Resounding nail/head interface.
Keep Suarez?
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Resounding nail/head interface.
Players are often sold on the basis of having a bad injury record. It as a factor in Fowler leaving. People frequently complained about Torres/Owens fitness however the mitigating factor is that they didnt do it on purpose, Suarez does. Also your forgetting the effect that all this has on him, he was woeful after his 9 game ban over the Evra thing, there is a larger impact than just the games he misses, there are the games it takes him to get back into his stride afterwards. All of which is incredibly frustrating because it would be 100% avoidable if he possessed the restraint of a 5 year old, as opposed to having dodgy hamstrings which he couldn't really do anything about.
Of course he is. You totally missed my point.
Another balanced article. What's going on?, is there some perspective emerging?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/luis-suarez-bite-seeking-punish-1849758
Luis Suarez bite: Why we are seeking to punish the man rather than the Liverpool striker's offence
24 Apr 2013 07:30
What the Uruguayan did to Branislav Ivanovic was pitiful, but he needs help...not hysteria, argues Oliver Holt
Luis Suarez has spent the last three days staring into the bloody maw of public outrage.
He bit Branislav Ivanovic at Anfield on Sunday afternoon and then we bit him back. An awful lot harder and an awful lot deeper.
Suarez committed a kindergarten crime and for his transgression, he has been pursued by the hounds of hell and even David Cameron.
Perhaps it would be best if we were at least honest with ourselves about why there has been such a disproportionate response to what he did.
Because the truth is we are quite clearly seeking to punish the man rather than the offence.
What we are attempting to do here is try him all over again for racially abusing Patrice Evra in October 2011.
There are reasons for that. Neither Suarez nor Liverpool ever showed real contrition for what he had done.
Their defence that Suarez had called Evra ‘negro’ as a friendly greeting in the midst of an exchange of banter was risibly weak.
The whole, bitter, protracted affair, together with John Terry’s abuse of Anton Ferdinand, made us question quite how enlightened the English game had really become.
Suarez served an eight-match ban for what he did but partly because he subsequently refused to shake Evra’s hand, there has always been a sense he was unforgiven.
What Suarez did on Sunday, though, does not belong in remotely the same category as the abuse he aimed at Evra.
Talk of an eight match ban or longer is not just absurd. It’s obscene.
Because if that happens, it means, in the FA’s moral code, biting someone is as bad as racially abusing them.
This is a physical offence we
are talking about and what harm has Suarez actually done?
Did play have to stop for Ivanovic to be treated on
Sunday? No.
Did Ivanovic have to go to hospital? No.
Will Ivanovic be unavailable for Chelsea’s Europa League tie against Basel tomorrow night? I doubt it.
Is he still suffering any pain from what Suarez did? I doubt that too.
Yes, what Suarez did was gruesome. Yes, it was bizarre and, yes, it looked savage and animalistic.
There is a stigma attached to biting in the same way
there is to spitting but
it deserves mild opprobrium, not full-on hysteria.
Was it any more savage, for instance, than flying at another player with both feet off the ground with studs up?
Was it any more savage than launching into a tackle that could break an opponent’s leg?
Was it any more savage than swinging an elbow into an opponent’s face and shattering his cheekbone?
Those are physical offences that could put a player out for weeks or months and ruin his career.
What Suarez did to Ivanovic is not even in the same league.
Liverpool should have taken a harder line with Suarez when he racially abused Evra.
But this time, the talk of sacking him, selling him or banning him for life is ridiculous.
As is the suggestion he should be removed from the shortlist for the Player of the Year.
This time, Liverpool did the right thing by condemning the player’s action and apologising.
And Suarez did the right thing by quickly admitting he was wrong and accepting the fine the club imposed upon him.
So let’s not waste energy by calling for draconian
punishment. If anything, we should take our lead from what Stan Collymore suggested on Monday night.
Suarez needs help, Collymore pointed out. He has psychological problems that he needs to deal with.
My guess is that Liverpool have already insisted he has counselling with Dr Steve Peters , the sports psychiatrist who has done so much to help Craig Bellamy and others.
What Suarez did to Ivanovic was pathetic and puerile, not heinous or brutal.
So punish him, sure, but let’s keep what he did in perspective.
He deserves a three-match ban for violent conduct. Nothing more.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/luis-suarez-bite-seeking-punish-1849758
Luis Suarez bite: Why we are seeking to punish the man rather than the Liverpool striker's offence
24 Apr 2013 07:30
What the Uruguayan did to Branislav Ivanovic was pitiful, but he needs help...not hysteria, argues Oliver Holt
Luis Suarez has spent the last three days staring into the bloody maw of public outrage.
He bit Branislav Ivanovic at Anfield on Sunday afternoon and then we bit him back. An awful lot harder and an awful lot deeper.
Suarez committed a kindergarten crime and for his transgression, he has been pursued by the hounds of hell and even David Cameron.
Perhaps it would be best if we were at least honest with ourselves about why there has been such a disproportionate response to what he did.
Because the truth is we are quite clearly seeking to punish the man rather than the offence.
What we are attempting to do here is try him all over again for racially abusing Patrice Evra in October 2011.
There are reasons for that. Neither Suarez nor Liverpool ever showed real contrition for what he had done.
Their defence that Suarez had called Evra ‘negro’ as a friendly greeting in the midst of an exchange of banter was risibly weak.
The whole, bitter, protracted affair, together with John Terry’s abuse of Anton Ferdinand, made us question quite how enlightened the English game had really become.
Suarez served an eight-match ban for what he did but partly because he subsequently refused to shake Evra’s hand, there has always been a sense he was unforgiven.
What Suarez did on Sunday, though, does not belong in remotely the same category as the abuse he aimed at Evra.
Talk of an eight match ban or longer is not just absurd. It’s obscene.
Because if that happens, it means, in the FA’s moral code, biting someone is as bad as racially abusing them.
This is a physical offence we
are talking about and what harm has Suarez actually done?
Did play have to stop for Ivanovic to be treated on
Sunday? No.
Did Ivanovic have to go to hospital? No.
Will Ivanovic be unavailable for Chelsea’s Europa League tie against Basel tomorrow night? I doubt it.
Is he still suffering any pain from what Suarez did? I doubt that too.
Yes, what Suarez did was gruesome. Yes, it was bizarre and, yes, it looked savage and animalistic.
There is a stigma attached to biting in the same way
there is to spitting but
it deserves mild opprobrium, not full-on hysteria.
Was it any more savage, for instance, than flying at another player with both feet off the ground with studs up?
Was it any more savage than launching into a tackle that could break an opponent’s leg?
Was it any more savage than swinging an elbow into an opponent’s face and shattering his cheekbone?
Those are physical offences that could put a player out for weeks or months and ruin his career.
What Suarez did to Ivanovic is not even in the same league.
Liverpool should have taken a harder line with Suarez when he racially abused Evra.
But this time, the talk of sacking him, selling him or banning him for life is ridiculous.
As is the suggestion he should be removed from the shortlist for the Player of the Year.
This time, Liverpool did the right thing by condemning the player’s action and apologising.
And Suarez did the right thing by quickly admitting he was wrong and accepting the fine the club imposed upon him.
So let’s not waste energy by calling for draconian
punishment. If anything, we should take our lead from what Stan Collymore suggested on Monday night.
Suarez needs help, Collymore pointed out. He has psychological problems that he needs to deal with.
My guess is that Liverpool have already insisted he has counselling with Dr Steve Peters , the sports psychiatrist who has done so much to help Craig Bellamy and others.
What Suarez did to Ivanovic was pathetic and puerile, not heinous or brutal.
So punish him, sure, but let’s keep what he did in perspective.
He deserves a three-match ban for violent conduct. Nothing more.
Flamin' Nora. That from Ollie Holt? There may be hope for the media yet.
Wonder if the Independent Regulatory Commission members will all have copies of The Mirror and will be mulling over Holt's wise words?
Hahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahaha
Good article from Holt. Yes, he bit him. Yes it's an appalling act. But it's not like ended Ivanovich's career or anything like that.
I'd also like to say, fair play to Ivanovich for his actions (or lack of) during this period. As far as I can see, he hasn't moaned about it, he hasn't persued it and he certainly isn't acting in a "poor me" fashion. He's one of the few Chelsea players I have respect for. He seems a decent sort, He's a great centre back and he has a good footballing attitude. Respect to him. He could just as easily did an "Evra" and brought the house down.
I'd also like to say, fair play to Ivanovich for his actions (or lack of) during this period. As far as I can see, he hasn't moaned about it, he hasn't persued it and he certainly isn't acting in a "poor me" fashion. He's one of the few Chelsea players I have respect for. He seems a decent sort, He's a great centre back and he has a good footballing attitude. Respect to him. He could just as easily did an "Evra" and brought the house down.
Blimey, even Samuels getting some perspective:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...-FA-hide-FIFA-rules-Martin-Samuel-column.html
The quivering FA hide when real men of honour would take the lead
By MARTIN SAMUEL
PUBLISHED: 23:00, 23 April 2013 | UPDATED: 07:42, 24 April 2013
Comments (0)
Share
Clearly insufficient. Don’t you just love the Football Association when they come over all masterful?
According to the guardians of our game, the standard ban of three matches for violent conduct would, in the case of Luis Suarez, be inadequate. How times change. When Jermain Defoe did much the same thing in 2006 the offence was deemed worthy of no more than a yellow card. Off you go you little scamp, said the FA, it really is none of our business.
For an organisation with a media arm so grand it may shortly qualify as an independent nation in the European Championship group stages, the FA behave as if we exist in the pre-internet age. In the good old days before Google, discipline could be dispensed on the hoof, after a lively lunch and with scant regard for precedent or consistency.
Chew couldn't make it up: Jermain Defoe was booked for biting Javier Mascherano but they will throw the book at Luis Suarez
To question the FA’s stance required both a cuttings library and a damn good memory. Garrincha was sent off in the 1962 World Cup semi-final for Brazil against Chile. At his FIFA hearing it was claimed he had acted only under severe provocation and had never been dismissed in his career. By a vote of five to two, he received a ‘symbolic reprimand’ and was cleared to play in the final, which Brazil won.
In fact, Garrincha had already been sent off three times for his club, Botafogo, twice in Brazil and once against Barcelona of Spain. In 1962, though, who knew? Yet the moment Suarez sank his teeth into Branislav Ivanovic, a rudimentary search for ‘football biting’ immediately turned up an incident between Defoe and Javier Mascherano in October 2006.
And also the FA’s scandalous reaction to it.
From this we know that Defoe’s manager, Martin Jol, dismissed it with a joke, that Defoe downplayed the seriousness of it in his half-hearted apology and that, most appallingly, the FA considered the matter closed with the issue of a yellow card by referee Steve Bennett. Seen and dealt with was the official line. Can’t re-referee the game, old chum.
Bite club: Suarez takes a chunk out of Branislav Ivanovic before the Serb shows referee Kevin Friend the evidence (below)
Lunging: Sergio Aguero was not booked for this tackle on David Luiz
No mention of a punishment that was clearly insufficient. No citing of a rule, highlighted this week by former FA compliance officer Graham Bean, that gives the governing body power to issue a misconduct charge ‘if the penalty does not fit the crime’. A rule that would appear to trump the mealy mouthed excuse of not wishing to undermine officials by pronouncing twice on the same event.
For if the FA have a get out of jail card linking crime and suitable punishment then the inertia we have witnessed over violent conduct in recent weeks — and for months and years before that — is inexcusable.
The FA witness tackles that could break legs, see arms thrown that cause brain damage, and pretend to be powerless to act. Then they alight on a show case and pounce. If they can weigh off the odd unsympathetic character like Suarez or John Terry, it makes them look decisive and principled.
The reality is they hide behind the skirts of FIFA, quivering when men of honour would take a moral lead.
We know what should have happened to Callum McManaman of Wigan Athletic, to Manchester City’s Sergio Aguero, to Sheffield United captain Chris Morgan many years ago when he left Iain Hume of Barnsley with a fractured skull.
We know what should have happened to Defoe, too. Instead, the FA will get their day in court and, amid a blaze of self-serving publicity, call it justice.
Lasting impression: Chris Morgan connects with Iain Hume, leaving an 18-inch scar around his head
Suarez will miss the rest of this season and as much as one month of next because, randomly, referee Kevin Friend was unaware of the extent of his transgression. Had he followed Bennett’s lead and merely booked Suarez, we presume nothing would be done. The governance of football cannot rely on oversights or bizarre twists of fate.
The FA must be putting their hands together in thanks for Friend’s ineffectuality. With an attentive referee they would not be able to indulge another favourite pastime: responding to big headlines.
There is nothing the FA loves more than a steaming, great call for something to be done. Always providing they are in the mood to do something.
Remember when Eden Hazard of Chelsea kicked that ballboy at Swansea City? Disgraceful. Yet when Matt Ritchie of Swindon Town did the same to a teenager at Oxford United less than a year earlier? No further action required. No headlines, no glory, not worth the fuss.
Precedent: Swindon's Matt Ritchie treats Aidan Hawtin just like Eden Hazard did Charlie Morgan
Hazard’s was another punishment that the FA considered clearly insufficient, yet they never consider addressing the problem in their rule book. A player is bitten and the FA issue statements as if the inadequacy of the system has come as a total shock. They were forced to climb down over Hazard when their double standards were exposed, but this will be different. There was wider public sympathy for the Chelsea player than exists for Suarez, so the FA can don the black cap with confidence.
Certainly, only the most one-eyed admirer of the Uruguayan, or of Liverpool, is building a case for the defence. Biting is one of those offences that goes beyond the pale.
Gus Poyet, Suarez’s compatriot and manager of Brighton and Hove Albion, has attempted to debate why English football abhors it, yet often indulges a vicious tackle that could shatter bones, but few are ready for nuance just yet. They want Suarez brought to book and the FA are puppy-dog eager to oblige.
Yet is this the way forward for the game? Are we merely to rely on a set of haphazard circumstances falling fortuitously if justice is to be served?
We will act, say the FA, always providing an offence has been clearly committed, the referee hasn’t seen it, an old rule can be dug up and a man of principle is running the show that day. Otherwise, they are their own Mr Loophole, getting miscreants off the hook with jargon and technicalities.
So what if FIFA frown on additional punishments meted out from on high? This is about what is right, not what is vaguely written. Bring it on.
If the FA take a lead in administering fitting penalties for exceptionally violent behaviour, they will be on the right side of the argument and the rest of football will follow. Some braver associations are halfway there already.
And the rules are in place. Everyone knows that McManaman should have been severely punished for his tackle on Massadio Haidara of Newcastle United. Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, pointed out the provision in FA rules to review a decision in extraordinary circumstances.
Lucky boy: Callum McManaman escaped without punishment for this challenge on Massadio Haidara
It is the same clause Bean identified about the penalty fitting the crime. It could be enforced for any challenge that resulted in serious injury, whether seen by the referee or not. A player might receive a red card for a reckless or foul challenge, but if it is stunningly malicious, the coupling of crime and punishment surely permits the FA to extend the ban.
Brutal: Roy Keane stands over a stricken Alf-Inge Haaland
When former Manchester United captain Roy Keane took out Alf-Inge Haaland of Manchester City, the straight red card shown by referee David Elleray was, to coin a phrase, clearly insufficient considering the savagery of the tackle. Yet it was not until Keane wrote about it in his autobiography, revealing the brute nature of his intentions, that the FA could levy the longer suspension he deserved.
This has to stop. We hear so much about the fine stewardship of FA chairman David Bernstein and how it is such a pity that he will soon be standing down but, like the rest of his number, he has failed to address one of the key issues of the modern game.
With the benefit of technology, we can see the challenges and instances that require further attention.
We can differentiate between fouls, even bad ones, and more outrageous extremes.
We understand that a referee can see an incident — as Bennett did Defoe’s reaction to Mascherano — without computing its enormity.
Bennett probably thought Defoe put his head towards Mascherano, without realising he had sunk his teeth into his upper arm.
He should not have been hostage to that mistake. This is for the FA to resolve and to fail in this duty would be insufficient. Not to mention pathetic, cowardly, and very, very wrong.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...-FA-hide-FIFA-rules-Martin-Samuel-column.html
The quivering FA hide when real men of honour would take the lead
By MARTIN SAMUEL
PUBLISHED: 23:00, 23 April 2013 | UPDATED: 07:42, 24 April 2013
Comments (0)
Share
Clearly insufficient. Don’t you just love the Football Association when they come over all masterful?
According to the guardians of our game, the standard ban of three matches for violent conduct would, in the case of Luis Suarez, be inadequate. How times change. When Jermain Defoe did much the same thing in 2006 the offence was deemed worthy of no more than a yellow card. Off you go you little scamp, said the FA, it really is none of our business.
For an organisation with a media arm so grand it may shortly qualify as an independent nation in the European Championship group stages, the FA behave as if we exist in the pre-internet age. In the good old days before Google, discipline could be dispensed on the hoof, after a lively lunch and with scant regard for precedent or consistency.
Chew couldn't make it up: Jermain Defoe was booked for biting Javier Mascherano but they will throw the book at Luis Suarez
To question the FA’s stance required both a cuttings library and a damn good memory. Garrincha was sent off in the 1962 World Cup semi-final for Brazil against Chile. At his FIFA hearing it was claimed he had acted only under severe provocation and had never been dismissed in his career. By a vote of five to two, he received a ‘symbolic reprimand’ and was cleared to play in the final, which Brazil won.
In fact, Garrincha had already been sent off three times for his club, Botafogo, twice in Brazil and once against Barcelona of Spain. In 1962, though, who knew? Yet the moment Suarez sank his teeth into Branislav Ivanovic, a rudimentary search for ‘football biting’ immediately turned up an incident between Defoe and Javier Mascherano in October 2006.
And also the FA’s scandalous reaction to it.
From this we know that Defoe’s manager, Martin Jol, dismissed it with a joke, that Defoe downplayed the seriousness of it in his half-hearted apology and that, most appallingly, the FA considered the matter closed with the issue of a yellow card by referee Steve Bennett. Seen and dealt with was the official line. Can’t re-referee the game, old chum.
Bite club: Suarez takes a chunk out of Branislav Ivanovic before the Serb shows referee Kevin Friend the evidence (below)
Lunging: Sergio Aguero was not booked for this tackle on David Luiz
No mention of a punishment that was clearly insufficient. No citing of a rule, highlighted this week by former FA compliance officer Graham Bean, that gives the governing body power to issue a misconduct charge ‘if the penalty does not fit the crime’. A rule that would appear to trump the mealy mouthed excuse of not wishing to undermine officials by pronouncing twice on the same event.
For if the FA have a get out of jail card linking crime and suitable punishment then the inertia we have witnessed over violent conduct in recent weeks — and for months and years before that — is inexcusable.
The FA witness tackles that could break legs, see arms thrown that cause brain damage, and pretend to be powerless to act. Then they alight on a show case and pounce. If they can weigh off the odd unsympathetic character like Suarez or John Terry, it makes them look decisive and principled.
The reality is they hide behind the skirts of FIFA, quivering when men of honour would take a moral lead.
We know what should have happened to Callum McManaman of Wigan Athletic, to Manchester City’s Sergio Aguero, to Sheffield United captain Chris Morgan many years ago when he left Iain Hume of Barnsley with a fractured skull.
We know what should have happened to Defoe, too. Instead, the FA will get their day in court and, amid a blaze of self-serving publicity, call it justice.
Lasting impression: Chris Morgan connects with Iain Hume, leaving an 18-inch scar around his head
Suarez will miss the rest of this season and as much as one month of next because, randomly, referee Kevin Friend was unaware of the extent of his transgression. Had he followed Bennett’s lead and merely booked Suarez, we presume nothing would be done. The governance of football cannot rely on oversights or bizarre twists of fate.
The FA must be putting their hands together in thanks for Friend’s ineffectuality. With an attentive referee they would not be able to indulge another favourite pastime: responding to big headlines.
There is nothing the FA loves more than a steaming, great call for something to be done. Always providing they are in the mood to do something.
Remember when Eden Hazard of Chelsea kicked that ballboy at Swansea City? Disgraceful. Yet when Matt Ritchie of Swindon Town did the same to a teenager at Oxford United less than a year earlier? No further action required. No headlines, no glory, not worth the fuss.
Precedent: Swindon's Matt Ritchie treats Aidan Hawtin just like Eden Hazard did Charlie Morgan
Hazard’s was another punishment that the FA considered clearly insufficient, yet they never consider addressing the problem in their rule book. A player is bitten and the FA issue statements as if the inadequacy of the system has come as a total shock. They were forced to climb down over Hazard when their double standards were exposed, but this will be different. There was wider public sympathy for the Chelsea player than exists for Suarez, so the FA can don the black cap with confidence.
Certainly, only the most one-eyed admirer of the Uruguayan, or of Liverpool, is building a case for the defence. Biting is one of those offences that goes beyond the pale.
Gus Poyet, Suarez’s compatriot and manager of Brighton and Hove Albion, has attempted to debate why English football abhors it, yet often indulges a vicious tackle that could shatter bones, but few are ready for nuance just yet. They want Suarez brought to book and the FA are puppy-dog eager to oblige.
Yet is this the way forward for the game? Are we merely to rely on a set of haphazard circumstances falling fortuitously if justice is to be served?
We will act, say the FA, always providing an offence has been clearly committed, the referee hasn’t seen it, an old rule can be dug up and a man of principle is running the show that day. Otherwise, they are their own Mr Loophole, getting miscreants off the hook with jargon and technicalities.
So what if FIFA frown on additional punishments meted out from on high? This is about what is right, not what is vaguely written. Bring it on.
If the FA take a lead in administering fitting penalties for exceptionally violent behaviour, they will be on the right side of the argument and the rest of football will follow. Some braver associations are halfway there already.
And the rules are in place. Everyone knows that McManaman should have been severely punished for his tackle on Massadio Haidara of Newcastle United. Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, pointed out the provision in FA rules to review a decision in extraordinary circumstances.
Lucky boy: Callum McManaman escaped without punishment for this challenge on Massadio Haidara
It is the same clause Bean identified about the penalty fitting the crime. It could be enforced for any challenge that resulted in serious injury, whether seen by the referee or not. A player might receive a red card for a reckless or foul challenge, but if it is stunningly malicious, the coupling of crime and punishment surely permits the FA to extend the ban.
Brutal: Roy Keane stands over a stricken Alf-Inge Haaland
When former Manchester United captain Roy Keane took out Alf-Inge Haaland of Manchester City, the straight red card shown by referee David Elleray was, to coin a phrase, clearly insufficient considering the savagery of the tackle. Yet it was not until Keane wrote about it in his autobiography, revealing the brute nature of his intentions, that the FA could levy the longer suspension he deserved.
This has to stop. We hear so much about the fine stewardship of FA chairman David Bernstein and how it is such a pity that he will soon be standing down but, like the rest of his number, he has failed to address one of the key issues of the modern game.
With the benefit of technology, we can see the challenges and instances that require further attention.
We can differentiate between fouls, even bad ones, and more outrageous extremes.
We understand that a referee can see an incident — as Bennett did Defoe’s reaction to Mascherano — without computing its enormity.
Bennett probably thought Defoe put his head towards Mascherano, without realising he had sunk his teeth into his upper arm.
He should not have been hostage to that mistake. This is for the FA to resolve and to fail in this duty would be insufficient. Not to mention pathetic, cowardly, and very, very wrong.
Cantona, "Until Luis Suarez kicks a fan, I cannot criticize. I do wish his wife would learn to cook so he wouldn't look for food on the pitch though."
Exactly. He's been a pillar of integrity in this so far.
Maybe Collymore is saying it because he actually does know Jimmy
Manager material right there ...
I don't respect Ruddocks meself 🙂
Defoe, "To be honest, Suarez's actions were wrong and also stupid. Argentinian meat is much better than that Serbian horse crap I buy at Tesco"
Neither do I. Not one little bit.
What I meant to say (in some sarcastic way) was that I thought he knew a thing or two about disgusting acts. My phrasing was poor apparently...
And for the record I remember Collymore as a bit of a "loony". (based on his playing days only, I have hardly followed him post retirement.)
What I meant to say (in some sarcastic way) was that I thought he knew a thing or two about disgusting acts. My phrasing was poor apparently...
And for the record I remember Collymore as a bit of a "loony". (based on his playing days only, I have hardly followed him post retirement.)
They're showing no suspension at all now... (Fantasy Premier League)
The problem with John Henry is that he thinks this club should follow the spirit of the law in a context in which all other clubs follow the letter of the law, so while LFC worries itself about complying with Financial Fair Play, other clubs exploit every loophole available to circumvent it, and while LFC bows meekly before the FA, other clubs get their legal advisors to wriggle out of every problem. So we're naive on the pitch AND off it these days. There might even be some charm about such naivete, off the pitch, if the FA was an upright and decent institution, but as in reality it's a contemptible mass of corruption, cowardice and cynicism, this spineless submission to each and every one of its media-conscious acts of arbitrary punishment and personal humiliation really irks.
LOL!
I think it's today we find out how much the FA hates Suarez right?
Maybe as a point of appeal, we will point to the Defoe ban. I think that's fair play, it's not about the ruling about whether the ref saw it, it's about the reaction and punishment. Hopefully we're not as naive as we look and we'll use the only available precedent as a point of reference. The press seem to have picked up on it a fair bit so maybe that may push the FA. Or maybe they'll conveniently use the precedent Suarez himself set, albeit in Holland. Probably.
He'll get a 10 game ban I reckon. Anything less will be a bonus. There should be a sweepstake on this.
I say 10 game ban - Club appeal and then lose. 10 game ban final verdict.
I say 10 game ban - Club appeal and then lose. 10 game ban final verdict.
