Keep Suarez?
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I'm not sure either, although tbh I can't think of a good reason why not. It's a respected league operating under universal laws, after all.
But Suarez has been in shitloads of trouble in England too. That alone is enough for a cumulative element to the punishment.
It's this sort of capricious logic which is why there are so many stupid laws on the books. I'd much rather be bitten than have my career ended, but for some reason since one is considered to be part of the game, and normative, the law moves away from the actual damage given to some weird set of arbitrary cultural taboos.
"Bad tackle" is just it. The fact that something resembles something that is part of the game is precisely why some thuggish players get away with snapping legs left and right. They know exactly what they are doing, or rather, they lose it completely and express it with their studs rather than their teeth.
I guess when someone robs a store in England, their criminal record is used for a harsher ban when they do it in the Emirates or South Africa. Consistency ...
Here is the full Football Association statement regarding its decision to ban Luis Suarez for 10 matches.
"Luis Suarez has been suspended for a total of 10 matches after an Independent Regulatory Commission today ruled on a charge of violent conduct.
"A three-person Independent Regulatory Commission today upheld The FA's claim that a suspension of three matches was clearly insufficient and the player will serve a further seven first-team matches in addition to the standard three. The suspension begins with immediate effect.
"This follows an incident with Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic in Sunday's fixture at Anfield (21 April 2013).
"The Liverpool forward had accepted a charge of violent conduct but had denied The FA's claim that the standard three-match sanction was insufficient for the offence.
"The incident was not seen by the match officials and has therefore been retrospectively reviewed.
"Suarez has until midday on Friday 26 April to appeal the additional suspension, above the standard three matches."
"Luis Suarez has been suspended for a total of 10 matches after an Independent Regulatory Commission today ruled on a charge of violent conduct.
"A three-person Independent Regulatory Commission today upheld The FA's claim that a suspension of three matches was clearly insufficient and the player will serve a further seven first-team matches in addition to the standard three. The suspension begins with immediate effect.
"This follows an incident with Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic in Sunday's fixture at Anfield (21 April 2013).
"The Liverpool forward had accepted a charge of violent conduct but had denied The FA's claim that the standard three-match sanction was insufficient for the offence.
"The incident was not seen by the match officials and has therefore been retrospectively reviewed.
"Suarez has until midday on Friday 26 April to appeal the additional suspension, above the standard three matches."
This is another example of stupidity from otherwise sensible posters.
Why do you keep referring to an incident the FA couldn't and didnt deal with?
I'd love to see the posters here if they were ever up on a murder charge - "OJ got away with it, so should I". How do you think that would go down?
You'd be told its completely irrelevant to the present case, just like Defoe is to Suarez.
Yeah I get that. To be honest, I wouldn't have argued too much with a 6 game ban, for example, but only because he's done it before.
But is it really worse than what Ben Thatcher, Chris Morgan and Roy Keane have done? Almost killed (literally, not in the Fergie sense) people and ended careers.
Biting is disgusting and deplorable. But this has basically said "Sure, kick lumps out of someone, fracture their skull, break their legs. That's 'British' waheeey! But biting or spitting!? Don't care if they barely felt it! We're throwing you to the lions."
I don't know about England, but it is in Ireland.
Well I've stated my views on this kind of thing before. IMO the referee should not be asked to preside over incidents like this, at all. Leave him to decide on matters directly affecting the flow of the game. Anything else, including dangerous tackles, leave to a video panel. Seemingly deliberate dangerous tackles I'd punish very severely indeed, certainly in the 10 game region. This was different: I think he probably deserved 4 or 5 games for the incident, and some more for the repeat offence. Not sure how much.
Yep. Just tell him to do this instead.
I can see Peter's viewpoint. 3 games for violent conduct, a couple of games for repeat offences, and 1 game for it being Suarez.
6 games.
6 games.
Good reply it was too
Sorry I think that is semantics. It was still the same crime in the same sport, and he shouldn't have done it.
It's my own personal opinion, but I've always felt that attempted murder and murder should have the same punishment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy in the slightest, and the FA are being unfair based on punishments to other players for worse crimes. But if we ignore all that, then the FA had to ban him for longer than the previous ban imo.
R
RedZeppelin III
Guest
for the life of me i don't understand why the FA don't publish a guideline on what punishment will go with what offence . It would save them alot of hassle and people will know in advance what they'll get . Ok, they can even have the ability to add extra games on top of extreme cases . Like biting is 10 games. Biting and then swallowing the flesh or gargling the blood - 15 !
Unlikely since he hadnt done it before and wasn't a repeat offender.
Can he play in another country while he serves the ban? If so, let's loan him to Ajax for two months when the season starts.
What you would theoretically do, which I largely agree with, isn't really relevant to the end result of the punishments the FA has handed out, and what valuations they seem to convey, which don't seem to follow any particular metric.
My comment was in reference to you saying that biting was worse than a bad tackle, because it was "disgusting".
No doubt an appeal will be forthcoming but it's fucking pointless against a kangaroo court.
Hahahaha.
Completely and utterly mad and yet not in the least unsurprising.
Cue Ross to tell us he's a fucking idiot who deserves it. I can't wait....
Completely and utterly mad and yet not in the least unsurprising.
Cue Ross to tell us he's a fucking idiot who deserves it. I can't wait....
What would be the point of that? Unless they start their season 2 months before us and by the time we start our season he has missed 6 games through suspension for Ajax. I assume that's what you meant?
Nevermind, I've read it again. For match practice?
