Suarez Banned for 10 games

Lovely Bloke

Mr Alan wrote: »

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.

Awesome Sun-esque tabloidage right there.

Timmyctc

Mr Alan wrote: »

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.

No he's been handed a 10 game ban. It's unfair really. Suarez getting charged only based on his history of racism, cheating and violent behaviour. #JusticeForSuarez

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

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.

Well if your going by length of time when liverpool are actually playing he will actually miss he will miss another 4 weeks this season and probably with league cup games and midweek games 2-3 weeks at start of season so therefore not even a 2 month ban.

jonnyfingers

On an unrelated note I do find it quite funny that Mike Tyson started following Suarez on Twitter after the biting incident. Obviously a fan.

Lovely Bloke

super_furry wrote: »

How? Its routine in other sports that the length of the ban be the deciding factor. As am result of this ban, Suarez is prevented from playing for five months.

isn't it just the gah that does that, and haven't there been discussions to move to the proper "per game" model?

He can still play friendlies.

L5

Delighted with the ban , well deserved, only pity it wasn't 20 games.

lala88

Timmyctc wrote: »

No he's been handed a 10 game ban. It's unfair really. Suarez getting charged only based on his history of racism, cheating and violent behaviour. #JusticeForSuarez

8 game ban for racism, 10 game ban for biting. Would you get 18 games for biting a racist?

Mr Alan

Timmyctc wrote: »

No he's been handed a 10 game ban. It's unfair really. Suarez getting charged only based on his history of racism, cheating and violent behaviour. #JusticeForSuarez

You're not on Twitter?

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Awesome Sun-esque tabloidage right there.

Low blow.

Xavi6 wrote: »

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

It's the truth.

inmyday

Post number 137 by johnnyfingers just says it all.

Nearly 12 months ago, no one agreed with me about Joey Barton getting 12 games. And an argument was put forward to me that Barton is a repeat offender. But now Suarez is too. If the FA think 12 is correct for Barton losing the head, starting a fight with 2 players and kneeing another in the bum. Then Luis should be banned for 15 at least.

magnumbud

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:

hes stepping down from united in the summer

Gringo180

Gringo180 wrote: »

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

.....That you Rafa...?

Lovely Bloke

Mr Alan wrote: »

It's the truth.

No it's fúcking not the "truth", it's a stupid thing to claim, because there are NO GAMES during the summer - have the FA "effectively suspended" every bleeding player for the duration of the summer by having the temerity to not start the new season the week after this one ends?

Get a grip lad, you are doing yourself and your followers no favours by coming out with stupid theories like that.

Gbear

jonnyfingers wrote: »

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.

If Suarez had been booked for this of course the FA would've retrospectively banned him anyway. They do what suits them, not what is just, fair or consistent.

You can certainly argue that a bad tackle that's seen as being mistimed shouldn't be as severely punished, much the same as recklessly killing someone isn't the same as premeditated murder.
However, just because tackling is part of the game doesn't make any two-footed lunge acceptable, just because it's a sport that involves feet.

Keane's tackle had no more to do with football than biting someone. The fact that he used feet to do it is incidental. The same can be said with plenty of other tackles.
Otherwise you have a situation that you're given, relatively speaking, carte blanche to attack someone so long as you use your legs to do it.

How an offence should be seen should be entirely down to the amount of harm it does.
Whether it's superficially similar to normal football, how manly it is or whatever other nebulous ****e you'd care to bring in to the debate should have no bearing.

jonnyfingers wrote: »

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.

The same can be said of all manner of things that happen on a football pitch.
The hypocritical twat Souness broke a fellas jaw - you can bet your arse that'd be considered worse than a bite.

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:

It's a clear conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed, just as it shouldn't with the chairman of any football club, but has nothing to do with this case so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
Or rather, I know exactly why you're bringing it up. But stop it.

fullstop

Mr Alan wrote: »

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.

Christ man, get a grip will ya.

Blatter

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 were going by their usual rules, Suarez wouldn't have been eligible for a retrospective ban. They clearly made an exception here and I don't understand why they didn't make an exception with Defoe back then either.

L5

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

No it's fúcking not the "truth", it's a stupid thing to claim, because there are NO GAMES during the summer - have the FA "effectively suspended" every bleeding player for the duration of the summer by having the temerity to not start the new season the week after this one ends?

Get a grip lad, you are doing yourself and your followers no favours by coming out with stupid theories like that.

The comment is no surprise really when you see who posted it.:rolleyes:

Will I Amnt

Don't know why people are so surprised. Wasn't he warned twice on his future conduct?
This is not just a ban for biting IMO.

The playing down of the seriousness of the incident is really laughable but not surprising after the racism thing. Some people are just blinded to reality when it comes to defending their heroes.

Apart from Defoe and Suarez, I can't think of any other biting incident in football. It just doesn't cross the mind of a normal person.

Punishments in sport are deterrents. It didn't work the last time. This is his 3rd season in a row where he's received a lengthy ban. It's obviously not working on him.

fullstop

Blatter wrote: »

If the FA were going by their usual rules, Suarez wouldn't have been eligible for a retrospective ban. They clearly made an exception here and I don't understand why they didn't make an exception with Defoe back then either.

How? Was he penalised by the referee during the game? No, he wasn't as you well know.

major bill

Ridiculous ban, Thatcher gets an 8 match ban for nearly killing someone with an elbow and suarez gets 10......i wouldnt mind if the FA were consistant but they aint.

keano_afc

inmyday

Gbear wrote: »

Keane's tackle had no more to do with football than biting someone. The fact that he used feet to do it is incidental. The same can be said with plenty of other tackles.
Otherwise you have a situation that you're given, relatively speaking, carte blanche to attack someone so long as you use your legs to do it.





The hypocritical twat Souness broke a fellas jaw - you can bet your arse that'd be considered worse than a bite.

We all know Keane's tackle should have been dealt with by the police, especially when in his book he admitted it. "I hit him hard, the ball was there, I think. Take that you cutn"... Keane is a nut. He should have been banned for much longer. Think he got 8 games...




Why do Liverpool fans hate Souness so much??? He was a good liverpool player like Suarez. And fans seem to love Luis no matter what he does. Does he still get blamed for liverpool not winning a title in 20+ years?

Timmyctc

Gbear wrote: »

If Suarez had been booked for this of course the FA would've retrospectively banned him anyway. They do what suits them, not what is just, fair or consistent.

...and you have this on good authority I imagine?

Blatter

Blatter wrote: »

If the FA were going by their usual rules, Suarez wouldn't have been eligible for a retrospective ban. They clearly made an exception here and I don't understand why they didn't make an exception with Defoe back then either.

Why should he not be eligible for a retrospective ban this time? The referee didn't see the incident so the FA took action, is that not their actual rule?

Lovely Bloke

inmyday wrote: »

Why do Liverpool fans hate Souness so much???

not sure if srs

noodler

Xavi6 wrote: »

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

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Awesome Sun-esque tabloidage right there.

A 22-week ban!

Blatter

fullstop wrote: »

How? Was he penalised by the referee during the game? No, he wasn't as you well know.

He doesn't need to be penalised. The ref dealt with the incident by talking to both Suarez and Ivanovic (regardless of whether or not he saw the full extent of the coming together, it doesn't matter according to the FA).

Gbear

inmyday wrote: »

We all know Keane's tackle should have been dealt with by the police, especially when in his book he admitted it. "I hit him hard, the ball was there, I think. Take that you cutn"... Keane is a nut. He should have been banned for much longer. Think he got 8 games...

The Keane example was handy because it's a clear example of nominally going in for a tackle but clearly not being worthy of the same considerations as a mistimed or ordinary reckless tackle.

inmyday wrote: »

Why do Liverpool fans hate Souness so much??? He was a good liverpool player like Suarez. And fans seem to love Luis no matter what he does. Does he still get blamed for liverpool not winning a title in 20+ years?

Not only was he an embarassment on the pitch with some of his scumbaggery but he gave an interview to the S*n newspaper.

And he drove the club into the ground after the bones of 20 years of success.

Timmyctc wrote: »

...and you have this on good authority I imagine?

You're living in fantasy land if they think they wouldn't have.

SlickRic

cambo2008 wrote: »

Wasn't he warned twice on his future conduct?

they all are.

This is not just a ban for biting IMO.

definitely not.

The playing down of the seriousness of the incident is really laughable but not surprising after the racism thing. Some people are just blinded to reality when it comes to defending their heroes.

it was scummy.

it also wasn't the heinous, deportation or hanging offence some would deem it.

morons on both sides of that particular fence.

it was disgusting, but in reality, nobody was hurt.

Punishments in sport are deterrents. It didn't work the last time. This is his 3rd season in a row where he's received a lengthy ban. It's obviously not working on him.

again, has the FA ever worked this way before? or are we just assuming they're adding on games because they feel he's a serial offender?

if Suarez is the precedent, then fine...I look forward to seeing that in the report.

Blatter

Sacramento wrote: »

Why should he not be eligible for a retrospective ban this time? The referee didn't see the incident so the FA took action, is that not their actual rule?

I explained it in detail earlier...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84307229&postcount=38

RasTa

I remember Rio getting 8 months for missing his test when a previous City player got nothing. Toure failed a drug test and got 6 months. Stop crying

KevIRL

His record speaks volumes

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/luis-suarez/profil/spieler_44352.html?from=news_text

Reason Season Competition from to
suspension through sports court 12/13 Premier League 24.04.2013 Beginning of Oct. 2013
Olympic games 12/13 12.07.2012 06.08.2012
suspension through sports court 11/12 Premier League 03.01.2012 01.02.2012
suspension through sports court 11/12 Premier League 29.12.2011 31.12.2011
suspension through sports court 10/11 KNVB Beker 24.11.2010 28.01.2011
suspension through sports court 10/11 Eredivisie 24.11.2010 25.01.2011
suspension 10/11 Eredivisie 22.11.2010 05.12.2010
red card suspension 10/11 Eredivisie 02.08.2010 15.08.2010
red card suspension 09/10 WC 2010 03.07.2010 07.07.2010
yellow card suspension 10/11 Europa League 09.12.2010 18.02.2010
yellow card suspension 09/10 KNVB Beker 04.01.2010 28.01.2010
yellow card suspension 08/09 Eredivisie 04.05.2009 11.05.2009
yellow card suspension 08/09 Eredivisie 02.03.2009 08.03.2009
yellow card suspension 08/09 Eredivisie 30.10.2008 03.11.2008


Of course poor Luis is the victim here though

mitosis

The length of the ban is fair to me. Even watching the offence now has a surreal quality - it's hard to believe a footballer actually bit someone in that manner. Maybe the guy should have some psychological help.

Lovely Bloke

KevIRL wrote: »

His record speaks volumes

His record doesn't matter, especially stuff that happened outside od England.

Timmyctc

Gbear wrote: »

You're living in fantasy land if they think they wouldn't have.

Fine. If Rooney did it I can 110% guarantee you Gbear that his ban would have been sixteen times longer and he would have had his hair plugs removed as punishment (see how this works? it doesnt) Suarez wouldn't have gotten banned had the Referee dealt with that particular incident on the pitch. The ref dealt with separate incident, not the bite.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Xavi6 wrote: »

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

What I learnt is that you;re better off attempting to break someone's leg than either offence.

Blatter

Blatter wrote: »

I explained it in detail earlier...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84307229&postcount=38

Maybe the referee only saw Ivanovic's reaction to the bite and not the bite at all, it would depend on his report surely? Maybe he just saw them arguing after the incident and nobody saw the original "coming together", which would allow retrospective action according to what you quoted in that post. Right?

SlickRic

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

to be fair, it's not their role to "keep" players in the league.

secman

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How many are you ?

fullstop

Blatter wrote: »

He doesn't need to be penalised. The ref dealt with the incident by talking to both Suarez and Ivanovic (regardless of whether or not he saw the full extent of the coming together, it doesn't matter according to the FA).

He didn't see the incident. He only looked when he saw Ivanovic on the ground and then Ivanovic complained that he'd been bitten.

Also, I love the way Suarez got up and started limping, as if he'd been injured.

Lovely Bloke

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

lol :thumbsup:

Timmyctc

Sacramento wrote: »

Maybe the referee only saw Ivanovic's reaction to the bite and not the bite at all, it would depend on his report surely? A report we haven't seen.

+1. For all we know the ref only saw Suarez on the ground after the incident. LFC are waiting for the F.As reasoning I think we can assume until then the incident isn't being treated as an exceptional circumstance.

Blatter

Sacramento wrote: »

Maybe the referee only saw Ivanovic's reaction to the bite and not the bite at all, it would depend on his report surely? A report we haven't seen.

Even so, that would be the ref dealing with ''a coming together of two players without having seen the full extent of what happened'', something which under their normal rules is not eligible for retrospective punishment.

They've clearly made an exception here but for some reason decided not to make an exception with the Defoe case.

Montroseee

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's ok, Falcao is coming...

darced

This post has been deleted.

Will I Amnt

SlickRic wrote: »

they all are.



definitely not.



it was scummy.

it also wasn't the heinous, deportation or hanging offence some would deem it.

morons on both sides of that particular fence.

it was disgusting, but in reality, nobody was hurt.



again, has the FA ever worked this way before? or are we just assuming they're adding on games because they feel he's a serial offender?

if Suarez is the precedent, then fine...I look forward to seeing that in the report.

That's not the point. The intent was there to hurt. He wasn't trying to lick him.

I'm sick of listening to people saying stuff like this. The majority of who would have felt completely different about biting last week. All of a sudden biting isn't all that bad.

People linking articles from gutter press and journos they wouldn't normally give a second glance to because they are on their side.
I've seen one poster complain about how Henry Winter used to be very reliable up until now because of his view against Suarez. All of a sudden he's shìte???

Neville is a punditry God now simply because of what he said. The very same Gary Neville would be vilified had his view been the opposite.

The double standards and hypocrisy is ridiculous.

taytothief

Are you not entertained?

Blatter

fullstop wrote: »

He didn't see the incident. He only looked when he saw Ivanovic on the ground and then Ivanovic complained that he'd been bitten.

Again, whether he saw the incident or not is irrelevant according to the FA, all that matters usually to them is whether he 'reffed' it or not.

Essien

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I doubt anyone outside Liverpools fanbase would be too concerned if he didn't play in the league again. If this is enough to drive him out then that's between himself and the club and is entirely his fault, not the FAs.

fullstop

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Aww poor Luis Not his fault he bit someone. Also, you seem a good judge of a footballer...what with calling Van Persie a "tap in merchant" and all.