• Liverpool Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Robert M Robert M Apr 25, 2013 16:26 Flag


    Specifically the biting. The fact that the earlier one was in Holland is irrelevant to me. He was given a seven match ban. It didn't cure him. That suggests to me a longer ban is appropriate.

    And generally, everything. He has had a poor disciplinary record everywhere he has been, including Liverpool. I have just discovered he was red carded at fifteen for head-butting a referee. You couldn't make it up!


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Dave, sorry about the threading. I can't make any sense of it.

      I'd make two points which I think might have a bearing on the sentence. Both are in the realm of speculation. We'll hopefully know soon.

      The first is that the football authorities might want to penalise in an exemplary way a behaviour which is exceptional and which they don't wish to see become part of football. They would recognise it as not being as violent as, say, Sturridge's kick on Bertrand but wish to penalise it more firmly anyway. There are already two precedents for this. One is the racial abuse. That is given four, eight, ten matches by authorities. The other, which has seemingly passed by this debate, is shoving of referees. Referees don't get injured when shoved by players but we regard it as an attack on the game and it has been punished by ten and eleven match bans. In this light I think it is plausible for the authorities to regard a new form of bad behaviour as something to be, er, stamped on rather firmly.

      The other is whether Suarez compounded the issue at the time by lying to the referee. Remember when Hazard was sent off for tickling the ball boy. Before he went Chris Foy had a discussion with him and Lampard. It appeared that before the discussion Foy wasn't reaching for the red card but after some words were said he brought it out. My impression is he asked Hazzard what happened and Hazzard said he kicked the ball when the ball boy was on it and that was that. In this case the ref ought to have asked Suarez about Ivanovic's complaint and Suarez, being Suarez, would have given the JT response so the ref didn't penalise him. Then in the ref's report he tells the FA he let Suarez stay on because Suarez had lied to him, thus resulting in Liverpool getting a point and denying Chelsea two that they almost certainly would have got, the FA might consider this needs a bigger ban. You might remember the FA initially said that A three match ban for Hazzard was plainly not enough too.

      I admit that is highly speculative. It in fact looks like the ref didn't ask Suarez anything and Suarez doesn't seem to be denying anything. Instead the ref just appears to be telling both Ivanovic and Suarez to calm it down and Suarez looks rather relieved. I hope that whatever happened here is detailed in the report.


    • Robert you are absolutely right, this system cannot be described with words we are allowed to post here.

      But I do think the FA cannot nor should take the view it's "Suarez Again". Rules or laws whether designed to apply to a game of football, or the laws of the land are supposed to be universal, apply to everyone equally, and not single out individuals. This view actually would seem to mirror much of those critical of the FA that it smacks of punishing the man because of who he is, rather than the act he is accused of.

      Its understandable for individuals whether on a message board, down the pub or even in the daily rags to judge Suarez based on who they think he is, but the FA should only judge him on the facts as they know them of what he actually did. The day that refs, disciplinary boards or those charged with enforcing law at any level decide they can judge based on who someone is, rather than what they actually did will be a very sad day imo.

    • Thanks Robert, but you do understand that under FA rules they are not supposed to consider things outside their jurisdiction. I can understand the press and others dragging them up and therefore being part of the opinion they hold about Suarez, but it should not influence the ruling.

      I'm sure England fans would be outraged for example if UEFA or FIFA increased a ban on Rooney because he's been a bad boy on occasion for Man U in the past, and likewise would it be appropriate for the FA to throw the book at Rooney if (or when) he again is inflicted by the red mist, and justify it by using the kick out on England duty as a precedent?

    • Dave, I don't know why I can't reply to your post. This system is *****!

      I don't know what the FA rules are or why they have decided on the ten match ban. But I don't see why they shouldn't take the view "Suarez again. This guy comes before us rather too much. He seems to have anger issues or takes winning too far. Even his club says so. We need to set a deterrent penalty for him. What would a deterrent be? Well, seven matches in Holland clearly wasn't enough deterrent."

      Or perhaps they simply observed Holland's seven match ban for a first offence, took that as a precedent, and increased it as it's a second offence over his career.

      I don't know. You may be technically correct but I suspect most non-Liverpool fans will see a bigger picture than simply the FA can't penalise him for something done in Holland.


    • I see now he's accepted the ban, which i hope does not mean we'll never actually see the report. Until we do so, assuming we do, I have to assume either the rational would have been hard for Suarez to overcome, or perhaps because of his latest experience with the FA appeals process he felt no matter how strong a case he might have to have the ban reduced, he just could not get a fair hearing.

      I'd hope for the first, but fear for the second. Only other explanation is Suarez has just decided to give up, not just on this case, but football in England altogether. Now that might make some who would take great pleasure to run him out of town, very happy, but think its a very sad day if its true. Not just because I'm biased because Suarez happens to be Liverpool's best player, but because he also happens to be one of the leagues best players.

      Now I know some will get on high horses and tell me some things are bigger than football, and despite Suarez being truly one of the most talented footballers in the world we don't want his kind, however it would not take very long to make a list of plenty of other players just as nasty if not worse who have not just been tolerated but are considered hero's by their fans.