than the ban has just been handed today.

CSF

Sacramento wrote: »

Not sure of the rules on consideration, but maybe the English FA take the offense more seriously than their Dutch counterparts? I think the ban length is justified nonetheless. Do you know for certain they are not allowed consider it?

Yeah Palios came out and said as much. Don't think he'd have any reason to lie but sure ya never know.

I think this is excessive even with Suarez's previous'. He'll surely be wondering now if he'd be better off moving abroad

meriwether

Mr_A wrote: »

This is certainly a kick in the teeth for Suarez. He'll be chomping at the bit to get back into football after that suspension.

He bit off more than he could chew this time.

Molarly speaking however, it was a repugnant thing to do.

Neil3030

barone wrote: »

would he have got banned if his name was wayne rooney or steven gerrard ?

Yes. He bit a human. As they said on FW, if he was a dog, he'd be put down.

Ri na hEireann

Silly question. Clearly he won't be going anywhere....and true to form Liverpool will appeal the severity of the punishment.

CSF

The only likelihood now is that Suarez might want to leave England. Any offence he commits from here on out (and he probably will) could see him out for half a season with the amount of previous' he has.

dfx-

Neil3030 wrote: »

Well in the case of Joey Barton, knee someone up the hoop (12 games).

#perspective

That was for a few consecutive charges I think..

Phoenix wrote: »

Ride the ref's missus while doing a line of charlie off her back?

Unless the referee saw it and taken action..

meriwether

CSF wrote: »

Yeah Palios came out and said as much. Don't think he'd have any reason to lie but sure ya never know.

I think this is excessive even with Suarez's previous'. He'll surely be wondering now if he'd be better off moving abroad

Maybe he will be wondering if its worth it to behave like a scumbag on the field?

Mr Alan

meriwether wrote: »

He bit off more than he could chew this time.

Molarly speaking however, it was a repugnant thing to do.

Absolutely, inexcusable thing to do & clearly worthy of a ban.

However, worse than racially abusing someone? Worse than intentionally breaking someones leg? Worse than nearly killing someone with an intentional elbow to the side of the head? I think not. Not even nearly.

aidan24326

gimli2112 wrote: »

So looking at it mathematically the FA consider this about 25% worse than racism.
One for the looney right brigade.
At least it was another "independant" panel, we cant complain lads.

It's not about whether or not it's 'worse' than a racist comment. (personally I think it's just as bad but that's just me)

It's about punishment for a guy who is a repeat offender in terms of dissciplinary issues and has previous form in terms of biting an opponent.

Whatever about the length of the ban (and I did say in a previous post that it's on the harsh side) this guy seemingly never learns and if Liverpool do decide to keep him he must surely be in last chance saloon at this stage.

This is the second time he has brought a proud club into disrepute.

Neil3030

dfx- wrote: »

That was for a few consecutive charges I think..

I think you're right actually, so we'll say elbow someone, then knee another fella up the jacksie.

Mr Alan

meriwether wrote: »

Maybe he will be wondering if its worth it to behave like a scumbag on the field?

Or he'll think, "maybe I'll just stamp on that guys head intentionally as that'll only get me a 3 game ban", or "an aul "mis-timed" tackle to end a career is in order here!".

Again, both likely to only get 3 games.

JimsAlterEgo

No offence = No Ban, only 1 person to blame
2nd time in the Uk up on serious charges, 3rd overall and 2 for same offence.

el dude

Trial by media. Sickening.

GavRedKing

Whats the odds of Liverpool starting next season during the ban with away trips to either City, Chelsea, Utd or all three of the FA really wanna troll.

Xavi6

Anfield Cat ‏@AnfieldCat

EXCLUSIVE: Luis Suarez 10 didn't have a chance when he walked in to the FA hearing room to be greeted by this.

DoctorGonzo08

Xavi6 wrote: »

What we learned today is that you're better off racially abusing someone than biting them.

Unless you're Suarez and they are apparently the same thing. If you were Terry, I'm sure you could bring it to court and be found not guilty, as you may have bitten someone, but it can be proved that you meant it.

Think 10 is overkill. The sensible decision would have been 7, matching the ban imposed by the Dutch FA.

el dude

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

No offence = No Ban, only 1 person to blame

No such thing as the punishment fitting the crime in your simplistic view of the world?

SlickRic

i think, as i said, 10 games is mental...but we'll wait for the written reasoning lads.

i have to assume it's because he's offended before.

CSF

Fellaini better than Suarez? Get out.

Mr Whirly

I'm no fan of Suarez but 10 games is way over the top. The FA banned Thatcher for 8 games with a further 15 game suspended sentence for a pretty horrendous elbow.

4 or 5 games with the rest suspended would have sufficed I think.

fullstop

barone wrote: »

if it were anyone else bar suarez it would be a 3 game ban and a warning plus fine, but because its suarez its 10 games,there has been a lot worse done on the pitch without even close to this kinda ban.

would he have got banned if his name was wayne rooney or steven gerrard ?

Did you not say in the Liverpool thread that he deserves any ban given to him? Why the change of opinion now?

Also, you do realise that he has previous, don't you? Racial abuse, biting...of course the ban was going to be extended. If he's too thick to learn not to do it again, well that's his problem, not the FA.

OneColdHand

I think 10 games is about right.

You can't just say 'it's only 10 games cos it's Suarez!'

It's 10 games cos he keeps misbehaving!!

CSF

CSF wrote: »

Yeah Palios came out and said as much. Don't think he'd have any reason to lie but sure ya never know.

I think this is excessive even with Suarez's previous'. He'll surely be wondering now if he'd be better off moving abroad

Could be the best thing for both club and player, fresh start. Suarez has been a poor representative for Liverpool. Savage player, but he has certainly damaged their reputation IMO.

Gringo180

klose wrote: »

I wish the fa just had consistency in their dealings with incidents, it really is a farce of an association. I can deal with a ten game ban, but aguero getting off scott free last week for luizs tackle makes it hard to accept. There is no balance.

Spot on, they seem to make the rules up as they go along to suit themselves. How can a tackle like the 1 the lad off Wigan committed against Newcastle and not get a ban, where is the justice in that?

ThunbergsAreGo

Yeah at least Fellaini headbuts people!

Benimar

For those advocating selling Suarez as he is a 'disgrace', who should sign this 'disgrace'?

greendom

I think Liverpool will stand by him, but this may convince Suarez that it's time to get out of English football. All it needs now is for a big European club to test 'Pool's resolve and he could be gone.

jester77

He's a repeat offender, so that would obviously not help his case. 10 match ban is fair, if it was any other Liverpool player it would have been less. But no other Liverpool player would do what he did. I don't know why people are moaning about a witch hunt, players like Suarez, Joey Barton, etc. get this sort of attention because of their behaviour.

el dude

It was more likely he'd go before this incident tbh.

Ryu Hayabusa

naughtb4 wrote: »

Yeah at least Fellaini headbuts people!

Fellaini was provoked by Shawcross

Benimar wrote: »

For those advocating selling Suarez as he is a 'disgrace', who should sign this 'disgrace'?

Barcelona

smokedeels

A tackle, however bad it is, is still in the context of the sport. Biting somebody is so removed from what should be taking place on the field that it's always going to be viewed worse.

Maybe if he was English he would have got less, but the lad has now bitten two opponents. I can imagine the frustration from Liverpool fans because he is a fantastic player... but he's also a bit strange and frankly an idiot for putting himself in this situation.

Xavi6

The thing here is that there's no FA precedent for biting so the real acid test is what punishment they give to the next person who does it.

Suarez is the first and therefore now the benchmark.

dahat

10 games,wow that really was a Monster Munch..........

wandatowell

RodgersLFC wrote: »

the crusade that the English game is on when it comes to Suarez

WTF are you on about??????


Is tit 10 games for the bite or is it 10 games due to his priors.



Clarification needed

GavRedKing

Merged the Suarez banned for 10 games thread and Will Liverpool sell Suarez thread.

fullstop

Mr Alan wrote: »

Worse than nearly killing someone with an intentional elbow to the side of the head? I think not. Not even nearly.

Who was nearly killed by an elbow to the side of the head? RVP is the only player I remember nearly dying on the pitch this season.

el dude wrote: »

Trial by media. Sickening.

LOL.

Felexicon

To be fair I'd say if you'd offered Suarez a 10 game ban yesterday he'd have bitten your hand off

IvySlayer

He deserved 10.

Crash Bang Wall

Leftist wrote: »

if he appeals he'll get another 3 games if it fails.

It's a fair punishment. A lot of deludeds shuffling about, trying to claim it's 'not that bad' in comparison to car crashes or in some cases and quite laughably, in comparison to badly timed tackles, but in reality it was worth 10 games.

So in effect he was better of breaking the guys leg and taking a 3 match ban? 10 games is ridiculous. Was expecting something between 4-8

Lawrence1895

When he played for Ajax and bit his opponent, how many matches did he get banned?

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Dubliner28

GavRedKing wrote: »

Whats the odds of Liverpool starting next season during the ban with away trips to either City, Chelsea, Utd or all three of the FA really wanna troll.

Doesnt matter, he wont be there

greendom

In effect it's only a 6 game ban. This season is over for Liverpool and the last 4 games of this season will be a good opportunity for them to try out other options

Mr Alan

Xavi6 wrote: »

The thing here is that there's no FA precedent for biting so the real acid test is what punishment they give to the next person who does it.

Suarez is the first and therefore now the benchmark.

Presuming that's a joke?

SlickRic

fullstop wrote: »

RVP is the only player I remember nearly dying on the pitch this season.

i do hope you're joking with this.

i really, really do.

Tom1991

Im a united fan and think 3 was enough but expected 5 due to his history.Well done to the fa for hounding him out of the league and anyone who thinks ten games for a glorified hickey is just needs to have their head examined.

fullstop

SlickRic wrote: »

i do hope you're joking with this.

i really, really do.

Ah now, come on...:pac:

magnumbud

RodgersLFC wrote: »

I'd say he'll appeal but he'd do well not to. This is completely his own fault but considering the crusade that the English game is on when it comes to Suarez, they'll only increase the ban if he appeals.

it wouldn't be a special case for suarez really. its always the case that if you appeal a ban and its not reduced then the FA add on extra game(s) for wasting their time.