The Liverpool Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve*
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 44K
  • Views Views 3M
Pepe what a hero tbf I bet most defenders felt like doing that at some point lol..... seriously though this whole suarez affair is a difficult one and the FA are in between a rock and a hard place me personally would've probably given him 7 the same as what he got for the whole ajax bite. That being said I think given the variety of punishments and people who have gotten away with stuff I think the disciplinary system needs overhauling.
Also on a side note and this is just personal opinion, a two footed tackle is dangerous to someones career etc BUT at the end of the day its an extension of the game albeit a reckless one. But to actually bite someone? that is a whole different thought process and is a bit scary considering the amount of youngsters who imitate prem stars. When I watch my partners lad play on a sunday the amount of dives and feigning injury is quite worrying so yeah IMO even though the ban is harsh he deserves it (if that makes sense)
 
Well I managed to lose my longass post so i wish you all merry xmas and a happy new year.
 
iamauser said:
Opinions seem to be the same around the other teams managers too.

His previous has been considered, and the ban is way OTT.
Click to expand...


Part of the length comes down to the fact that Suarez didn't appreciate how serious biting someone is.

I think 10 games is slightly high (I'd have given him 7-8). But then this was entirely avoidable. Dont freaking bite someone unprovoked.

The Sanction
76. Having considered that the standard punishment is clearly insufficient, we then
went on to deliberate what appropriate level of sanction was to be applied.


77. In this regard, we noted that there were no guidelines or precedence for this
type of incident. However, we were mindful that we need to be concentrating
on the circumstances of this incident and comparable violent conduct offences
as a guide and not be tempted to compare with other dissimilar cases.

We were
also aware that the Rules, Regulations and practices have evolved and any
temptations to refer to historical cases and sanctions would be wrong.




78. We, therefore, considered and gave regards to the two previous cases, which
the circumstances of the incidents were deemed to be truly exceptional and
where there were claims by The FA that the standard punishments were clearly
insufficient.


79. One such case was of Eden Hazard, of Chelsea, who was charged after kicking
a ball boy in January 2013 at Chelsea’s League Cup semi-final match against
Swansea City. On that occasion, the Regulatory Commission found that the
standard punishment was sufficient and decided that a three-match suspension
was deemed appropriate.


80. Another such case was of Ashley Barnes, of Brighton & Hove Albion, who was
charged after tripping the Referee in March 2013 at Brighton & Hove Albion’s
match against Bolton Wanderers. On that occasion, the Regulatory Commission
found that the standard punishment was insufficient and decided to award a
further three-match suspension, making a total of six-match suspension (in
addition to one extra match suspension for his second dismissal of the season).


81. We wished to note that the case of Ben Thatcher, of Manchester City, who was
charged with serious foul play in 2006 against Pedro Mendes, of Portsmouth, as
cited by Mr Suarez is dissimilar to the violent conduct offence we were dealing
with for Mr Suarez and, therefore, did not take it into consideration.



82. We found earlier under the factors a – g that:
82.1. Mr Suarez deliberately and purposefully bit into Mr Ivanovic’s arm in an
unprovoked attack in an off the ball incident;


82.2. Mr Suarez intended to cause injury to Mr Ivanovic with his bite – albeit
no evidence of injury;


82.3. The nature of biting an opponent is in itself extremely shocking,
unexpected and truly exceptional;


82.4. The incidents of biting an opponent in football are very rare at the
moment and we need to ensure that it will remain so;


82.5. We have the responsibility for the whole game of football in England,
down to the youth football at grassroots level, and it is our duty to
discourage any players at any level from acting in such a deplorable
manner or attempting to copy what they had seen on the television;


82.6. This truly shocking incident had been seen by millions of viewers both
domestic and overseas, as well as generating a great deal of interest and
debate amongst countless numbers of people;


82.7. Whilst we accepted that Mr Suarez’s reputation had been impacted,
these unsavoury pictures would have given a bad image of English
football domestically and across the world alike;


82.8. All players in the higher level of the game are seen as role models, have
the duty to act professionally and responsibly, and set the highest
example of good conduct to rest of the game – especially to young
players. In this regard and on this occasion, Mr Suarez’s conduct had
fallen far below the standards expected of him;


82.9. The participants in a game of football do not expect to be bitten by
another participant when they come to play football. In this incident, Mr
Ivanovic would not, and should not, have been expected to be subject to
such a shocking and reprehensible action.


83. Taking these factors into account on the circumstances of the incident, we
concluded that this offence is significantly more serious than that of Ashley
Barnes’ and, accordingly, the punishment should be significantly higher.


84. We took into consideration of Mr Suarez’s apology, his personal statement,
supporting letter from Mr Brendan Rodgers and the letter from Ms Zoe Ward.
But when these were read in conjunction with Mr Suarez’s denial of the
standard punishment that would otherwise apply for violent conduct is clearly
insufficient, it seemed to us that Mr Suarez has not fully appreciated the gravity
and seriousness of this truly exceptional incident.


85. We were mindful that, in a game of football, the coming together of opposing
players and physical bodily contacts in challenging for the ball is part of the
game – albeit some of the challenges, regrettably, could lead to more serious
injuries.



86. However, the incident of biting an opponent is alien to football and must
remains so. It is completely unacceptable and such truly disgraceful behaviour
could also lead to possible health issues.


87. We also felt that the purpose of our decision should not only be a punishment
to Mr Suarez for the offence committed, but must also be sending a strong
message that such deplorable behaviours do not have a place in football.


88. After taking everything into consideration, we decided that Mr Suarez must
serve an additional seven-match suspension on top of the automatic three
match suspension.


89. Whilst we noted Mr Suarez’s further submission that any additional match
suspensions should be suspended for a certain period of time, we did not find
good cause to suspend any of the additional match suspension.


90. We, therefore, ordered that Mr Suarez serve an immediate suspension until
such time as Liverpool First Team has completed 10 recognised qualifying
matches.


91. This decision is subject to the right of appeal in accordance with the Schedule D
of Standard Directions under the FA Regulations.
Click to expand...

If you want a comparison to other sports, biting in rugby carries a heavier penalty than a late/high/spear tackle. In fact the penalty goes from 12 weeks to 4 YEARS.
 
DarloGeorge96 said:
So every player stamps, kicks, and pulls the hair of other players? Really?
Click to expand...

The report states previous offences were not took into consideration, so all these videos mean nothing as the FA punished him for this act alone

The problem with this is the consistency of the bans given to most people, it wavers with the FA which is what the main problem is

He deserves a ban, nobody is disputing that, its the fact it seems a very severe ban compared to how the FA have conducted themselves in the past on other violent conduct charges
 
LFCMarshall said:
The report states previous offences were not took into consideration, so all these videos mean nothing as the FA punished him for this act alone

The problem with this is the consistency of the bans given to most people, it wavers with the FA which is what the main problem is

He deserves a ban, nobody is disputing that, its the fact it seems a very severe ban compared to how the FA have conducted themselves in the past on other violent conduct charges
Click to expand...

Read the report, and see why its pointless to come back to Defoe for example.
 
LFCMarshall said:
The report states previous offences were not took into consideration, so all these videos mean nothing as the FA punished him for this act alone

The problem with this is the consistency of the bans given to most people, it wavers with the FA which is what the main problem is

He deserves a ban, nobody is disputing that, its the fact it seems a very severe ban compared to how the FA have conducted themselves in the past on other violent conduct charges
Click to expand...


I werent talking about that I was saying he is a dangerous player. The video's were to prove it
 
Sir Alex Ferguson offered his unlikely support to Liverpool last night as the Manchester United manager waded into the storm surrounding Luis Suárez with a fierce attack on the Football Association.
Suárez announced his decision yesterday not to appeal against a ten-match suspension for biting Branislav Ivanovic, the Chelsea defender, during the teams’ 2-2 draw at Anfield on Sunday.

But Ferguson said that he could understand why Liverpool felt “aggrieved” and claimed the Merseyside club had been wise not to suspend Suárez before the FA took action, after alleging that English football’s governing body broke promises given to United over the Eric Cantona kung-fu kick uproar in 1995.

Ferguson said David Davies, during his time as an FA executive, had told him that if United gave Cantona a four-month ban for his attack on a Crystal Palace supporter, the governing body would not take further action, only then to increase the suspension to nine months.

“I think back to Cantona and I have to say that a nine-month ban doesn’t equate to a ten-match, does it?” Ferguson said. “I think that I can understand how Liverpool are aggrieved at it. I keep going back to [Cantona] — the FA had done us that day. We would never allow that to happen now.

“I would never have listened to them in the first place saying that if you make your punishment we’ll be happy, and we did that by giving him a four-month ban and then they turned round two or three days [later, and said], ‘Right, we’re charging him.’ We would never allow that to happen again.”

Asked if that was why Liverpool had not taken similar action in the case of Suárez, Ferguson added: “I bet they’re glad they didn’t.

“It didn’t work with us, that’s for sure. David Davies promised us that if we did it [ban Cantona], there’d be no more action taken — ****** ****. If you think about it — a nine-month ban, it’s quite incredible, I still can’t get round that, but there you are.”
 
Mike. said:
Part of the length comes down to the fact that Suarez didn't appreciate how serious biting someone is.

I think 10 games is slightly high (I'd have given him 7-8). But then this was entirely avoidable. Dont freaking bite someone unprovoked.



If you want a comparison to other sports, biting in rugby carries a heavier penalty than a late/high/spear tackle. In fact the penalty goes from 12 weeks to 4 YEARS.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Liverpool's legal team dropped a ******* on this one. Again.
 
Haha. Well this report explains it all. FA actually did fine job for once and Liverpool has managed to spectacularily bomb itself.

The hours of my life wasted arguing about this on the internet...wasted, for nothing. It makes me so angry think I might go and bite someone.
 
Lee said:
The committee should be able to make their own minds up without being told that 3 games wasn't enough.
Click to expand...
The written reasons cleared up this at the least. From what it says in the reasons the Regulatory Commission are only allowed to go above the standard punishment if the FA mention in the charge that they view the standard punishment to be clearly insufficient. Then the Regulatory commission can decide whether or not the charge is proven and whether to extend the ban.
 
superb play by liverpool, or should i say poor play from us... feels like the championship's getting closer than ever. :@
 
What a beastly pair of signings Coutinho and Sturridge have been. Its about time we made a couple of good ones!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top