• Liverpool Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Colyn Colyn Apr 25, 2013 11:11 Flag


    Hello Robert. Good to see you post again.

    In my view he has a screw loose. DSteer says the same I believe. The bite in my view was a reaction. However the Evra incident was different in that he was out to get a reaction and an advantage and then it ran away with itself.
    He obviously lacks self control which is evident in both incidents. The little stamps here and there also demonstrate that lack of self control and are simple reactions to being beaten in a particular situation i.e a defender gets to the ball first.

    It's competitive to the extreme but it's obviously too far. That's not the game we play and love.

    10 games is difficult to judge until we see what the FA says. I suspect it it'll be useless as I have little faith in them. BUT if we say that Suarez was banned for 8 games in Holland for the same offense then 10 sadly starts to look fair, bordering sensible. Of course when we consider that others such as Defoe have gotten away with it then it looks daft. Or one could say that the Defoe decision was the daft one

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Thanks. I have to say I've generally been avoiding the boards since the format changed to this disaster, and it took Suarez to drag me back in.

      I agree with all you say. Defoe plainly got lucky and that decision looks daft. It highlights - yet again - that when the FA say they can't overturn a referee's decision there are times when they should make exceptions. The previous week Aguerro stamped on a Chelsea player and the FA said they wouldn't review it because the referee claimed to see something of the incident, but not presumably the stamping. It's plainly wrong. Obviously the reason they have the policy is because they don't want a hundred cases to look at every Monday morning.

      (I'm not going to mention Michael Essien.)


    • What really bothers me is immediately after the bite he staggers of like he has been injured and is looking for sympathy, like a little boy who was just been caught up to no good, If me, you of whoever bit someone then you would be arrested, if you did it at work you would be fired and arrested.
      If he played for Manchester United the Liverpool fans would say he should never play again, as you all go on about Ferdinand missing a drugs test that he returned to do the same day and passed.
      Stop comparing the Defoe incident to this, they are 2 different incidents, and yes Defoe got off light, but that does not mean every player from then on should get of light for such things, the Defoe judgement was the wrong one not this one in my opinion.

      The guy is a serial offender, in his short time at Liverpool he has stamped on players, said racist comments about a player, is a serial diver & done the worst dive we have ever seen & proudly admitted later that he dived, he has bitten a player and we all know he has done this before, I personally think he is a disgrace, skilful but disgraceful too.

      • 1 Reply to Red_Till_Im_Dead
      • You're miles off Red. the Defoe incident is a precedent to this one as was Suarez's first chomp in Holland. How are they different, they both decided to take a chomp at the guy next door. What gripes me most is the complete inconsistency of it all.

        I thought Cantona was a disgrace as well. I think the lady sat next to the guy that got a boot full also thought the same.

        Of course non eof United's players are serial offenders. Scholes has only ever made one bad tackle in his life, Rooney has only ever been with one prostitute, Giggs is completely trustworthy and Keane never tried to end another players career. His book was obviously a work of fiction.

        We know Suarez is bad. but your lot aren't exactly squeaky clean either. As I said the it's the inconsistency that gripes me.