The game is in absolute disarray. Seems the media seeing sense came a little too late.
Keep Suarez?
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Wow, that's pretty harsh. I think 6 games would've been about right. Guess his past behaviour must've played a major role.
Biting * Racism = 10 games
I think is the more relevant formula. I suppose it's more the suarez modifier, which involves a host of things, but features racism as part of it.
Ridiculous.
2.5 x on the John Terry scale. I suppose you do have to divide by {England} though
But again: if his past behaviour played a major role, the same should apply to other players, and there are countless cases where it hasn't. There's no consistency whatsoever.
basically forcing our arm to sell him..
Utter Utter shower of corrupt wankers..
Liverpool statement
Liverpool Football Club has today commented on the decision to ban Luis Suarez for 10 games following the incident with Branislav Ivanovic during the game against Chelsea on April 21, 2013.
Suarez took swift action on Sunday to make an unreserved apology for his behaviour and accepted the charge of violet conduct from the FA.
LFC managing director Ian Ayre said: "Both the club and player are shocked and disappointed at the severity of today's Independent Regulatory Commission decision.
"We await the written reasons tomorrow before making any further comment."
In a nut shell.. Yes FA.. we will bend over and accept.. Insert Here >>>>>
Utter Utter shower of corrupt wankers..
Liverpool statement
Liverpool Football Club has today commented on the decision to ban Luis Suarez for 10 games following the incident with Branislav Ivanovic during the game against Chelsea on April 21, 2013.
Suarez took swift action on Sunday to make an unreserved apology for his behaviour and accepted the charge of violet conduct from the FA.
LFC managing director Ian Ayre said: "Both the club and player are shocked and disappointed at the severity of today's Independent Regulatory Commission decision.
"We await the written reasons tomorrow before making any further comment."
In a nut shell.. Yes FA.. we will bend over and accept.. Insert Here >>>>>
I support Suarez and don't want to sell him but the second ban should be longer than the first (and this should be applied in most other legal situations). If he didn't learn the first time then why would he learn the second time if the punishment is equal or less.
Corrupt hypocrites. This is why I hope England never win so much as a friendly against Malta.
10 is harsh, but it's kinda what I expected. 6 would have been about right, but I think they must have taken into account his previous record. If anyone else had done it, it would have been 6 at most.
It is sound logic, but surely the punishment by another FA is unrelated. Different standards and rules etc
Yup, like Defoe in 2006.
He did not even draw blood this time.
3/4 games is what it should have been. We should just give up with these twats. They haven't got a clue.
I agree. There needs to be proper guidelines. It's absurd that they can just come up with this stuff on the fly and not even release some kind reconciliation to a set of principles.
It's violent conduct. Give him a retrospective red card. Next time tell him to jump in with both feet at knee height instead.
The reason as to why he didn't get a ban has been pointed out loads of times. Not that anyone agrees with the reason, but that rule has been used loads of times before.
Wasn't Defor dealt with by the referee? I think that (stupidly) means the FA couldn't act.
Yep in that scenario the FA had their hands tied. Do you think Defoe would have got a 10 game ban though ?
For an isolated incident it's an incredible ban, but for a second offence bearing in mind the seven game ban for the first for a person who is a repeat offender it's not that surprising.
Im not so sure the FA have the right to take into consideration what happened previously in a different jurisdiction.
Mate, I really think it's worse than just a bad tackle. Biting someone? That is fucking disgusting behaviour, by any standard.
Do you think the Scottish FA would take us? Maybe the club could break away ...
It would mean much more money - almost guaranteed CL qualification and bringing back Scottish tourism as it was in the early 1900s!
It would mean much more money - almost guaranteed CL qualification and bringing back Scottish tourism as it was in the early 1900s!
No, I don't think he would have. Maybe 6 games. But I don't think he's had previous bans?
I'm not saying the 10 games is fair, I'm just saying I don't find it unexpected, and it's hard to say it should be less given what Suarez has been "convicted" of doing before.
So if he gets frustrated he should dive in at knee height instead. I agree.
Purposely injuring somebody is disgusting and cowardly too.
