Suarez Banned for 10 games

barone

fullstop wrote: »

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.

you are right i did say that, i said it because i was initially angry he would be so stupid to do such a thing.

after calming down i still believe he was stupid but i dont believe it was so bad he got a ten game ban.

he didnt draw blood or even close, lets be clear on that.

it wasnt a elbow to the mouth,or a headbutt to the face,or a challenge not going for ball but man.

its because the act is perceived as worse than the above that i cant understand.

Blatter

Blatter wrote: »

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.

Nah I think you're bending it to suit your argument now. He could have come up to them and said "Lads, I didn't see what happened between the two of you, it'll be dealt with by the FA if needs be, but cut it out or I'll dish out cards" for all we know. I haven't seen the report, neither have you, FA have taken retrospective action so I'm going to assume they followed their own rules. To assume otherwise is pure speculation at best.

Masked Man

Blatter wrote: »

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.

The FA’s rules have changed significantly since 2006, and had Defoe committed the same offence today he would undoubtedly have faced an FA charge under the umbrella of ‘exceptional circumstances’.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/english-soccer/suarez-accepts-fa-charge-but-contests-proposed-ban-1.1370096

darced

This post has been deleted.

Courtesy Flush

The funny thing is that if Suarez goes up for sale there will be plenty of takers

Mr Alan

cambo2008 wrote: »

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.

Actually, Neville has been getting praised since he retired for his punditry & his reasoned opinions & analysis. Utd fans have been saying, "sure we always knew he was a top bloke & spoke sense", it's in actual fact some Utd fans who are choosing to ignore that now in order to suit their argument re: Suarez.

darced

This post has been deleted.

fullstop

Courtesy Flush wrote: »

The funny thing is that if Suarez goes up for sale there will be plenty of takers

Of course there will, he's a fantastic player and another club will like to think they can get him to behave a bit better.

Sappy404

The only party who wouldn't benefit from selling Suarez would be Liverpool. He's trouble, but not more trouble than he's worth.

lertsnim

I'd have given him more. Filthy deliberate act from him and not the first time he has done it. The last ban obviously taught him nothing so they were right to increase it.

fullstop

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've read the entire thing. Who were you giving a bit back to? Was the post ironic?

Blatter

Sacramento wrote: »

Nah I think you're bending it to suit your argument now. He could have come up to them and said "Lads, I didn't see what happened between the two of you, it'll be dealt with by the FA if needs be, but cut it out or I'll dish out cards" for all we know. I haven't seen the report, neither have you, FA have taken retrospective action so I'm going to assume they followed their own rules. To assume otherwise is pure speculation at best.

Nope, I wasn't bending anything to suit my argument (why would I?). It doesn't matter whether he saw it or not, fact is he spoke with the players involved and under normal FA rules, when a ref has 'dealt with' an incident (regardless of what he saw), retrospective action cannot be taken.

Masked Man wrote: »

The FA’s rules have changed significantly since 2006, and had Defoe committed the same offence today he would undoubtedly have faced an FA charge under the umbrella of ‘exceptional circumstances’.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/english-soccer/suarez-accepts-fa-charge-but-contests-proposed-ban-1.1370096

Ah now that explains it! Didn't know they had introduced/updated their 'exceptional circumstances' criteria since 2006.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Will I Amnt

Mr Alan wrote: »

Actually, Neville has been getting praised since he retired for his punditry & his reasoned opinions & analysis. Utd fans have been saying, "sure we always knew he was a top bloke & spoke sense", it's in actual fact some Utd fans who are choosing to ignore that now in order to suit their argument re: Suarez.

There was a massive love in for him the other night after his piece. Those same people would have turned on him had his view been the opposite.

Regarding the bit in bold, do United fans have to go along with what he says?
I missed that memo.
Is he unable to get anything wrong because he has got a lot of stuff bang on?

pistolpetes11

keith16 wrote: »

Thinly veiled "are Liverpool and Suarez done?" thread.

Liverpool have been done for years ..... :pac::pac::pac:

Im happy with the ban , hopefully he takes his punishment now , takes his ban and leaves this sorry incident behind him

mrkiscool2

I think 10 games is too much. Look, the lad made a huge error on the pitch. He was frustrated, and he clearly doesn't know how to vent properly. I think the FA should have given him 5-7 games and also made him attend an anger-management/how to deal with on the pitch stress given by someone from the PFA or even within the FA itself.

It's no good just banning the lad. He has committed 4 separate offences (Hand-ball vs Ghana, bite with PSV, racist comments and biting Ivanovic) which means he obviously can't control his anger. If the FA had done this, it would have made them look very proactive; both dealing with the incident hence upholding the moral integrity of the game and also showing that they care about players and ensuring that players have the right ethos and know how to deal with stress on the pitch.

WallyGUFC

An absolutely fair punishment, if perhaps too lenient. 7 games for biting clearly didn't deter him so surely it's logical to increase the ban. Maybe he'll learn now. Biting (twice), racism, consistent diving. He's a talented player no doubt, and of course Liverpool are going to stand up for their player, but he is dirt, plain and simple. There's no point comparing it to, for example, racism and saying biting is worse than racism. It's his 2nd biting offence. I'm sure if he is accused of racism ever again he'd get far more than 10 games.
In summary, fair ban, no grounds for appeal imo, move on and move him out of the club or get him some anger management.

LuckyLloyd

Liverpool should fight it all the way up to the CAS. Drag the FA infront of a higher authority and see how their processes stand up.

Will I Amnt

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I think 10 games is too much. Look, the lad made a huge error on the pitch. He was frustrated, and he clearly doesn't know how to vent properly. I think the FA should have given him 5-7 games and also made him attend an anger-management/how to deal with on the pitch stress given by someone from the PFA or even within the FA itself.

It's no good just banning the lad. He has committed 4 separate offences (Hand-ball vs Ghana, bite with PSV, racist comments and biting Ivanovic) which means he obviously can't control his anger. If the FA had done this, it would have made them look very proactive; both dealing with the incident hence upholding the moral integrity of the game and also showing that they care about players and ensuring that players have the right ethos and know how to deal with stress on the pitch.

Hand ball against Ghana shouldn't be lumped in with the other serious things tbh.

JaMarcus Hustle

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

He has committed 4 separate offences (Hand-ball vs Ghana, bite with PSV, racist comments and biting Ivanovic) which means he obviously can't control his anger.

I'd hardly include that as anger. Place in a World Cup semi-final on the line, I'd have done the same thing myself.

Red Crow

Isn't the point of a ban to deter the player from commiting the offence again? Suarez has received a 7 match for biting before and it obviously hasn't stopped him commiting the offence again so naturally it makes sense to increase the ban to a higher number of games.

pistolpetes11

People saying its too much ,

Its his second offense , albeit the first was in another Jurisdiction,

He has a poor disciplinary record with the English FA ,

I am sure the combination of the above have led to this ban.

I dont see how you can feel its harsh , Its an absolutely disgusting and horrible thing to do , you would do well to see something like it in a Children's playground

He has made his bed and now needs to lie in it

pistolpetes11

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Liverpool should fight it all the way up to the CAS. Drag the FA infront of a higher authority and see how their processes stand up.

Great idea, loose him for 10 games next season :rolleyes:

NinjaK

right job for him, should have been 20.

Corholio

JPA wrote: »

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.

Well Ivanovic had a bruise :pac:

In fairness, a mid 20's professional football player who has been warned about his conduct doing something disgusting rarely ever seen in football is a bit more than scolding a toddler who's brain hasn't developed, I guess they have that in common I suppose.

Rascasse

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Liverpool should fight it all the way up to the CAS. Drag the FA infront of a higher authority and see how their processes stand up.

I don't think they can. "Rule K' means that any arbitration must be in-house and has been tested in court.

Lister1

Anyone know who made up the three man commission? And if not will we find out tomorrow with the written report being released?

opr

Arguing the toss over what way the FA apply the rules for retrospective review is just silly because we all know it's a load of horse****. When someone elbows, stamps, clearly makes a violent tackle and referee does nothing during the game then he hasn't seen the incident. This idea the FA then comes along and claims because the referee was looking at the incident they can't do anything is the greatest load of cock ever. Just ****ing dish out the punishment. Clearly if the referee hasn't punished the player he hasn't seen what has happened.

The Suarez incident should have been reviewed. The thing that gets to me though is so do all those other violent incidents which have hid behind this awful rule that if the referee was looking in the direction of the incident then somehow the player gets away without punishment. It's like the overlords of the game are doing everything they can to try do things as badly as they can.

Opr

lpool2k05

Lister1 wrote: »

Anyone know who made up the three man commission? And if not will we find out tomorrow with the written report being released?

Yes Patrice Evra, Alex Ferguson and somebody called David Gill

dmc17

Clareman wrote: »

Second time being suspended for that offence, second major ban in the English game, it had to be an increase from the first bans.

RVP is top scorer for the season now

They'll give RVP the golden boot and give Suarez a golden tooth as a consolation prize

niallo27

opr wrote: »

Arguing the toss over what way the FA apply the rules for retrospective review is just silly because we all know it's a load of horse****. When someone elbows, stamps, clearly makes a violent tackle and referee does nothing during the game then he hasn't seen the incident. This idea the FA then comes along and claims because the referee was looking at the incident they can't do anything is the greatest load of cock ever. Just ****ing dish out the punishment. Clearly if the referee hasn't punished the player he hasn't seen what has happened.

The Suarez incident should have been reviewed. The thing that gets to me though is so do all those other violent incidents which have hid behind this awful rule that if the referee was looking in the direction of the incident then somehow the player gets away without punishment. It's like the overlords of the game are doing everything they can to try do things as badly as they can.

Opr

I always enjoy your posts man. They are fair and make sense.

Liam O

Sure if Suarez goes who's going to provide the topics for legendary threads such as this one?

Ordinary man

Di canio got 11 games for giving a ref a slight push. That was less violent and the first time he ever reacted like that. Suarez was already on a warning about his behaviour after the fa dealt with his racial abuse so 10 games sounds about right

jonnyfingers

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.

But he wasn't booked so we'll never know.

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.

Well no. The point I'm making is that tackling is a part of the game and something that normally happens. If there is a bad tackle the referee usually sees it and takes action, normally with at least a yellow, or a red as we saw a few at the weekend. On some occasions he only gives a free kick, but by the letter of the law this means he saw the incident and took action. Now with the stupid retrospective action rule this means currently the FA can't do anything about it.

Now if that happens to be a deliberately bad tackle the FA may be scuppered by the ref dealing with it. I'm not saying that's right, but that's the way it is currently.

Also with the exception of some tackles, most bad challenges are just that, bad, mistimed but not premeditated.

Now as for Keane's tackle, he served a 8 game ban in total. But even though people pretty much knew he deliberately went to get Haaland, it was only totally proven when he admitted it himself. My point is with 99% of bad tackles it's very hard to categorically prove that the tackle had nothing to do with winning the ball. Because of that the line between a badly judged tackle and a deliberately bad tackle is not as clear as a biting incident.

With Suarez it's almost impossible to prove he didn't try to bite Ivanovic. It's just a completely abnormal action on the football pitch. If you bite a player there's only one reason for it, you wanted to bite him.

So I'm not saying that two footed lunges are acceptable and I would love to see them be punished more severely. What I am saying is that bad tackles are not as black as white as a bite is when it comes to deciding on the intent. A bite is completely intentional and as clear as day. Now you might not agree with it but it's up to the players to know that's the way it is and choose not to bite someone. If you do then I don't think you can have any complaints about the punishment you receive.

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.

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.

This is just ridiculous. You could shoulder a player and they could pull their hamstring and be out for a few months. Or you could bite someone which would leave some teeth marks but otherwise the player would be ok. Does that make the shoulder a worse offence because it cause more harm?

I would consider breaking someone's jaw more serious than a bite. But both actions are completely unacceptable and a lengthy ban more than deserved in each case.


Look at it this way, I know some people in America who say that English football is never on the news over there. However the Suarez bite was a major news item when it happened. So this incident is getting worldwide coverage because it's so out of the ordinary to bite someone. This is a serious incident and deserves a serious ban.

In fact a lot of rugby players on Twitter have been claiming 10 games is too lenient an if it was a rugby player they would have gotten more.

Mr.Nice Guy

The way I look at it, 10 games for a first time offender would be harsh; for a guy who has bitten someone before on a football pitch, as well as a lot of other unseemly antics, it's fair enough.

What I'm wondering is how Suarez himself feels. He might feel so fed up with the F.A. that he decides to quit. If he is thinking of an exit strategy, he's got himself a great scapegoat for the supporters on why he wants out.

jonnyfingers

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

What I'm wondering is how Suarez himself feels. He might feel so fed up with the F.A. that he decides to quit. If he is thinking of an exit strategy, he's got himself a great scapegoat for the supporters on why he wants out.

Who give's a toss how Suarez feels though. it's his fault anyway. No bite, no ban. If he's annoyed that he gets punished for his stupid actions I hope he does leave.

Oranage2

Would have been perfect if it started next season, as it stands its a little lenient.

truly a man that makes you feel disgust at the human race.

niallo27

Oranage2 wrote: »

Would have been perfect if it started next season, as it stands its a little lenient.

truly a man that makes you feel disgust at the human race.

Your trying too hard lately. It's not working.

Corvo

10 game ban is fair. It was an intentional action and a filthy one at that.

If he skips town at least the Liverpool fans can blame the FA :rolleyes:

miralize

I think he might go, but not just for the ban. As a person, he is ethically questionable but as a footballer, he's too good not to be playing CL in his prime. This ban will just add to the reasons in his eyes to move.

Gbear

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Now as for Keane's tackle, he served a 8 game ban in total. But even though people pretty much knew he deliberately went to get Haaland, it was only totally proven when he admitted it himself. My point is with 99% of bad tackles it's very hard to categorically prove that the tackle had nothing to do with winning the ball. Because of that the line between a badly judged tackle and a deliberately bad tackle is not as clear as a biting incident.

With Suarez it's almost impossible to prove he didn't try to bite Ivanovic. It's just a completely abnormal action on the football pitch. If you bite a player there's only one reason for it, you wanted to bite him.

So I'm not saying that two footed lunges are acceptable and I would love to see them be punished more severely. What I am saying is that bad tackles are not as black as white as a bite is when it comes to deciding on the intent. A bite is completely intentional and as clear as day. Now you might not agree with it but it's up to the players to know that's the way it is and choose not to bite someone. If you do then I don't think you can have any complaints about the punishment you receive.

Generally speaking that's a fair enough point. The Keane example is the most clear cut. However, it's not the only tackle where the benefit of the doubt shouldn't be given to the offender.
Suarez' bite wasn't premeditated, unless he's genuinely certifably insane. It was clearly the act of frustration and poor aggression control.
Plenty of tackles look the very same.
It's fairly easy to tell apart a sort of "a propos of nothing" tackle and one where a player is racing around diving into challenges.
I'm not saying these tackles happen regularly but bites have only happened twice in the past 10 years.

Regardless, an element of interpretation is going to be required. I think that too much of a benefit of the doubt is given to reckless challenges.

Those that are premeditated or genuinely risk the lives of the victims stand even further apart from that (Keane and Ben Thatcher) and aren't what I'm limiting my point to.

jonnyfingers wrote: »

This is just ridiculous. You could shoulder a player and they could pull their hamstring and be out for a few months. Or you could bite someone which would leave some teeth marks but otherwise the player would be ok. Does that make the shoulder a worse offence because it cause more harm?

I would consider breaking someone's jaw more serious than a bite. But both actions are completely unacceptable and a lengthy ban more than deserved in each case.

I'll clarify what I meant.
An anology would be that murder carries certain penalties to those who commit it but killing someone isn't always murder. So if I push you, you slip on an unfortunately placed skateboard and fall down a stairs and die, it's not the same as if I shot you in the head.

The amount of damage that Suarez did and was likely to do given the strength of the bite is far less than if he had clocked someone or headbutted them.
The ban should reflect that.

Neither of the above offences would be likely to get anything near a 10-game ban.


On the Defoe case and the parallels - the rules on yellow cards and the ref having dealt with the offence are such that (so far as I know) the FA cannot change the decision of the ref. If, however, they decide that the offence is deserving of another charge they can impose one on top of the punishment doled out by the ref.
In the Defoe case it was decided that the standard charge of violent conduct was what the referees decision related to and no other charge was merited.
So it's not about whether the ref saw it or didn't - it's about the inconsistency with regards to how Suarez should be charged.
10 games for violent conduct seems strange but they didn't deem biting deserving of extra attention before.
What's changed? I guess we'll see tomorrow.

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Look at it this way, I know some people in America who say that English football is never on the news over there. However the Suarez bite was a major news item when it happened. So this incident is getting worldwide coverage because it's so out of the ordinary to bite someone. This is a serious incident and deserves a serious ban.

The notoriety is a function of the bizarre nature of the offence as opposed to how dangerous or damaging it was.
If Suarez had clocked Ivanovich it wouldn't have stood out nearly as much but would've been a far more serious offence.

jonnyfingers wrote: »

In fact a lot of rugby players on Twitter have been claiming 10 games is too lenient an if it was a rugby player they would have gotten more.

That isn't relevant.

tigger123

Considering his previous disciplinary record, a 10 match ban is appropriate.

adox

miralize wrote: »

I think he might go, but not just for the ban. As a person, he is ethically questionable but as a footballer, he's too good not to be playing CL in his prime. This ban will just add to the reasons in his eyes to move.

If he does go it will be of his own accord IMO. There is absolutely no way I can see Liverpool moving him on. It would be madness.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Amirani

darced wrote: »

I dont know hitler was bad too.

Strange post.

Al Capwned

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

KingdomYid

Play with fire and you get get burnt, take the ban and get on with it. The man is not 100% in the head imo and is a liability to a football club.

jonnyfingers

Gbear wrote: »

Generally speaking that's a fair enough point. The Keane example is the most clear cut. However, it's not the only tackle where the benefit of the doubt shouldn't be given to the offender.
Suarez' bite wasn't premeditated, unless he's genuinely certifably insane. It was clearly the act of frustration and poor aggression control.
Plenty of tackles look the very same.
It's fairly easy to tell apart a sort of "a propos of nothing" tackle and one where a player is racing around diving into challenges.
I'm not saying these tackles happen regularly but bites have only happened twice in the past 10 years.

Regardless, an element of interpretation is going to be required. I think that too much of a benefit of the doubt is given to reckless challenges.

Those that are premeditated or genuinely risk the lives of the victims stand even further apart from that (Keane and Ben Thatcher) and aren't what I'm limiting my point to.




I'll clarify what I meant.
An anology would be that murder carries certain penalties to those who commit it but killing someone isn't always murder. So if I push you, you slip on an unfortunately placed skateboard and fall down a stairs and die, it's not the same as if I shot you in the head.

The amount of damage that Suarez did and was likely to do given the strength of the bite is far less than if he had clocked someone or headbutted them.
The ban should reflect that.

Neither of the above offences would be likely to get anything near a 10-game ban.


On the Defoe case and the parallels - the rules on yellow cards and the ref having dealt with the offence are such that (so far as I know) the FA cannot change the decision of the ref. If, however, they decide that the offence is deserving of another charge they can impose one on top of the punishment doled out by the ref.
In the Defoe case it was decided that the standard charge of violent conduct was what the referees decision related to and no other charge was merited.
So it's not about whether the ref saw it or didn't - it's about the inconsistency with regards to how Suarez should be charged.
10 games for violent conduct seems strange but they didn't deem biting deserving of extra attention before.
What's changed? I guess we'll see tomorrow.




The notoriety is a function of the bizarre nature of the offence as opposed to how dangerous or damaging it was.
If Suarez had clocked Ivanovich it wouldn't have stood out nearly as much but would've been a far more serious offence.

I think we agree on most things actually, might just be coming at them from different angles. One thing I will say is I don't view a bite as harmful an act physically if you compare it with a headbutt to the nose or a very hard punch in the jaw. However a bite can easily draw blood so it is still a very serious act so I don't think any of them should be treated differently. All violent acts, including a bite are deserving of a lengthy ban, if nothing to show that they are completely unacceptable. The amount of harm they may cause, unless something is actually life threatening, is irrelevant in my opinion.

The FA do have a lot to answer for when it comes to retrospective action, the Defoe case being a clear example, but I think that's separate to today's ban which I think is fully justified. What they really do need to do is punish the next biting incident the same as this one. My guess is we won't see another biting incident for a long time, hopefully never. And if that becomes the case then there is a justification that the ban did it job. We'll have to wait and see.

jive

Fair ban IMO given his priors (which should be taken into account, the FA might be a kangaroo court but i don't see why people think they shouldn't take his history into account that's ridiculous). Realistically, he's missing 4 dead rubbers and 6 games at the start of next year. In my eyes that's basically a 6 game ban, unless you want to take into account that he might have gone on to be the top goalscorer but he made his bed so he can lie in it.

Also with people bringing up racism, not the first time that the FA have made inconsistent decisions is it? It's the FA, everyone knows the disciplinary committee is a laughing stock at this stage. Also a large difference is that the biting was caught on camera live during the match and anyone of any age can understand biting; they won't all understand racism and it wasn't broadcast to the masses in a recognisable manner at least. I'm not saying racism is ok before someone jumps the gun, just highlighting one of the differences. Also the fact that he has priors in this sort of behaviour before will obviously lend to a longer ban because he clearly hasn't or can't learn from his mistakes.

Comparing it to a bad tackle is laughable. Bad tackles can happen without the intent to injure someone and bans are _usually_ handed out. Biting doesn't just happen accidentally and the intent is clear for all to see.

Edit: biting is also far significant in my eyes when you consider the potential spread of disease that might result which wouldn't result from a headbutt or a punch

kraggy

CSF wrote: »

That is too much.

Montroseee wrote: »

10 games is definitely overkill, I'd say its highly likely he will be sold in the summer.

micar wrote: »

10 games, are they for really!!!!!!
I totally agree that he should have been banned but that's excessive.
The club will just have to accept it.
Do we write off next season now?????

While highly unlikely, the HIV virus can be passed through a human bite. It's a scummy and dangerous thing to do.

10 games is nothing if you ask me.