I'd fine him a year's wages

[the count]

Brendan Rodgers has described the treatment of Luis Suarez as 'wrong and unfair' after the striker came under heavy criticism following Sunday's draw with Stoke.


While much has been made of Suarez going to ground in the final stages of the game, very little has been said about the striker suffering bruising to the chest after an incident involving Stoke City defender Robert Huth.The Liverpool boss believes it's now time for Suarez to be treated the same as every other player in the league and called for an end to the hysteria that currently surrounds the player.

"As manager of this football club I find it incredible that in nearly all the coverage about Luis Suarez this weekend, very little focus has been placed on the fact that he was actually the victim of a stamping incident within the first five minutes of the game," said Rodgers.
"At this moment there seems to be one set of rules for Luis and another set for everyone else.
"Diving and simulation is obviously a wider issue in football and one that we all agree has to be eradicated from our game but there were other incidents this weekend that didn't seem to generate the same coverage.
"No one should be distracted by the real issue here, both at Anfield and at another game played on Sunday, when Luis and another player were hurt in off-the-ball incidents that went unpunished but were caught on TV cameras.
"I believe some people need to develop a sense of perspective and I also believe in this moment the vilification of Luis is both wrong and unfair.
"I will continue to protect the values, spirit and people of this great club and game while searching for a consistent level of results in order to make progress on the field."

 

[The Slugmonster]

All well said. And he does it without calling out players names, just gets his point across. Ferguson and Pulis could take a leaf!

 

[gkmacca]

Well done Fudgie. Now Suarez has to finally do the right thing and repay the faith of his manager(s).

 

[Hansern]

I'd like to see a pre match t-shirt campaign with diving not permitted. Can just copy+past from one of those swimmingpool signs.

That would kick diving out of football....

 

[StevieM]

Luis Suarez would have to dismembered with a chainsaw by an opposition centre back to win a penalty these days.

 

[mark1975]

Manchester United forward Robin van Persie will not face retrospective action from the Football Association over an apparent elbow to the face of Newcastle midfielder Yohan Cabaye in Sunday's Barclays Premier League match at the Sports Direct Arena.
Press Association Sport understands that match referee Howard Webb did not see the incident during the game, but on reviewing television evidence he did not deem it worthy of a sending-off offence, so no further action will be taken.
Newcastle manager Alan Pardew said after the game that he felt the incident warranted further investigation, saying: "He has looked at Yohan and he has elbowed him, and I think that perhaps needs to be looked at, if I am honest."
He added: "There's a bit of history from last year and I don't know if Robin has been caught up in that, but that was just a little bit unsavoury.
"I actually thought Yohan wouldn't have gone down if he hadn't done something.
"I didn't see it myself, but I have obviously seen it on the replay and it looks like he has looked at him and put his elbow there.''
The "history" referred to by Pardew was an incident involving Van Persie, then an Arsenal player, and Newcastle's Dutch goalkeeper Tim Krul which took place last season.
No action will be taken either in regard to Newcastle midfielder Cheick Tiote, who appeared to stamp on Tom Cleverley's leg, or to Stoke defender Robert Huth, who was involved in a similar incident with Liverpool forward Luis Suarez.
In both cases, the incidents were seen by officials at the time and therefore no further action can be taken.

Isn't it amazing? The only reason Suarez didn't get retrospective action is because of all the incidents at the weekend that had to get brushed under the carpet. I bet the FA (and that cunt up the East Lancs) are seething.

As for the 'already seen by the ref' rule, shouldn't that therefore dictate that action be taken against the ref for not picking up on a serious offense, and as with Huth's one, not even giving a freekick OR booking the player?

I find that truly outrageous, the referee saw it and gave nothing, but it's ok.

 

[themn]

Remember when Bosingwa stamped on Yossi ?

Not even booked.

Incredible.

 

[mark1975]

Remember when Bosingwa stamped on Yossi ?

Not even booked.

Incredible.

It's a joke mate and just shows there's no transparency with the refs and the FA. There should be a clear structure in place, instead it's greyed out and bent to suit.

In both cases, the incidents were seen by officials at the time and therefore no further action can be taken.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read regarding this shambles of an Association in a long time, and that's saying something. So you're basically telling us a referee can see a player stamp on another player, look down at him when doing so just to exemplify his intent, but wave play on to the offending team. Failing to punish them on two counts, by stopping play and giving a freekick against them AND booking/sending off the player.

Even if the argument is that the ref saw the incident, but in a different context, then that's basically putting a gaping flaw in the whole system. Why should retrospective evidence be undermined by a perspective that is clearly proven to be flawed after the event?

Corrupt, rule bending Shithouses.

 

[Squiggles]

Yeah, well Luis wasn't retrospectively banned for diving either.

To say it's corrupt is bollocks. To say it's incompetent is more accurate.

 

[mark1975]

Yeah, well Luis wasn't retrospectively banned for diving either.

To say it's corrupt is bollocks. To say it's incompetent is more accurate.

Why's it bollocks? It's incompetent and flawed, they know it is and they can bend it to suit. Like I said, they must be seething that the only reason they couldn't throw the book at Suarez is because there were so many other high profile *cough*RVP*incidents to consider.

Bollocks it all the fuck you like Squiggs, we've seen it time and time again. They take retrospective action when it suits and against whom it suits.

 

[Squiggles]

Okay, so when specifically have the FA taken retrospective action when it suits and when have they not?

Let's prove this conspiracy.

 

[mark1975]

Okay, so when specifically have the FA taken retrospective action when it suits and when have they not?

Let's prove this conspiracy.

Spearing and Suarez last year were both reviewed for what they did at Fulham at a time when the FA were looking to throw the book at the club due to the Suarez/Evra incident and Dalglish calling a spade a spade about the FA and Fergie.

 

[Holle]

So you use the enemys weapon to kick your own.... Wow. If there were more like you in the early 40,s not even Sunny Scandinavian army could save you from talking German!!

Talking German is aces.

 

[mark1975]

People have got an agenda against the club and we are called out for stuff that goes on elsewhere, not just by refs and the FA but in the press too. I raised a point yesterday on SSN's page about violent conduct being condoned while Suarez is being vilified for play acting. It didn't get posted (and it wasn't abusive or particularly scathing), yet fans of other clubs (on a page that's about Liverpool) are allowed to post drivel like this and have it published? There's no media agenda though, we're all paranoid.

@ Luis Suarez....Google "the boy who cried wolf"

As said, why is Suarez being chastised by everyone, yet Bale's against Villa, which was one of the worst dives I've ever seen, has been brushed under the carpet? And it's not the first time HE'S done it either.

 

[Squiggles]

Spearing was sent off at the time for a two footed lunge at their players ankle. Suarez was banned for sticking his finger up at the Fulham fans, thus inciting possible fan trouble.

Previous to this, Rooney was punished for swearing at TV cameras. Retrospective punishment is wholly inconsistent and incompetent, but to suggest that it's part of a 'bigger picture' is, I think, ridiculous.

 

[Sunny]

People have got an agenda against the club and we are called out for stuff that goes on elsewhere, not just by refs and the FA but in the press too. I raised a point yesterday on SSN's page about violent conduct being condoned while Suarez is being vilified for play acting. It didn't get posted (and it wasn't abusive or particularly scathing), yet fans of other clubs (on a page that's about Liverpool) are allowed to post drivel like this and have it published? There's no media agenda though, we're all paranoid.

@ Luis Suarez....Google "the boy who cried wolf"

As said, why is Suarez being chastised by everyone, yet Bale's against Villa, which was one of the worst dives I've ever seen, has been brushed under the carpet? And it's not the first time HE'S done it either.

Bang on the money yet again Mark.

 

[mark1975]

Spearing was sent off at the time for a two footed lunge at their players ankle. Suarez was banned for sticking his finger up at the Fulham fans, thus inciting possible fan trouble.

Previous to this, Rooney was punished for swearing at TV cameras. Retrospective punishment is wholly inconsistent and incompetent, but to suggest that it's part of a 'bigger picture' is, I think, ridiculous.

Spearing won the ball, it might have been a potentially dangerous tackle, but he won the ball which removed the need for a review and an extension to his ban. And is Rooney really a great example of "they do it to them too!", he swore at the cameras, it'd have taken some Hollywood-esque editing and mass brainwashing to get out of that one.

 

[Fabio]

From the ground up the FA is incompetent and needs rebuilding

Corrupt? Not necessarily, incompetence is often mistaken for corruption when bias is involved

 

[Rouge Penguin]

You talk like its a PLC that you can have a say over. The FA is a club for mates, where they can do what they want while drinking brandy and oggling young beauties on a private yatch from their sweaty lounger.

 

[Jack D Rips]

So Cole gets a huge fine for calling a bunch of twats a bunchoftwats, but the thug that is Huth gets off scot free because Lee Mason apparently saw part of the "offence" but didnt think it merited punishment.

If you had given that plot to Hans Cristian Anderson he would have laughed it off as unrealistic.

 

[Woland]

I'm on a multi footy board forum and yesterday and today pretty much every supporter has been calling an anti their team FA bias.

 

[StevieM]

You've got to admire the FA's consistency in getting things wrong and they way they've united fans in universal derision.

 

[themn]

I'm on a multi footy board forum and yesterday and today pretty much every supporter has been calling an anti their team FA bias.

92-timing slut.

 

[hmmmmm1]

So Cole gets a huge fine for calling a bunch of twats a bunchoftwats, but the thug that is Huth gets off scot free because Lee Mason apparently saw part of the "offence" but didnt think it merited punishment.

If you had given that plot to Hans Cristian Anderson he would have laughed it off as unrealistic.

Cole had to be punished.

Silly comparison

 

[barrymac20]

The bottom line is that the FA need to come with some way of irradicating this diving malarchy, its the only way they'll stop it from happening. Although knowing them they'll make a balls of it. That dive by Suarez was the worst i've seen. I love the man but he deserve a punishment for that.
Huth deserves punishment for his stamp also but this thread is about the Suarez dive right?

 

[Judge Jules]

Hmmmmmm1: is it bollocks. Huth "had to be punished" for that act of sheer thuggery - the referee was either incompetent or wilfully blind to the incident because of who the victim was, and as others have said the FA's rule that they can't do anything if the ref.doesn't is outrageous.

 

[barrymac20]

Hmmmmmm1: is it bollocks. Huth "had to be punished" for that act of sheer thuggery - the referee was either incompetent or wilfully blind to the incident because of who the victim was, and as others have said the FA's rule that they can't do anything if the ref.doesn't is outrageous.

Its a total disgrace. There are not many referees that are going to admit they were wrong therefore the policy is totally flawed. The FA should be able to overrule the officials that they have appointed.

 

[nealmac]

People have got an agenda against the club and we are called out for stuff that goes on elsewhere, not just by refs and the FA but in the press too. I raised a point yesterday on SSN's page about violent conduct being condoned while Suarez is being vilified for play acting. It didn't get posted (and it wasn't abusive or particularly scathing), yet fans of other clubs (on a page that's about Liverpool) are allowed to post drivel like this and have it published? There's no media agenda though, we're all paranoid.

@ Luis Suarez....Google "the boy who cried wolf"

As said, why is Suarez being chastised by everyone, yet Bale's against Villa, which was one of the worst dives I've ever seen, has been brushed under the carpet? And it's not the first time HE'S done it either.

Spot on, Mark.

 

[Jack D Rips]

Cole had to be punished.

Silly comparison

Of course Cole had to be punished. The point was that you get punished for speaking your mind but not for behaving like a thug.

Incidentally, Webb did not take action against RVP because he didnt see it. However having watched it on video he has decided that the offence didnt warrant punishment anyway. Thats his opinion agree or disagree with it.

I wonder did Mason review the video of Huth's assault. Probably not because he "saw" it in the match so he isnt asked to review it. What a joke of a rule. Bunchoftwats!

 

[Hansern]

Dont know if it has been mentioned on here, but Suarez was never going to be charged with anything. It isnt possible to do that with an incident that only results in a yellow card.