• Liverpool Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • dsteer_lfc_68 dsteer_lfc_68 Apr 29, 2013 22:31 Flag

    FA Report on Suarez

    The report is now on the FA website, and worth a read, although it might leave you scratching your head.

    I hear what your saying about the previous case in Holland, however the report specifically stated they did not take into account any prior infringements and had the brief only to look at this case in isolation. That is why it really is fair to say the FA ranks a single case of Racism as less of an offense as tipping a ref, followed by multiple incidents or racial abuse, but worst of all is a single bite.

    In deciding the actual sanction they disregarded the number of examples Suarez's representatives provided as examples of violent conduct because they stated "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" . So while I see where you coming from regarding those potentially career ending challenges (like the foot to the face from the Wigan player yesterday, which was not punished by the ref, so I assume will go to the FA?) it seems the FA does not agree with you, as that sort of violence is part of the game and therefore is okay.

    On Bale I don't have an issue with him winning, and think either him or RVP would have been worthy, I do agree with you with the amnesia when it comes to the diving. Just a few days ago on here a number of people were including the diving of Suarez as a rational of why Liverpool supporters should not support their player, but it seems Bale is above this criticism. Bit like those who conveniently forget that Rooney had a very similar challenge with his red mist not so long ago, but as the hope of England I suppose he's above reproach.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Poppycock they ignored the Dutch FA's decision. I also think his reputation played a part in this. No way and it raises questions about everything they do again. Yes the game needs to be physical and carry some level of risk and here that the FA fall down again with two footed challenges still prevalent in the game and far worse than Suarez having a taste. See the Southampton / West Brom game at he weekend. Straight red for a two footed challenge (ref got it right) but he gets a 3 match ban and it's gone, put to bed. It should be reviewed and if they want those challenge removed from the game then the ban should be a lot higher

    • For me the FA feel that the case has no precedent. The Defoe incident belies that for us. Look guys the FA need to retrospectively review all violent challenges like Mcmanaman last week, their disciplinary process is about as inconsistent as our form has been this season! For me, they should have taken into account the fact that Suarez is slightly unhinged and needs help. Ban him yes, but give him a little carrot with some suspended sentence thrown in. Expecting some common sense out of them is too much to ask I'm afraid. Nothing has changed since that 'old fart' Bert Millichip ran the game.

      • 2 Replies to Loki
      • One of the most telling line for me was paragraph 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."

        To me saying they had to compare to similar cases, but then dismissing every example Suarez's council brought calling them dissimilar tells me they wanted to treat this as a one off and not be tied to any previous case (including the Defoe case). In addition saying the Rules, Regulations, and practices have "evolved" gives them full license to make it up as they go.

      • All this "suspended sentence" and "needs help" so lighter sentence stuff really doesn't wash. First off, no-one from Liverpool management, players or fans were saying before the bite "oh look, poor old Luis, he's slightly lost it, we need to give him a break, and get some rehabilitation in" so it's no good suddenly coming out with it afterwards as if a lighter sentence is a coincidence you hadn't thought of.

        Second, if anyone deserves a suspended sentence for a bite, it ain't ******* Suarez! He's been convicted of it before, just a couple of seasons ago. Suspended sentences are appropriate when you have a first-time offender who has done something out of character, not when the biggest **** in the game has done yet another appalling thing.

        If you really truly honestly genuinely think that Suarez needs help, and if Liverpool want to provide it, then instead of whingeing about the length of the sentence, you should welcome a long ban as giving him the space away from the limelight that he can use to concentrate on fixing his head.

        But it just looks like a diversion tactic, blaming the FA.