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

Benimar

CSF wrote: »

The ban should be increased for the frivolous nature of the appeal, no question.

It's his original statement, not the appeal.

Any additional penalty for his defence is included in the 4 month ban.

secman

Fcking liar , really don't get the guy, nothing between the ears, hard to have any sympathy for him at all. Liverpool owners must be really really pissed off with him, complete toe rag.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

The ban should be increased for the frivolous nature of the appeal, no question.

It's not his appeal

Corholio

Yet again, the impact of something Suarez done could have been lessened with a reasonable response, but instead it is met with a bat**** crazy one.

He's lucky the ban isn't increased with such an insulting defence. It's a pity his football brain seems to be a completely separate part from his actual brain.

niallo27

1 match

Pro. F wrote: »

You lost by one goal to Southampton and drew with Swansea, so to say you think that one of the best strikers in the world wouldn't have made any difference is ridiculous. You can work out yourself how much use 4 extra points would have been in such a close title race.

Who knows they could have lost them all as well. What about the 33 he did play. They were quiet impressive.

Grayditch

7 matches

I'm not sure he had a choice. I'd say that was drawn up before the game was even over and the Uruguay camp handed it to him and said "here dopey-hole, here's what you say".

More speculation, but I'd say the "supportive" Uruguay team and staff are letting their feelings be know to him. There's no way they're all smiles and backpats behind the scenes, when he's just taken a dump on their chances.

Fescue

rarnes1 wrote: »

It's not his appeal

This was his defence to the original hearing?

Insane as it was, they obviously chanced their arm at some kind of excuse in the hope he got off.

Pro. F

5 matches

niallo27 wrote: »

Who knows they could have lost them all as well. What about the 33 he did play. They were quiet impressive.

Yeah, or he could have broken his leg in his first game back.

The 33 games he played, were amazing. To try and pretend that him being available for more games, games where you dropped points against mid-table opposition, wouldn't have been a huge benefit is nonsense.

niallo27

1 match

Are people here actually genuinely upset at what Suarez has done. Some posters here actually sound quiet distressed and upset at the whole thing.

Pro. F

5 matches

niallo27 wrote: »

Are people here actually genuinely upset at what Suarez has done. Some posters here actually sound quiet distressed and upset at the whole thing.

Who?

Fescue

Fescue wrote: »

This was his defence to the original hearing?

Insane as it was, they obviously chanced their arm at some kind of excuse in the hope he got off.

That's it, it was a pathetic defense but one they hoped might pay off and he might get off.

I do expect him to be some sort of apology but tbh I don;t really give a fcuk about Uruguay and if he never plays for them again, I hope he doesn't actually. I just hope he apologies to the Liverpool management and players for letting them down.

niallo27

1 match

Pro. F wrote: »

Yeah, or he could have broken his leg in his first game back.

The 33 games he played, were amazing. To try and pretend that him being available for more games, games where you dropped points against mid-table opposition, wouldn't have been a huge benefit is nonsense.

I'm not trying to pretend that at all. I was replying to your post where you said you now hope liverpool keep him. For me a liverpool with a 30 game Suarez is better than a liverpool with a 38 game top striker.

Fr. Ned

12 month global ban

niallo27 wrote: »

Are people here actually genuinely upset at what Suarez has done. Some posters here actually sound quiet distressed and upset at the whole thing.

Outraged, I'd call it....

Will someone pleeeeeease think of the children.........

niallo27

1 match

Pro. F wrote: »

Who?

I'm talking in general. From people who didn't want to explain Suarez actions to his son to people calling him every name I can think off. I know you find it funny yourself, I want to know what other people are thinking.

Tipsy McSwagger

1 match

Pro. F wrote: »

It's a weird one all right. I'm delighted he's making Liverpool look bad and giving me a laugh at the club's expense. I had been hoping that they would sell him because he's so good, but the laughs he provides, coupled with the lengthy bans (which limit all forms of damage he can do) mean I'd be sad now if that happened.

This is what it comes down to really. Fans of other premiership clubs are faking moral outrage to hide the fact that they are afraid of what Suarez can do to their team. They don't care about bringing the game into disrepute or thuggish behaviour, they just want him to be unavailable (or even better sold) to play against the team they support.

Fuhrer

Fr. Ned

12 month global ban

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

This is what it comes down to really. Fans of other premiership clubs are faking moral outrage to hide the fact that they are afraid of what Suarez can do to their team. They don't care about bringing the game into disrepute or thuggish behaviour, they just want him to be unavailable to play against the team they support.

That about sums it up ok.

Tipsy McSwagger

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

This is what it comes down to really. Fans of other premiership clubs are faking moral outrage to hide the fact that they are afraid of what Suarez can do to their team. They don't care about bringing the game into disrepute or thuggish behaviour, they just want him to be unavailable to play against the team they support.

That's it in a nutshell.

monkey9

Pro. F wrote: »

Who?

Read the thread.

monkey9

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

This is what it comes down to really. Fans of other premiership clubs are faking moral outrage to hide the fact that they are afraid of what Suarez can do to their team. They don't care about bringing the game into disrepute or thuggish behaviour, they just want him to be unavailable (or even better sold) to play against the team they support.

Exactly and at the same time wanting Liverpool fans to agree with them.

Tipsy McSwagger

1 match

rarnes1 wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell.

If it was Sebastian Coates nobody would give a shyte.

Shanotheslayer

6 month global ban

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

If it was Sebastian Coates nobody would give a shyte.

Nothing to do with who it was. It was a disgusting act that warranted a ban whoever did it. Couldn't give a shyte if Suarez played against my team or not.

Pilsbury Doughboy

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

This is what it comes down to really. Fans of other premiership clubs are faking moral outrage to hide the fact that they are afraid of what Suarez can do to their team. They don't care about bringing the game into disrepute or thuggish behaviour, they just want him to be unavailable (or even better sold) to play against the team they support.

Well said.

Fuhrer

monkey9 wrote: »

Exactly and at the same time wanting Liverpool fans to agree with them.

So, just like Uruguay were saying, its just a vast global conspiracy against Suarez.

Pro. F

5 matches

niallo27 wrote: »

I'm not trying to pretend that at all. I was replying to your post where you said you now hope liverpool keep him. For me a liverpool with a 30 game Suarez is better than a liverpool with a 38 game top striker.

You said "Liverpool had a great start to the season last year so I don't think Suarez being out made any difference." and "Who knows they could have lost them all as well." So yes, you are unquestionably trying to pretend that Suarez being available for more games last season wouldn't have made a difference. That is a ridiculous argument.

I'd say it's a very close call between having a ban prone Suarez (if he gets another ban it could be a whopper) and having, say, £60m, in other players in the team. It all depends on how well you think that money would be spent, how hard Suarez would be to replace and how likely you think he is to get banned again. I'm sure your opinion would be different to mine, but I'm happy if he stays. He's box office for good and bad reasons for all fans.

Pilsbury Doughboy

Also any numpties that are calling him scum, vile and disgusting human being etc need to cop the fack on, if having a few nibbles at players on a football field generates that response then what would be you be calling murderers rapists paedos etc? Try and get a grasp on reality please.

Fuhrer

Pilsbury Doughboy wrote: »

Also any numpties that are calling him scum, vile and disgusting human being etc need to cop the fack on, if having a few nibbles at players on a football field generates that response then what would be you be calling murderers rapists paedos etc? Try and get a grasp on reality please.

Dont forget the Racism.

niallo27

1 match

Pro. F wrote: »

You said "Liverpool had a great start to the season last year so I don't think Suarez being out made any difference." and "Who knows they could have lost them all as well." So yes, you are unquestionably trying to pretend that Suarez being available for more games last season wouldn't have made a difference. That is a ridiculous argument.

I'd say it's a very close call between having a ban prone Suarez (if he gets another ban it could be a whopper) and having, say, £60m, in other players in the team. It all depends on how well you think that money would be spent, how hard Suarez would be to replace and how likely you think he is to get banned again. I'm sure your opinion would be different to mine, but I'm happy if he stays. He's box office for good and bad reasons for all fans.

That's fair enough. At least your honest and don't pretend to be morally outraged. You just want the worst for liverpool which I can totally understand.

Pro. F

5 matches

niallo27 wrote: »

I'm talking in general. From people who didn't want to explain Suarez actions to his son to people calling him every name I can think off. I know you find it funny yourself, I want to know what other people are thinking.

No, you weren't talking in general. You said "Some posters here actually sound quiet distressed". Which posters?

Will I Amnt

8 matches

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

This is what it comes down to really. Fans of other premiership clubs are faking moral outrage to hide the fact that they are afraid of what Suarez can do to their team. They don't care about bringing the game into disrepute or thuggish behaviour, they just want him to be unavailable (or even better sold) to play against the team they support.

That's a load of nonsense and just trying to downplay the reaction.
I put it to you that you are covering up your feelings on it. If it was one of your mates that got bitten by some scumbag down the pub would you tell him to man up it's only a bite?

Pilsbury Doughboy

Another bs argument ^^^^ If that happened in an office, if that happened it the pub, but it happened on a football pitch that's the problem with that argument.

Will I Amnt

8 matches

Any use of the word nibble in this thread is also defensive downplaying. The irony of somebody using it while claiming an overreaction in the same post is laughable.

Tipsy McSwagger

1 match

Will I Amnt wrote: »

That's a load of nonsense and just trying to downplay the reaction.
I put it to you that you are covering up your feelings on it. If it was one of your mates that got bitten by some scumbag down the pub would you tell him to man up it's only a bite?

I expressed my feelings shortly after the incident in the Liverpool thread. I said he should be banned.

I wasn't happy about him being banned to play for LFC when FIFA handed down his punishment.

Pilsbury Doughboy

Oh sorry I thought it was a nibble, I must have missed the chunk of flesh Suarez had in his mouth and the blood gushing.

Will I Amnt

8 matches

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I expressed my feelings shortly after the incident in the Liverpool thread. I said he should be banned.

Then why do you think opposition fans are faking their feelings on it?

Shanotheslayer

6 month global ban

Pilsbury Doughboy wrote: »

Another bs argument ^^^^ If that happened in an office, but it happened on a football pitch that's the problem with that argument.

So it happend at a place of work.

Will I Amnt

8 matches

Pilsbury Doughboy wrote: »

Another bs argument ^^^^ If that happened in an office, if that happened it the pub, but it happened on a football pitch that's the problem with that argument.

No point in replying to me, I just don't have the interest to argue with that kind of logic.

adox

6 month global ban

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

This is what it comes down to really. Fans of other premiership clubs are faking moral outrage to hide the fact that they are afraid of what Suarez can do to their team. They don't care about bringing the game into disrepute or thuggish behaviour, they just want him to be unavailable (or even better sold) to play against the team they support.

That's pretty unfair. Whoever did it(three times remember) is always going to draw attention to themselves for doing such a bizarre thing on the pitch and multiple times at that. They were always going to make the headlines whoever they were. The fact that it was Suarez from Liverpool is just a huge bonus for the rest of us and of course we are loving it really.

But they aren't both mutually exclusive and I would say most hold both opinions.

It's kinda karma as well for Liverpool the way they have handled controversies over the last couple of seasons.

Fescue

Will I Amnt wrote: »

That's a load of nonsense and just trying to downplay the reaction.
I put it to you that you are covering up your feelings on it. If it was one of your mates that got bitten by some scumbag down the pub would you tell him to man up it's only a bite?

Ah heyor, you're losing the run of yourself!

If someone down the pub slide tackled me I'm sure my reaction would be a little different than if it had been on a football pitch.

There is no defence for what Suarez has done. I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. What he did wasn't particularly dangerous, it didn't alter Chiellini's career. It was weird more than anything else. Almost insane.

The faux outrage seems strongest from those people who support Utd. Why is that?

To be fair if Suarez was a Utd player, most of the Liverpool supporters would be in here hamming it up like wise.

Grayditch

7 matches

Oh Jesus, the off-pitch comparisons again...

secman

Pilsbury Doughboy wrote: »

Oh sorry I thought it was a nibble, I must have missed the chunk of flesh Suarez had in his mouth and the blood gushing.

It's really irrelevant that he is not very good at biting, it's the biting itself that is the problem and more so that he doesn't see it as a problem.

Tipsy McSwagger

1 match

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Then why do you think opposition fans are faking their feelings on it?

I believe the ban was too severe (5 match ban for Uruguay, big fine and treatment) while they agreed with it or wanted a longer ban.

Will I Amnt

8 matches

Grayditch wrote: »

Oh Jesus, the off-pitch comparisons again...

What the hell is wrong with off-pitch comparisons. The blanket dismissal of them is ridiculous.
The act of biting somebody is the same wherever it happens, it has as much place in a pub as on a football pitch, absolutely zero.

Shanotheslayer

6 month global ban

Will I Amnt wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with off-pitch comparisons. The blanket dismissal of them is ridiculous.
The act of biting somebody is the same wherever it happens, it has as much place in a pub as on a football pitch, absolutely zero.

Agree with this 100%

Tipsy McSwagger

1 match

Will I Amnt wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with off-pitch comparisons. The blanket dismissal of them is ridiculous.
The act of biting somebody is the same wherever it happens, it has as much place in a pub as on a football pitch, absolutely zero.

If that was true then why wasn't Cantona arrested for assaulting a supporter?

Will I Amnt

8 matches

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I believe the ban was too severe (3 match ban for Uruguay, big fine and treatment) while they agreed with it or wanted a longer ban.

That's not what your post was about though. You said opposition fans were faking moral outrage or something to that effect. I find biting deplorable, do you believe me or not? What do you think of it?

Pro. F

5 matches

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

This is what it comes down to really. Fans of other premiership clubs are faking moral outrage to hide the fact that they are afraid of what Suarez can do to their team. They don't care about bringing the game into disrepute or thuggish behaviour, they just want him to be unavailable (or even better sold) to play against the team they support.

I think you are severely underestimating how much vitriol most fans have built up for the highly paid prima donnas we watch every week.

If it was a nobody player - who had been caught biting opponents on three separate occasions and received a 4 month general football ban for the most recent bite in a high profile WC game - there would have been one thread with about 30 posts. There still would have been plenty of vitriol because we all do like giving out about footballers. It just would have blown over more quickly because there would have been nobody there who cared to defend the player.

Royal Irish

12 month global ban

adox wrote: »

That's pretty unfair. Whoever did it(three times remember) is always going to draw attention to themselves for doing such a bizarre thing on the pitch and multiple times at that. They were always going to make the headlines whoever they were. The fact that it was Suarez from Liverpool is just a huge bonus for the rest of us and of course we are loving it really.

But they aren't both mutually exclusive and I would say most hold both opinions.

It's kinda karma as well for Liverpool the way they have handled controversies over the last couple of seasons.

Also don't forget that most people on here support the big 4 clubs and Suarez never really used to deliver against them and got most of his goals against the smaller clubs.

Will I Amnt

8 matches

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

If that was true then why wasn't Cantona arrested for assaulting a supporter?

Eh, he was...

Tipsy McSwagger

1 match

Will I Amnt wrote: »

That's not what your post was about though. You said opposition fans were faking moral outrage or something to that effect. I find biting deplorable, do you believe me or not? What do you think of it?

I don't like it but I find career ending tackles to be a lot worse to be honest.

Edit - I was watching the USA V Brazil game at USA 94 this morning and Leonardo's elbow to the US players head was 100 times worse than what Suarez did and he only got a 3 game ban.