Liverpool Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Your right that Defoe did bite, and the circumstances are not so different, but because they let the card given on the pitch stand as the only punishment does not mean Suarez should in effect get away with it. But where do you really stand on this, on another thread you stated Suarez should be banned for the rest of the season then sold, but now it seems he should only get a slap on the wrist. Have you changed your mind?
- 2 Replies to dsteer_lfc_68
If that was in reply to me Steer.. I'm saying Suarez should've got the exact same punishment as Defoe did.. If the F.A want to be consistent. Anything else would be unduly harsh and would mean Suarez is targeted by the F.A.. Which is unfair. They should treat every player equally. Yes i feel Suarez has put a stain on our club. Ayre himself said Suarez won't be sold.
Like I said Dave, and it's not a "I told you so" (think you know that) and you probably expected as much, 10 games it is... Not surprised at all really, though they have a fair right to appeal, and perhaps get 7 or 8. Doubtful though, as I think this is the FA's way of saying to him, they've had enough of his antics, this offense certainly can't be tolerated, and after Fifa / Uefa gave a 10 match automatic ban for racist conduct, this is something along the same lines of having a consistent theme going forward. So I would imagine the next player who has a Balotelli/Barton moment of madness with spikes or headbutts will get 10 minimum as well..
In the end, it's hard to disagree no matter how disappointed we are, and love Suarez as a player. Biggest problem for me is that it causes such a bad issue to finish out this season strong, and come out of the gates faster next year, especially if we're dealt a hand like this term with City,Arsenal, United, all I the opening 4-5.. Ugg..
Armchair, Suarez is a repeat offender.
The FA are likely to take his previous track record of biting into account in this case, hence the governing body's statement that the standard punishment of a three-match ban is insufficient.
Defoe was given a yellow card in that match, as the ref had seen it and felt at the time it warranted a card, so the FA decided not to interject, and from my understanding Defoe was given no ban because of the ref's decision and card.
In this instance, the ref had not seen it, did not issue a yellow card, so the FA has free reigns to give any ban they deem necessary. And unfortunately, whether any of us likes it or not, or accepts it or not, his prior indiscretions will play a factor, so a ban for the remainder of this season only seems very unlikely, with something around 8 - 10 games looking very possible.
I'd love to say 5 and another hefty fine, and hope for that, but I doubt it, and sometimes I'm not sure he'll learn his lesson. I don't care what player, or what team, or what anyone else says, there's no room for BITING in any professional sport, especially not twice..
- 1 Reply to Jason
Jason its the wiggle free rule for the FA, if the ref includes something in the match report they can turn a blind eye, but if not they can do what they like. Personally I don' have a problem with Suarez getting a hefty ban, or there being a difference between the Defoe case and this one (would seem they got it wrong in the past considering the hand wringing over Suarez), but I do wish the FA would at least try to be consistent.
However I do think the calls for 10 or more games are a bit extreme. We I think were all disgusted at the time, and I don't think anyone is saying Suarez should not be punished, but lets try and put this into perspective. He's been charged with violent conduct, which seems fitting, but the statement calls the standard 3 match ban insufficient, at which I'd ask why?
Was it violent conduct? Absolutely, so what reasons are there to extend beyond the standard punishment. Perhaps flagrant, perhaps the level of violence, or maybe when a player is a serial offender. Well I could say it was flagrant, so add an extra match, or in the extreme even double it. But was it excessively violent, the ref could not even see the bite marks. Surely the two footed stamp by Aguero was at least as violent if not arguably more violent. Lastly is he a serial offender? Yes he has a reputation for controversy but has he been charged for violent content by the FA before?
Put it this way, how many matches did Barton get for 3 counts of Violent conduct last season. This is a player who was flagrant, extreme in his violence, and has in the past multiple charges for violent conduct in the past. He got 12 match ban, so is what Suarez did rise to that level?
I do agree with you that past conduct will come into play, but I'd also add another factor that seems to be in play, and that is the disgust or weirdness factor. For the first it is applicable, but the FA should not, and technically cannot take into account anything that is not under their jurisdiction. What Suarez did in Holland is therefore off the table (or should be), and the fact is this is his first charge for violent conduct under the FA. But the weirdness factor is the wildcard, which is worse and therefore should be punished more, a bite, a slap, a headbutt, a punch, a stomp, a spit, or maybe I should include scratching or hair pulling.
For me Suarez deserves a ban, I'd say anything from 4 matches to 6 matches, but anything beyond that and I think it will be a case of Suarez being treated differently either because of his reputation, because people just don't see to like him, or just think his behavior is weird.