• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Keep Suarez?

Sell?

  • YES

    Votes: 19 12.3%
  • NO

    Votes: 135 87.7%

  • Total voters
    154
Unfortunately I'm sure they'll use one of the following:

*He's got form in another country for biting someone.
*He's been banned twice already retrospectively, for the Fulham and United games.
*He's Luis Suarez
*It's Liverpool
*The FA are inconsistent, selective buffoons.
 
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.

10 games would be more than excessive, and they shouldn't really have a right to ban him heavily because of past issues he's already been punished for. Also giving him a 10 game ban would be deeming a bite worse than a racist slur.
 
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.

Spot on.
 
10 games would be more than excessive, and they shouldn't really have a right to ban him heavily because of past issues he's already been punished for. Also giving him a 10 game ban would be deeming a bite worse than a racist slur.
I'm not saying it's right Mark. He doesn't deserve anything like a 10 game ban. That's what I think he'll get though. This in light of the media hysteria that surrounded his chomp (more like suck) - There does appear to be some sane articles in the papers today though calling for some level headedness. I guess we'll see. I still say 10 game ban.
 
I know mate, well either way, we can safely say he'll get more than John Terry's 4-match racist ban.

Just to put a bit of perspective on how much of a "cunt" Suarez is as painted in the media:

Rio Ferdinand
Controversies

In 2000, Ferdinand briefly appeared in a sexually explicit video filmed at the Ayia Napa resort in Cyprus along with fellow English footballers Kieron Dyer and Frank Lampard. Channel 4 aired a brief clip as part of their 2004 documentary Sex, Footballers and Videotape, claiming it was used to "remind the viewer that this is based on real life".[81]
In 2002, during the rape trial of their acquaintance Martin King, Ferdinand and former Leeds colleague Michael Duberry denied allegations that Duberry had molested the woman and Ferdinand had threatened her in the Leeds nightclub Hi-Fi on the night of 22 January, as well as further allegations of scuffling and drunkenness. Both men were interviewed by the police but the Crown Prosecution Service announced in April 2003 that they would not face charges.[82] King was found guilty of indecent assault and attempted rape.[83][84]

During a radio interview on The Chris Moyles Show in October 2006, Ferdinand attracted two listener complaints and criticism from gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell when he called Moyles a faggot, followed by "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm not homophobic", after Moyles had jokingly suggested he was homosexual. BBC Radio 1 later dismissed the exchange as banter, while Tatchell said "since [he] very promptly apologised, I am happy to accept his regret and leave it at that".[85]

In the wake of a court case involving John Terry and Rio's brother Anton, in which Terry was found not guilty of racial abuse, Rio Ferdinand sparked media controversy by expressing amusement at the comments of a Twitter user who referred to Ashley Cole, who had testified in Terry's favour, as a "choc ice", a slang term which is commonly understood to mean "black on the outside, white on the inside", and was interpreted by many spectators as a racist slur.[86] Ferdinand deleted the tweet shortly afterwards and denied choc ice is a racist term, adding, "And if I want to laugh at something someone tweets....I will! Hahahahaha! Now stop getting ya knickers in a twist!"[87] Cole's lawyers released a statement in response, stating that he would not be taking the matter further.[88]

Ferdinand's words were condemned as "insensitive and untimely" by PFA chief Clark Carlisle.[89] In August 2012, Ferdinand was fined £45,000 for his Twitter remarks after an Independent Regulatory Commission found him guilty of bringing the game into disrepute with an "improper" comment which included "a reference to ethnic origin, colour or race."[90]
Driving bans

In September 1997, Ferdinand was convicted of drink-driving and given a one-year driving ban. He had been breathalysed after driving on the morning after a night out, and was found to be one point over the limit.[91] As a result, England manager Glenn Hoddle dropped Ferdinand from the squad to face Moldova in a World Cup qualification match on 10 September, meaning Ferdinand lost out on the chance, at 18 years and 10 months of age, of becoming the youngest England international since Duncan Edwards.[91][92]
In March 2003, Ferdinand was given another six month ban from driving, and fined £2,500 and six penalty points for driving at an average of 92 mph (148 km/h) along the M1.[93] In May 2005, Ferdinand was criticised by a magistrate as he received his fourth ban from driving and a fine of £1,500, after being caught by traffic police "travelling at an average of 105.9 mph (170.4 km/h) over a distance of nearly two miles" on the M6 motorway. On setting the penalty, the magistrate said Ferdinand "should be a positive role model for young people in society and this does not give out the right message". It followed two previous bans for speeding, in 2002 and 2003.[94]

In September 2012 Ferdinand was given a six-month ban from driving after being caught speeding three times in five weeks on the same road. Ferdinand already had three points on his licence after twice being caught speeding in the same area in January.[95]
 
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.

You know what the funny thing is? This:

He scored 17 goals last season across all competitions, in 39 appearances.
He scored 8 goals in 21 games before his ban.
He scored 9 goals in 18 games after his ban.

The fact is - Suarez wasn't as good a finisher last season as he is this season. Ban or no ban, he was the same guy.
 
Ian Herbert: Luis Suarez - an ideal pantomime villain for the age of outrage
The nation is not so consumed by apocalyptic horror as we'd like to think

Just follow the headlines for a real sense of how the nation feels about Luis Suarez. "Same old Suarez, always eating!" "Gnash of the Day". The Lying Rag were more than matched by The Guardian's rather good "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves?" before our "Morning after the bite before". The tone pretty much reflects the tenor of Twitter since Suarez got his teeth into Branislav Ivanovic's shirt – though possibly not into his skin, because that's not been broken, but that's another story.

There's been a #suarezhungry hashtag on Twitter, and a few "Best Luis Suarez bites Ivanovic" on some of those football-themed website repositories. "Eat Ivanovic then ask for Cech" and "All Bran(ovic)". Nice. Even Patrice Evra joined the party with an inflatable arm that he bit into at Old Trafford on Monday.

All of which tells you that the nation is not quite so consumed by apocalyptic horror about all this as we'd like to think. Horror is a sensation provoked by replaying the Roy Keane "tackle" on Alf-Inge Haaland in 1997 and no one was suggesting that he should have played his last game for Manchester United. Let's be honest – this is not so much collective horror as a vicarious pleasure in a perfectly formed pantomime plot, with a clearly defined villain.

Outrage is great for filling up the vast black holes of space in the rolling news era. We're in an age of national outrage, when one footballer can feel another one make to bite him and find police officers waiting for him to disembark from a coach in the middle of the Surrey night, to check his skin for marks. There were none, actually. Suarez did not break the Chelsea defender's skin and we can take Merseyside Police's word for this.

Ivanovic had "no apparent physical injuries", they said in a statement on Monday. What have we actually seen, then? Something encapsulated by Alan Smith's remarks on the Sky Sports commentary: "He must have sunk his teeth in there I think. That's what it looks like. Oh my word." And that really was the most Smith could have said, because the only evidence we have is 44 seconds of inconclusive footage, followed by Ivanovic pointing to his arm.

The Football Association said in its own statement a few hours after Merseyside Police's that "the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances". Simply to make to bite someone is disgraceful and today's FA three-man independent regulatory commission must act swiftly and comprehensively when they see today that Suarez has. But "clearly insufficient" in what way? On the basis of a case which is not exactly overwhelmed with evidence, the FA seems to have made its minds up already. The governing body has issued a statement that prejudices the outcome of the tribunal, having ensured, to the point of extreme and understandable secrecy, that last year's tribunal governing Suarez's racist abuse of Patrice Evra was not similarly prejudiced.

It's a cultural thing that has helped inflate this perfect storm. The English football spirit tells us that our national game is a physical game and that to stamp is lower down the scale of the intolerable than the spiteful act of biting or spitting. It's a media thing. Biting is new. It's news, in a way that England hooker Dylan Hartley biting the finger of Ireland's Stephen Ferris last March was not. (A decade has passed since Aussie rules player Peter Filandia's 10-game suspension for biting an opponent's testicles during a game, so don't let's conjure the thought.) It's a Suarez thing. Any other player and it is only news for a few days.

The subplot that links Suarez with Mike Tyson, who we're told has started following the player on Twitter, really is the most incredible part of all. As if there is actually any parallel between Tyson chewing off part of Evander Holyfield's ear and Ivanovic feeling Suarez make to bite him. All part of the pantomime, as is the so-called involvement of "Number 10". David Cameron's spokesman has said: "It is rightly a matter for the football authorities to consider."

Scandal doesn't look like this. Scandal is a Crown Court judge, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, meeting Hillsborough families whose case he was about to consider, in October 1997, and when some of the families did not turn up, making a joke about the Disaster. "Have you got a few of your people or are they like Liverpool fans, turning up at the last minute?" the judge asked Phil Hammond, who lost his 14-year-old son at Hillsborough. The day of reckoning for years of obfuscation, deceit and institutional failings will come a step nearer, with a preliminary inquest hearing in London tomorrow. You can bet the coverage won't hold a candle to the Suarez storm.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...e-8585333.html
__________________
user_offline.gif
 
It's funny that the hacks are ready to question the case here whilst they absolutely refused to examine the spectacular dodginess of the Evra case. Maybe one day, one of them will finally have the balls to acknowledge what a shocking low point that was for journalism.
 
It's funny that the hacks are ready to question the case here whilst they absolutely refused to examine the spectacular dodginess of the Evra case. Maybe one day, one of them will finally have the balls to acknowledge what a shocking low point that was for journalism.

It's probably because they were scared to be seen a supporting an accused racist. This case is a lot safer for them.
 
So moaning about the consistency of the FA is not valid? The FA who allowed a career threatening challenge from McManaman go unpunished.

The same FA who's ex head says there is no precedent to this issue? Apart from Defoe getting booked for the same thing against Mascherano. I have an issue with Suarez doing these things, but lets get the punishment to fit the crime eh?

Career ending tackle? No ban

Bite that doesn't make a mark on the player? The current penalty for violent conduct is clearly insufficient.

Give it a rest Ross, its fucking boring and if you really dislike as much about this club, within its support, players and hierarchy, then perhaps a change of mind on your part is needed. I've heard the League of Ireland clubs could do with plenty of support nowadays....

Look I've already said the FA rule about not dealing with things the referee has seen is ridiculous.

But there's no point in moaning about other incidents. Suarez was stupid (again), Suarez got caught (again), Suarez admitted the offence (again). You, Portly, JJ and a host of others will claim he's being stitched up (again).

Lets ignore the stupid cunt keeps doing things to get himself in trouble and instead moan about everyone else instead. How grown up.

I don't understand why you and others become so fucking wilfully stupid and totally ignorant the minute someone talks about punishing Suarez. There is no precedent because the FA never dealt with Defoe. On every other issue you can reason, understand and make sense of things. On Suarez you all go loopy.
 
I don't really care if this is a wind-up, I agree it with it 100% nonetheless.

It's not a wind up at all.

It's just unpleasant for the people who I'm referring to so instead of acknowledging it, it's easier to say it is a wind up.
 
Tobey kicked someone and had his 3 match ban reduced to two. How is a nibble without injury be ban for more than 3?

Illogical law without sense of proportion and justice.
 
Rosco in missing the point shocker.

No one has defended him for the incident. The punishment, like the condemnation, won't be proportional to other bans, once again we'll be made an example of.

Yes he's been stupid again, we haven't handled it brilliantly but people are taking stock with the inevitable disproportionate sentencing.

I know you like to lay into the club and any high profile player it possesses, so the agenda is painfully obvious. It's a bit rich you giving it the "you're all thick" bollocks, considering some of your warped views of the game. Much like other idiots posting about great "Sir" Alex is, while accusing the club and it's fans of deteriorating the "Liverpool Way". You haven't got a fucking clue.
 
Rosco in missing the point shocker.

No one has defended him for the incident. The punishment, like the condemnation, won't be proportional to other bans, once again we'll be made an example of.

Yes he's been stupid again, we haven't handled it brilliantly but people are taking stock with the inevitable disproportionate sentencing.

I know you like to lay into the club and any high profile player it possesses, so the agenda is painfully obvious. It's a bit rich you giving it the "you're all thick" bollocks, considering some of your warped views of the game. Much like other idiots posting about great "Sir" Alex is, while accusing the club and it's fans of deteriorating the "Liverpool Way". You haven't got a fucking clue.

If you think he's getting treated differently than anyone else would, show me another player who has done all the things he's done. And show me how they got treated differently in this situation.
 
The FA could have retrospectfully charged Defoe under the exceptional circumstance ruling. The whole John Terry debacle, them writing to FIFA over Rooney's ban. There was no reason for them to come out forthright on Sunday ahead of any investigation and make it clear the 3 match violent conduct ban wouldn't suffice.
 
It's not a wind up at all.

It's just unpleasant for the people who I'm referring to so instead of acknowledging it, it's easier to say it is a wind up.

Ross Im just interested in your view on the FA stating that this incident warrants more than the normal 3 match ban for violent conduct. As the ultimate decision will be made by an Independent Tribunal do you think that the FA have compromised the case by making that statement.

This is a genuine question by the way.
 
This six matches that has just been spoken of, is this correct?
If so I am happy with that, not that I think it is particularly proportional to the offence, in that respect anything over the 3 games for violent behaviour is harsh.

In this case I do have some sympathy with the position of the FA.

This being the case we take it on the chin and move on.
I don't see how we could have handled it any better.
This us a whole lot different from the Evra case, where Suarez was done up like a turkey, everyone knew he had been, including the club, which is why they took the stance they did then, and I see little wrong with the way they handled that either.

regards
 
There was no reason for them to come out forthright on Sunday ahead of any investigation and make it clear the 3 match violent conduct ban wouldn't suffice.

Yes, I agree with that.

Suarez was fucking stupid, deserves the FA charge and has admitted it, but what is the point of a hearing if the FA are already halfway to deciding what the punishment will be? They might as well have just handed down a long ban straight after the match!

It will be interesting to see what happens. If the hearing had been on Monday he could have been looking at one hell of a long time, but since then the press has been a bit more balanced, which might well influence things.

Personally I would say that a 3 game ban is pretty reasonable.
 
Look I've already said the FA rule about not dealing with things the referee has seen is ridiculous.

But there's no point in moaning about other incidents. Suarez was stupid (again), Suarez got caught (again), Suarez admitted the offence (again). You, Portly, JJ and a host of others will claim he's being stitched up (again).

Lets ignore the stupid cunt keeps doing things to get himself in trouble and instead moan about everyone else instead. How grown up.

I don't understand why you and others become so fucking wilfully stupid and totally ignorant the minute someone talks about punishing Suarez. There is no precedent because the FA never dealt with Defoe. On every other issue you can reason, understand and make sense of things. On Suarez you all go loopy.

Oh so because you say its ridiculous, we all have to cow down and agree with you? Jesus, I thought you were more intelligent than that.

I'm not claiming he's been stitched up - I'm not speaking for others. I've also stated very clearly what he did was wrong. So how I'm ignoring the "stupid cunt" doing things wrong I'm not sure.

What I've asked for, consistently, is that the punishment fits the crime? I don't believe a ban longer than 3 games as is being suggested by the FA is fair. If your mind wants to decide that because of that I'm "fucking wilfully stupid and totally ignorant" on the subject then that's your issue.

The only vague hysteria in the above is your insulting assertions towards my ignorance and stupidity, which read as "Ross says what the score is, and if you disagree then you're an ignorant hysterical idiot". So, frankly having had enough of that type of dictatorial approach in my own life, I choose to ignore your diatribe and think differently - if that's not what you're trying to say or meant to portray, please enlighten me. In plain English what exactly you're trying to say.

I'm saying thatin my opinion, a ban of more than 3 games is unfair given the overall circumstances and also compared to the other biting incident in our game and also considering the punishment of other violent conduct offences which result in a 3 game ban. Again its not my issue if you think thats being "fucking wilfully stupid and totally ignorant".

I view that as a rational and calm opinion.
 
Personally I think he deserves more than 3 games. Biting someone seems different and worse than normal 3 game ban offences. I might be quiffing, but whether or not the rules actually allow for that kind of discrimination is a different matter.
 
The 'rules' basically state that the FA can do what it likes, when it likes, how it likes and then maintain they've left it all to an 'independent' commission which is of course free from their interference (as in this case where they publically say the normal punishment is insufficient before the panel is even convened!). We all know they'll be in the ears of the independents, who I've no doubt will be known to them.

Hopefully* the commission will deal with the offence and not the personality.



* how naive am I?
 
Back
Top Bottom