How long will Suarez's ban be? Mod warning in OP and post#455

tayto lover

I find it sad that such a gifted footballer will be missing a big part of the season.
Gifted performers always seem to have a wee kink in them i.e. Alex Higgins, Georgie Best and Maradonna. Always living on the edge of controversy.

Lucas Hood

9 matches

BastardPrince wrote: »

look up the FIFA rules, self defence isn't an excuse for violent behaviour. or do you not understand that?

Ivanovic did almost the same thing no call for him to be banned.

Will I Amnt

8 matches

tayto lover wrote: »

I find it sad that such a gifted footballer will be missing a big part of the season.
Gifted performers always seem to have a wee kink in them i.e. Alex Higgins, Georgie Best and Maradonna. Always living on the edge of controversy.

There's plenty of gifted performers without behavioural issues and plenty of not so gifted with them.

CSF

6 month global ban

Ban probably about right. Sufficiently appropriate for a third offence without descending into pitchfork mob mentality.

The United fans who want to rile up the Liverpool fans, and those Liverpool fans who choose to post bizarre defences of Suarez for the 3rd major indiscretion since joining the club, these people make this forum much less pleasant to visit.

G1032

IvySlayer wrote: »

Does the administrative ban mean he can't be registered for CL/League?

Great point. Would love clarification on this?

K-9

Will I Amnt wrote: »

If a dog was chewing on your leg, what would you do? Pet him?

Box him in the head for days.

Will I Amnt

8 matches

K-9 wrote: »

Box him in the head for days.

Years actually.

#15

rarnes1 wrote: »

Mostly Utd fans telling me we should sell him funny enough. I'd imagine if it was Aspas it would be a different story ☺

In fairness, if it was someone like Aspas, there wouldn't be as many people on here defending him with such aggression.

WillPainter

How close are national football associations governed by FIFA?
For example, are the FA able to ignore FIFA's 4 month PL ban on Suarez?

SlickRic

why do people continue to talk about Liverpool fans defending SUAREZ?

it's about LIVERPOOL.

there is no defence of Suarez, and nobody is even trying to from what I can tell.

GavRedKing

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Ivanovic did almost the same thing no call for him to be banned.

No he didnt he pushed him off when he should have kicked him around anfield.

#15

#15 wrote: »

In fairness, if it was someone like Aspas, there wouldn't be as many people on here defending him with such aggression.

I've yet to meet anyone defending what he did the other night. It was ridiculous, bizzare.

Soft Falling Rain

WillPainter wrote: »

How close are national football associations governed by FIFA?
For example, are the FA able to ignore FIFA's 4 month PL ban on Suarez?

Why would they want to? The English FA have done Suarez enough times. They're probably delighted in truth.

Flem31

As a United supporter I think the four month ban for club football was excessive. The ban should have been for 5 or 6 international matches but for World Cup tournament games only.... so no using the ban up on meaningless friendlies or qualifiers. If the ban runs into next WC, so be it.

Having done it 3 times.....it is probably only a question of time before it happens again. He apparently has been meeting with Steve Peters while at Liverpool but within a matter of weeks, has lapsed into a reflex old habit. Sad to see and I hope I don't again.

Lucas Hood

9 matches

GavRedKing wrote: »

No he didnt he pushed him off when he should have kicked him around anfield.

He put his hands onto/into Suarezs face to push him away both were natural reactions to someone sinking their teeth into you.

Amirani

6 month global ban

WillPainter wrote: »

How close are national football associations governed by FIFA?
For example, are the FA able to ignore FIFA's 4 month PL ban on Suarez?

Nope. FIFA hold all the cards here really.

Pro. F

5 matches

M!Ck^ wrote: »

What exactly is deliberate? If I interpret a post one way and you interpret it another does that make you automatically correct? Are you the internet police?

I might suggest that you don't always need to be so sneaky with your posts. Man up.

It happens so often with you that you don't understand a post that other people can and your misunderstanding just so happens to suit your argument. It's completely obvious what you are doing and you've had plenty of people saying it to you. You should cop on.

GavRedKing

Lucas Hood wrote: »

He out his hands onto/into Suarezs face to push him away both were natural reactions to someone sinking their teeth into you.

Elbow > Hand

Ill give it to Suarez, biting Chiellini and Ivanovic, id pick easier victims TBH.

niallo27

1 match

GavRedKing wrote: »

Elbow > Hand

Ill give it to Suarez, biting Chiellini and Ivanovic, id pick easier victims TBH.

In fairness Ivanovic reacted with amazing calm after it happened.

Agueroooo

Pro. F wrote: »

It happens so often with you that you don't understand a post that other people can and your misunderstanding just so happens to suit your argument. It's completely obvious what you are doing and you've had plenty of people saying it to you. You should cop on.

Careful now you'll be accused of being sneaky.

ricero

misses first 9 games he only score 25 goals now next season :rolleyes:

Joe Exotic

10 matches

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Nope. FIFA hold all the cards here really.

Hmm i wonder do they, at first i agreed with the ban, but my brother pointed out that the situation is like me having two jobs and doing something stupid in one of them, but being suspended in both!!

not an exact analogy i know but you get my drift.

I think Liverpool could challenge this, maybe on more than one issue in effect they will have to pay his wages, they are being punished for something that happened in a different jurisdiction (by this i mean Liverpool are not an international team, not it happened in Brazil ), also would this ban be legal in England/Europe/Uefa

Just because FIFA have a rule does not mean it is legally binding

I don't think this has ever happened before? So how will employment law come into it, Suarez is banned from any involvement in football not just playing so is that infringing on his employment Rights?

Another analogy - could the Vintners Association(FIFA) Enforce a suspension from work(Liverpool) on an employee Who Bit someone at a conference(Assuming the Bar didn't want to fire him)

Im not saying either way on any of this and i'm far from a legal expert but i think there could be a lot of litigation before this is solved!!

CSF

6 month global ban

SlickRic wrote: »

why do people continue to talk about Liverpool fans defending SUAREZ?

it's about LIVERPOOL.

there is no defence of Suarez, and nobody is even trying to from what I can tell.

Liverpool don't really come into this, no matter how greatly affected they are. The punishment is for Suarez and the impact on Liverpool is unfortunate but secondary, and also a risk taken on when standing by somebody with his record. It is Suarez who has let Liverpool down with this ban, not FIFA.

I do feel bad for Rodgers though. Probably the classiest manager there is in the Premiership and does not deserve to be let down by Suarez like this.

Pro. F

5 matches

rarnes1 wrote: »

I've yet to meet anyone defending what he did the other night. It was ridiculous, bizzare.

There has been oodles of whataboutery and downplaying on here. If you haven't seen it then you just haven't been reading the threads.

CSF

6 month global ban

murphk wrote: »

Hmm i wonder do they, at first i agreed with the ban, but my brother pointed out that the situation is like me having two jobs and doing something stupid in one of them, but being suspended in both!!

not an exact analogy i know but you get my drift.

I think Liverpool could challenge this, maybe on more than one issue in effect they will have to pay his wages, they are being punished for something that happened in a different jurisdiction (by this i mean Liverpool are not an international team, not it happened in Brazil ), also would this ban be legal in England/Europe/Uefa

Just because FIFA have a rule does not mean it is legally binding

I don't think this has ever happened before? So how will employment law come into it, Suarez is banned from any involvement in football not just playing so is that infringing on his employment Rights?

Another analogy - could the Vintners Association(FIFA) Enforce a suspension from work(Liverpool) on an employee Who Bit someone at a conference(Assuming the Bar didn't want to fire him)

Im not saying either way on any of this and i'm far from a legal expert but i think there could be a lot of litigation before this is solved!!

Not a hope, the chap will serve the full ban and rightly so.

CSF

6 month global ban

Pro. F wrote: »

There has been oodles of whataboutery and downplaying on here. If you haven't seen it then you just haven't been reading the threads.

This. There is defending Suarez without saying it's ok to bite people, and defending him at all is ridiculous.

Of course the idiots talking about life bans or 1-2 year bans are there to be scoffed at, but people have been defending him a lot more than that, bringing the likes of Cantona into it who could not have less to do with this.

Joe Exotic

10 matches

CSF wrote: »

Not a hope, the chap will serve the full ban and rightly so.

Not a hope on What point ? The legal issues?

NomadicGray

10 matches

murphk wrote: »

Hmm i wonder do they, at first i agreed with the ban, but my brother pointed out that the situation is like me having two jobs and doing something stupid in one of them, but being suspended in both!!

If both your jobs were as closely affiliated as this then you would find you'd probably feel repercussions in both

EyeSight

murphk wrote: »

Hmm i wonder do they, at first i agreed with the ban, but my brother pointed out that the situation is like me having two jobs and doing something stupid in one of them, but being suspended in both!!

not an exact analogy i know but you get my drift.

I think Liverpool could challenge this, maybe on more than one issue in effect they will have to pay his wages, they are being punished for something that happened in a different jurisdiction (by this i mean Liverpool are not an international team, not it happened in Brazil ), also would this ban be legal in England/Europe/Uefa

Just because FIFA have a rule does not mean it is legally binding

I don't think this has ever happened before? So how will employment law come into it, Suarez is banned from any involvement in football not just playing so is that infringing on his employment Rights?

Another analogy - could the Vintners Association(FIFA) Enforce a suspension from work(Liverpool) on an employee Who Bit someone at a conference(Assuming the Bar didn't want to fire him)

Im not saying either way on any of this and i'm far from a legal expert but i think there could be a lot of litigation before this is solved!!

The analogy's don't carry over. FIFA govern all world football and the rules state they can ban players in their leagues from football. It's in contracts

They banned Franz Beckenbauer from all football activities, including stepping into any soccer stadium for 90 days recently

Panthro

GavRedKing wrote: »

Elbow > Hand

Ill give it to Suarez, biting Chiellini and Ivanovic, id pick easier victims TBH.

Taking on Ivanovic... That alone clear up any doubts that Suarez is in fact a few sparks short of a fire.
You can't eat a tank Suarez!

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

There has been oodles of whataboutery and downplaying on here. If you haven't seen it then you just haven't been reading the threads.

Not many defending it.

Some downplaying it? Perhaps

Plenty overplaying it too.

K-9

Fifa can worldwide ban, they have for doping and match fixing, this seems to be unprecedented though. Tbh I'd say Liverpool are on their own here, can't see the English FA making a big deal of it. The admin ban seems odd, Lfc mightn't be able to register him for tCL, yet Real/Barca can buy him for 80 million. Fifa know where their bread is buttered. Adidas also seem to think a third bite is beyond the pale!

Pro. F

5 matches

rarnes1 wrote: »

Not many defending it.

Some downplaying it? Perhaps

Plenty overplaying it too.

The downplaying and whataboutery is being done with the intention of defending Suarez, obviously. Stop playing dumb.

Edit: it's funny to see you jump straight to the whataboutery yourself there, with the reference to people over-playing the incident. I never denied that there are people overplaying the incident, that hasn't been debated. But you jump to it straight away as a way of deflecting from the fact that you were wrong when you tried to claim there haven't been people defending Suarez.

Lucas Hood

9 matches

Already gone from Adidas ad

niallo27

1 match

Pro. F wrote: »

The downplaying and whataboutery is being done with the intention of defending Suarez, obviously. Stop playing dumb.

What you want us to do. Agree with the posters who think he should get a life ban, have to wear a muzzle, could have killed him by giving him aids.

Joe Exotic

10 matches

EyeSight wrote: »

The analogy's don't carry over. FIFA govern all world football and the rules state they can ban players in their leagues from football. It's in contracts

They banned Franz Beckenbauer from all football activities, including stepping into any soccer stadium for 90 days recently

True about Beckenbauer I'd forgotten that,

Two points though he was on a FIFA committee so in essence their employee and also that was very recent.

Also just because Beckenbauer hasn't challenged it in a court (there would be no benefit) doesn't mean Liverpool/Suarez can't

On the analogy its not as far off as you suggest FIFA is the ruling body of a voluntary organisation it doesn't have any statutory rights in any country im aware of. Liverpool is a PLC who happen to be a member of the PL and Through them UEFA and then FIFA, but its relationship with its employees is ruled by English employment law not FIFA, If the law doesn't allow this the Liverpool won't be able to enforce it

I reckon this punishment has been made intentionally harsh and may come down on appeal.

Pro. F

5 matches

niallo27 wrote: »

What you want us to do. Agree with the posters who think he should get a life ban, have to wear a muzzle, could have killed him by giving him aids.

I don't want you to do anything. Rarnes1 tried to pretend that people haven't been defending Suarez, that's obviously untrue, so I pointed it out to him.

HigginsJ

I'm a United fan.

Think the ban is about fair really. I know most people on here probably couldn't care less what sort of fine/international ban he got (unless you had a few bob on Uruguay to do well) & that it was all about the domestic ban.

I feel Liverpool do get a bit of a raw deal out of this but they bought him under a cloud & have backed him through 2 long bans so probably realised that this was a possibility of happening again in future. Suarez should be ashamed of himself & he owes Liverpool so much for what they have done for him but he continues to let them & their fans down.

I see a lot of people have brought up the Cantona incident & have said it was much worse. I agree it was but it was just a once off. Can you also imagine the reaction to it in today's social media, politically correct, nannified world. He possibly may have never been allowed to play football again. But comparing incidents and bans from modern day to 20 years ago is pointless as they really were different times

ROCKMAN

12 month global ban

Has there been any word on an appeal ?
And if he was to appeal (unsuccessfully )would it push back the start of the 4 month ban ?

Agueroooo

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Has there been any word on an appeal ?
And if he was to appeal (unsuccessfully )would it push back the start of the 4 month ban ?

Uruguay fed are appealing as far as I know.

Fuhrer

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Has there been any word on an appeal ?
And if he was to appeal (unsuccessfully )would it push back the start of the 4 month ban ?

If he were to be unsuccessful, the ban would probably be increased.

Agueroooo

Fuhrer wrote: »

If he were to be unsuccessful, the ban would probably be increased.

Think this was cleared up earlier onTwitter. I will try and find the link.

Basically no grounds for increase due to failed appeal.

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

The downplaying and whataboutery is being done with the intention of defending Suarez, obviously. Stop playing dumb.

Edit: it's funny to see you jump straight to the whataboutery yourself there, with the reference to people over-playing the incident. I never denied that there are people overplaying the incident, that hasn't been debated. But you jump to it straight away as a way of deflecting from the fact that you were wrong when you tried to claim there haven't been people defending Suarez.

People are defending Suarez as a Liverpool player, not defending the incident. Stop playing dumb.

EyeSight

murphk wrote: »

True about Beckenbauer I'd forgotten that,

Two points though he was on a FIFA committee so in essence their employee and also that was very recent.

Also just because Beckenbauer hasn't challenged it in a court (there would be no benefit) doesn't mean Liverpool/Suarez can't

On the analogy its not as far off as you suggest FIFA is the ruling body of a voluntary organisation it doesn't have any statutory rights in any country im aware of. Liverpool is a PLC who happen to be a member of the PL and Through them UEFA and then FIFA, but its relationship with its employees is ruled by English employment law not FIFA, If the law doesn't allow this the Liverpool won't be able to enforce it

I reckon this punishment has been made intentionally harsh and may come down on appeal.

I get what you're saying but FIFA have a lot of rules and stipulations in place to allow them to do this.
FIFA make rules which UEFA(and the FA) accept by joining FIFA. E.g. If FIFA say no player can take their shirt off during celebration, the FA must impose it because they agreed to follow FIFA rules and guidelines.
They are not saying Suarez cannot be employed, so they are not breaking employment laws. They are saying he can't play in matches. I assume Suarez is still getting paid, but Liverpool can fine or sue him depending on his contract - there are rumors they had some clause about behavior in his contract
Liverpool would have some basis for appeal, but I think they would lose

Robson99

Cant believe some think that the punishment was severe. Seemed about right considering that this is the third time he has been found guilty of BITING an opponent. Dogs and Rats bite, humans dont. Biting and spitting at an opponent are the lowest of the low in sport.
Lets not forget he has also been found guilty of Racism as well.
As regards the punishment being harsh on Liverpool , well what goes around comes around. Silly T-Shirts and defending him to the last on his two previous encounters while at Lfc has come back to bite them

Dolph Starbeam

12 month global ban

Have to agree with Hansen, although Uruguay obviously want him available as soon as possible, the way they are completely ignoring what happened is disgraceful. I would love to see Fifa punish Uruguay even more if they try and appeal this ban.

Hopefully people remember this World Cup for the goals and excellent matches more than for this ridiculous event.

sabat

1 match

Robson99 wrote: »

Silly T-Shirts and defending him to the last on his two previous encounters while at Lfc has come back to bite them

I know, they wound up stuck with the best player in England on their books-serious egg on face there.

martin jackson

all the man u ****ed and chelsky fans are delighted with the ban, and if you check you will find that most papers photoshopped the pictures to make it look like he had taken a chunk out of him

Robson99

sabat wrote: »

I know, they wound up stuck with the best player in England on their books-serious egg on face there.

4 months nowhere near the club now. Egg on the face

same ol sh1te

martin jackson wrote: »

all the man u ****ed and chelsky fans are delighted with the ban, and if you check you will find that most papers photoshopped the pictures to make it look like he had taken a chunk out of him

So you think Fifas decision was wrong as it was based on Photoshopped images?