Suarez Banned for 10 games

Xavi6

Mr Alan wrote: »

Presuming that's a joke?

Who else have the FA done for biting to make ten games such an outrage?

In all seriousness, comparing biting with a tackle doesn't work.

greendom

magnumbud wrote: »

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.

Only if the appeal is deemed superfluous

JimsAlterEgo

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.

Depends on whats in the wording, a lot will be for the previous.

kfallon

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.

Defoe in 2006?

Suarez was the benchmark with racist comments too......8 game ban!
Terry subsequently got 4 :rolleyes:

SlickRic

if the FA come out tomorrow and say this is the precedent for "odd acts of violent conduct" or something, then fine, it's the precedent.

if they come out and say it's for repeated offences, then fine, that's the new precedent.

but whatever happens here, it is a new precedent.

has the FA ever given a lengthier ban to a player simply because of his previous?

Corholio

I love the way some people are saying he should get out of big, bad English football, as if that's the villain. Because English football made him dive, stamp on players, racially abuse and then bite them.

How has FIFA not reprimanded English football for this effect it has on it's players.

As for the ban itself, I didn't think it'd be that much but saying that 4 or 5 would have been far too low too. It's such a scummy thing to do, it actually takes effort to grab someones arm and bite them.

greendom

Corholio wrote: »

I love the way some people are saying he should get out of big, bad English football, as if that's the villain. Because English football made him dive, stamp on players, racially abuse and then bite them.

How has FIFA not reprimanded English football for this effect it has on it's players.

I'm just imagining how Suarez would feel - not saying that it's justified.

Gringo180

Corholio wrote: »

I love the way some people are saying he should get out of big, bad English football, as if that's the villain. Because English football made him dive, stamp on players, racially abuse and then bite them.

How has FIFA not reprimanded English football for this effect it has on it's players.

Wheres the consistency in there decisions? Do you honestly think its fair to ban somebody for Racism for 4 matches but dish out a 10 game ban for biting somebody?

jonnyfingers

SlickRic wrote: »

has the FA ever given a lengthier ban to a player simply because of his previous?

Joey Barton? 12 games?

Timmyctc

Gringo180 wrote: »

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?

Alot of people are missing the point that in the game you're supposed to use your feet. The risk is there'll be bad challenges mostly by mistake (you get the odd intentional, which Suarez himself will have committed, that should be dealt with far more severly by the F.A. granted) but biting isn't a part of the game. You can't go to tackle someone by shoving your teeth in their arm. Similarly with headbutts and elbows. He has gone out of his way to injure using a part of the body that isn't even slightly permitted to be used in the game. Animals bite people to infect and injure people ffs. I definitely agree F.A need to look at intentional challenges with a vastly increased ban but Suarez's behaviour merits the bans.

dfx-

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Joey Barton? 12 games?

How much of that was for the sum total of multiple charges and how much was on previous history.

MisterAnarchy

I wonder if Suarez was English would he have received a 10 match ban .....

knucklehead6

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84285175&postcount=1362

I said 10 yesterday. The club SHOULD NOT appeal this. It may be a lot, but he hasn't learned his lessons in terms of discipline

magnumbud

greendom wrote: »

Only if the appeal is deemed superfluous

i would think in this case it would be. theres video evidence of him doing it as people have said he got 7 games for doing it in holland and clearly didnt learn his lesson. i'm sure if i bit someone in work and got suspended and a warning and then did it again i would get a longer suspension for not learning from it.

am i right in saying that FIFA have yet to say if they are going to punish him for punching your man in the uruguay game? if he is charged with that too i would be surprised if that 10 games didnt end up being increased further

Gbear

Xavi6 wrote: »

Who else have the FA done for biting to make ten games such an outrage?

In all seriousness, comparing biting with a tackle doesn't work.

Indeed. One is harmful. One isn't.

I'll let some of the geniuses in here figure out which is which.

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

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.

By that logic, a person who steals an apple in a country that practices Sharia law "has only himself to blame" when they cut his hand off.


It's ultimately an arbitrary decision how many games you deserve to be banned for for any offence. What shouldn't be arbitrary is the relative punishment.
What also shouldn't be arbitrary is taking into account Suarez' persistant disciplinary problems but not doing so for other players.

I'd be fine with a 10 game ban if Fellaini had gotten a 15+ game ban earlier in the season or if Ben Thatcher had been banned for life.
I'd be fine with them following up and retrspectively banning him if they had done the same for Robert Huth stamping on Suarez' chest.

The FA aren't there to rule justly over football matters. They're there to further their own interests. They do as much or as little as they can get away with depending on how it suits them.

mayordenis

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Joey Barton? 12 games?

He went on a mini rampage in fairness

SlickRic

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Joey Barton? 12 games?

he got 12 games for 3 separate offences in that one game.

the sending off, and his 2 subsequent altercations with Aguero and Kompany.

actually...

i've worked it out. we don't need the report at all. it's simple.

Suarez got a game for every tooth that touched Ivanovic.

Here Precious2

Will the pool continue to pay him while he serves the ban? No doubt they will.

Gringo180

Timmyctc wrote: »

Alot of people are missing the point that in the game you're supposed to use your feet. The risk is there'll be bad challenges mostly by mistake (you get the odd intentional, which Suarez himself will have committed, that should be dealt with far more severly by the F.A. granted) but biting isn't a part of the game. You can't go to tackle someone by shoving your teeth in their arm. Similarly with headbutts and elbows. He has gone out of his way to injure using a part of the body that isn't even slightly permitted to be used in the game. Animals bite people to infect and injure people ffs. I definitely agree F.A need to look at intentional challenges with a vastly increased ban but Suarez's behaviour merits the bans.

Well what about Ben Thatcher nearly decapitating Pedro Mendes (8 game ban) or Fellaini headbutting Shawcross (3 game ban), I am only asking for consistency here.

magnumbud

kfallon wrote: »

Defoe in 2006?

Suarez was the benchmark with racist comments too......8 game ban!
Terry subsequently got 4 :rolleyes:

defoe was dealt with by the ref. rightly or wrongly(and i think its wrongly) its the rule that if the ref sees it and deals with it then the FA can do nothing about it e.g. agueros two footed jump on Luiz

Mr Whirly

Gbear wrote: »

I'd be fine with a 10 game ban if Fellaini had gotten a 15+ game ban earlier in the season or if Ben Thatcher had been banned for life.
I'd be fine with them following up and retrspectively banning him if they had done the same for Robert Huth stamping on Suarez' chest.

The FA aren't there to rule justly over football matters. They're there to further their own interests. They do as much or as little as they can get away with depending on how it suits them.

Suarez has also gotten away with various stamps but if you feel so strongly about it why don't you send them a letter asking them to have look at them again?

Gringo180

magnumbud wrote: »

defoe was dealt with by the ref. rightly or wrongly(and i think its wrongly) its the rule that if the ref sees it and deals with it then the FA can do nothing about it e.g. agueros two footed jump on Luiz

Except if its an exceptional case, which they seem to think it is in Suarez's case as they have handed him an excessive ban.

greendom

magnumbud wrote: »

defoe was dealt with by the ref. rightly or wrongly(and i think its wrongly) its the rule that if the ref sees it and deals with it then the FA can do nothing about it e.g. agueros two footed jump on Luiz

They can in extreme situations. If they thought that the yellow card was enough of a punishment to deal with Defoe, then they've some explaining to do to warrant the Suarez punishment.

ricero

Hope he doesnt leave. The mans a genius with a ball at his feet. Love or hate him he be a big loss to the premeir league

ROCKMAN

If Liverpool Football Club and its Fans want Suarez to stay then he would be a fool to consider moving ,,IMO.

Gorilla Rising

Mr Alan wrote: »

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.

I think so.

I've been racially abused and I'll tell you one thing - I'd rather some tosser call me a name than bite me!

A leg breaking tackle can happen with the best of intentions. Biting someone is just mental. There's no defending it.

Ten games is fair in the least.

Xavi6

kfallon wrote: »

Defoe in 2006?

Straw clutching. It's already been said time after time this week that Defoe couldn't be retrospectively banned because the referee took action at the time with a yellow card.

Here's a link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/6076094.stm

Therefore that incident is not a precedent. Suarez is the first player to have bitten and be eligible for retrospective banning.

Look for all the excuses and loopholes you want, he's guilty and got a ten game ban. Get on with it.

Gbear

Mr Whirly wrote: »

Suarez has also gotten away with various stamps but if you feel so strongly about it why don't you send them a letter asking them to have look at them again?

I'd love if they were consistent all the time.

Of course half the ****ing league would end up getting a ban but the message might actually sink in.

Corholio

Gringo180 wrote: »

Wheres the consistency in there decisions? Do you honestly think its fair to ban somebody for Racism for 4 matches but dish out a 10 game ban for biting somebody?

Of course they have been inconsistent in their decisions, I couldnt believe they didnt ban McManaman for that tackle or take any action whatsoever. I think 10 is a lot, but 4 or 5 wouldn't have been enough either, it's such a weird and disgusting incident to happen, 7 or 8 would have been fair.

Suarez puts himself in these situations though. I don't think they have any sort of agenda against him. In what other season has their been anybody that has racially abused a player and also bitten one in the same season? Bans are supposed to be both punishment and a deterrent.

Mr Whirly

greendom wrote: »

They can in extreme situations. If they thought that the yellow card was enough of a punishment to deal with Defoe, then they've some explaining to do to warrant the Suarez punishment.

They can't anymore. FIFA gave them a scolding for retrospectively banning Thatcher. The Defoe incident happened just after that which is why they couldn't do anything.

lala88

Wonder when the new t shirts will be ready?

Gringo180

Xavi6 wrote: »

Straw clutching. It's already been said time after time this week that Defoe couldn't be retrospectively banned because the referee took action at the time with a yellow card.

Here's a link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/6076094.stm

Therefore that incident is not a precedent. Suarez is the first player to have bitten and be eligible for retrospective banning.

Look for all the excuses and loopholes you want, he's guilty and got a ten game ban. Get on with it.

If the FA had of deemed it to be an exceptional case they could of banned Defoe, this is a fact!

OneColdHand

Gringo180 wrote: »

Well what about Ben Thatcher nearly decapitating Pedro Mendes (8 game ban) or Fellaini headbutting Shawcross (3 game ban), I am only asking for consistency here.

But the point is he's a repeat offender. Had Thatcher and Fellaini previously been banned for similar incidents.

greendom

Mr Whirly wrote: »

They can't anymore. FIFA gave them a scolding for retrospectively banning Thatcher. The Defoe incident happened just after that which is why they couldn't do anything.

So why could they ban Barton for so many matches - a ban that had to be served even when he moved to France ?

Not disputing what you are saying - just trying to make sense of it

magnumbud

i hear that as a show of support liverpool players will wear bibs warming up for the weekends game

jonnyfingers

I see a lot of people are complaining about Suarez's ban when Aguero and McManaman both got away scott free with bad tackles, and the perceived inconsistencies of the FA.

Well first, the reason those two got away is because of the silly FA rule that prevents them taking action if the referee has already dealt with the incident. I heard an interview with the new FA chairman where they're reviewing that rule, but as it is they can't do anything about it now to deal with those two incidents.

Second, with a bad tackle it can be argued, most of the time, that it was an honest tackle that was badly mistimed. Now I think Aguero deliberately went in to hurt the player, but I do think McManaman's was just a bad tackle. Even with both, tackling with the feet is a part of the game, so bad tackles can be somewhat justified, if regrettable. A ban lets the player know that a bad tackle will have consequences so hopefully they'll think again in the future.

Suarez, on the other hand, decided when unprovoked to grab Ivanovic's arm and sink his teeth into it. There is no footballing reason for this. If it was outside a nightclub on a Saturday night he would have been arrested and charged with assault. Biting a player is just an absolutely ridiculous thing to do, it's something a dog does when it has rabies.

As for the lengthy ban making Suarez think again about biting someone, I think the fact that this is his second time proves that 7 games wasn't enough the first time. Maybe 10 games will do the trick, but somehow I don't think so.

So for anyone angry with the FA for the lengthy ban. You really should be aiming that anger at Suarez but being an absolute fool.

Mr Whirly

greendom wrote: »

So why could they ban Barton for so many matches - a ban that had to be served even when he moved to France ?

Not disputing what you are saying - just trying to make sense of it

Good point actually.

The French FA upheld his ban in France so that had nothing to do with the English FA.

Gorilla Rising

jonnyfingers wrote: »

I see a lot of people are complaining about Suarez's ban when Aguero and McManaman btoh got away scott free with bad tackles, and the perceived inconsistencies of the FA.

Well first, the reason those two got away is because of the silly FA rule that prevents them taking action if the referee has already dealt with the incident. I heard an interview with the new FA chairman where they're reviewing that rule, but as it is they can't do anything about it now to deal with those two incidents.

I really don't see what the hold up is with this rule. It's ridiculous and change is long overdue.

JPA

A toddler would be made sit in the corner in the crèche for doing what he did.

He was ridiculously stupid but nobody was hurt.

Villain

Xavi6 wrote: »

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

That's a bit silly, how do you know he wouldn't have got less than 7 games if it was his first serious offense in England?

10 games imo is too little based on previous offenses

Gringo180

On another note how the fook is David Gill vice chairman of The FA and Chief Executive of Man Utd, would he not have an unfair bias towards his club in certain cases :eek:

Hank Scorpio

10 seems about right for a repeat offender

IvySlayer

Gringo180 wrote: »

On another note how the fook is David Gill vice chairman of The FA and Chief Executive of Man Utd, would he not have an unfair bias towards his club in certain cases :eek:

Here we go...he ain't the first person to work the FA and be working for a football club.

And wtf do Manchester United have to do with this

Mr Whirly

greendom wrote: »

So why could they ban Barton for so many matches - a ban that had to be served even when he moved to France ?

Not disputing what you are saying - just trying to make sense of it

I think in Bartons case he committed several offences so the sending off may have only been in relation to one of them. That's the only reason I can think of.

jonnyfingers

fortune wookiee wrote: »

I really don't see what the hold up is with this rule. It's ridiculous and change is long overdue.

Agreed. I'm sure there's a whole load of bureaucracy and red tape that will hold it up. I also bet the FA are somewhat reluctant to change it as it might open the floodgates with people looking for retrospective action. So if they are going to change it, I'd rather they take their time and do it right.

marwelie

For all those saying Suarez is being hard done. Cantona got 8 months for kicking someone, on top of a self imposed ban by United. Not trying to start up a Utd v Liverpool thing, just stating a point. Suarez is a very lucky boy to only get a 10 match ban IMO and he can thank Branislav Ivanovic for not taking it any further than he would be rightly entitled to.

greendom

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Agreed. I'm sure there's a whole load of bureaucracy and red tape that will hold it up. I also bet the FA are somewhat reluctant to change it as it might open the floodgates with people looking for retrospective action. So if they are going to change it, I'd rather they take their time and do it right.

I think the FA have got themselves in an unholy mess with this no retrospective action law.

Benimar

Mr Whirly wrote: »

I think in Bartons case he committed several offences so the sending off may have only been in relation to one of them. That's the only reason I can think of.

Barton hit Tevez, then kneed Aguero and tried to hit Kompany (may be the other way around) Think he was also done for failing to leave the field.

He got charged with them all seperately.

Mr Alan

marwelie wrote: »

For all those saying Suarez is being hard done. Cantona got 8 months for kicking someone, on top of a self imposed ban by United. Not trying to start up a Utd v Liverpool thing, just stating a point.

If Suarez attacked someone in the crowd I think the ban would be more severe.

Suarez has effectively been handed a 5 month ban today. Unheard of for a violent conduct charge on the pitch where the usual ban is 3 games.

Xavi6

Mr Alan wrote: »

If Suarez bite someone in the crowd I think the ban would be more severe.

Suarez has effectively been handed a 5 month ban today. Unheard of for a violent conduct charge on the pitch where the usual ban is 3 games.

That is just about as disingenuous as it could possibly get.