Keep Suarez?

[Rosco]

When did they get them?

Are they allowed to publish them?

Yesterday.

No idea. But you would think that if there was something in it in our favour we would have leaked it by now.

Instead we just got a Rodgers interview reiterating the irrelevant points that LFC fans are making, garnering himself a bit of support in the process.

 

[Rosco]

although maybe we'll publically state the reasons we're appealing the decision today

 

[Sunny]

Can you point out the section of the rules that would have allowed the FA to punish Defoe?

It doesn't appear to exist

Schedule C

Explanatory note: These Standard Directions give eff ect to the principle that credit, in the
form of a reduction in the applicable penalty, should be given to a Participant who admits
a Charge. To achieve this, where a Standard Penalty is off ered with a Charge in a Standard
Case it will incorporate a reduction, usually of approximately one third. Should the Charge
be denied and subsequently found proved, a higher Standard Penalty will apply which will
not incorporate that reduction.
For the purposes of cases subject to these Standard Directions only, when issuing a Charge
in a particular case, The Association may designate that case as a Standard Case. Whether
or not a particular case is designated as a Standard Case shall be at the discretion of The
Association.
In exercising that discretion, The Association shall not designate any case as a Standard
Case where any one or more of the following exceptional circumstances applies -
• Where the particular facts of the alleged offence are of a serious and / or unusual
nature, as determined by The Association;
• Where the Participant Charged has been Charged with Misconduct for a similar
matter, as determined by The Association, in the preceding 12 months;
• Where the Charge is for media comments made by the Participant.


OKthankyoubye

 

[Rosco]

Schedule C

Explanatory note: These Standard Directions give eff ect to the principle that credit, in the
form of a reduction in the applicable penalty, should be given to a Participant who admits
a Charge. To achieve this, where a Standard Penalty is off ered with a Charge in a Standard
Case it will incorporate a reduction, usually of approximately one third. Should the Charge
be denied and subsequently found proved, a higher Standard Penalty will apply which will
not incorporate that reduction.
For the purposes of cases subject to these Standard Directions only, when issuing a Charge
in a particular case, The Association may designate that case as a Standard Case. Whether
or not a particular case is designated as a Standard Case shall be at the discretion of The
Association.
In exercising that discretion, The Association shall not designate any case as a Standard
Case where any one or more of the following exceptional circumstances applies -
• Where the particular facts of the alleged offence are of a serious and / or unusual
nature, as determined by The Association;
• Where the Participant Charged has been Charged with Misconduct for a similar
matter, as determined by The Association, in the preceding 12 months;
• Where the Charge is for media comments made by the Participant.


OKthankyoubye

You've totally misread those rules.

 

[mark1975]

Suarez deserves heavy punishment. Agreed.

So why the fuck are morons going on about Defoe, if Suarez does deserve heavy punishment. You can't on the one hand agree he needs to be punished and on the other ask that he be treated the same as someone who got away with it.

Unless you're a massive hypocrite.

I love the way Piedro has been totally ignored by the Scouse contingent btw

But Rosco, I and I'm sure most on here wouldn't say he deserves the "same" as Defoe. It's the only precedent but it escaped through a loophole in the law. Would Defoe have got a retrospective 10 game ban? 8? 7?

Keane got a 5 match ban after admitting to intentionally ending someones career, and he wasn't without form either.

As for Pete, he's right, some people do act like that, but as I said, some posters are seemingly skimming over points, it's not about excuses it's about fairness and indisputable rulings. At the minute, they appear to be up in the air with no real clarity.

 

[Sunny]

You've totally misread those rules.

No I haven't. They can easily be interpreted that way.

If the FA can interpret their own shit any way they want so can I

 

[Rosco]

But Rosco, I and I'm sure most on here wouldn't say he deserves the "same" as Defoe. It's the only precedent but it escaped through a loophole in the law. Would Defoe have got a retrospective 10 game ban? 8? 7?

Keane got a 5 match ban after admitting to intentionally ending someones career, and he wasn't without form either.

As for Pete, he's right, some people do act like that, but as I said, some posters are seemingly skimming over points, it's not about excuses it's about fairness and indisputable rulings. At the minute, they appear to be up in the air with no real clarity.

1. Defoe isn't a precedent. If an Independent Panel had looked at the incident then it would have been.

Keane didn't admit that until his book, much later.

So I put it to you again, if you believe he deserves a ban why are you coming back with arguments filled with half truths and untruths in defence of him ?

If we do similar in the appeal papers we will be fucking laughed at. We know the factors the FA consider, there's room to argue within them without talking a load of shite.

 

[Rosco]

No I haven't. They can easily be interpreted that way.

If the FA can interpret their own shit any way they want so can I

How grown up.

You couldn't have read the rules more wrong. But I kind of expected that.

All you've done is find a phrase that is kind of like what you're talking about, without actually reading the context. If you did you would see why that has no bearing on the Defoe incident.

 

[Sunny]

How grown up.

You couldn't have read the rules more wrong. But I kind of expected that

Fucking hell , grown up? That's rich from you stomping round the boards trolling the fuck out of them you puerile twat

 

[mark1975]

Yesterday.

No idea. But you would think that if there was something in it in our favour we would have leaked it by now.

Instead we just got a Rodgers interview reiterating the irrelevant points that LFC fans are making, garnering himself a bit of support in the process.

Is this not the right way to do it though? They can't win really. If they announced what areas they were targeting, it's essentially giving the FA the heads up and everyone would be on there case. So what are you insinuating now? That because they haven't gone running to the press in the last however many hours, they don't have a leg to stand on? That might well be the case, which I'm sure is the outcome you've got you legally binding fingers crossed for, but anyway..

 

[mark1975]

How grown up.

You couldn't have read the rules more wrong. But I kind of expected that.

All you've done is find a phrase that is kind of like what you're talking about, without actually reading the context. If you did you would see why that has no bearing on the Defoe incident.

You're an obnoxious fucking cunt.

 

[Rosco]

Fucking hell , grown up? That's rich from you stomping round the boards trolling the fuck out of them you puerile twat

So taking the time to read and understand things and then explain them to others is trolling ?

 

[LeTallecWiz]

 

[Rosco]

You're an obnoxious fucking cunt.

A sure sign you've lost the argument.

 

[Sunny]

So taking the time to read and understand things and then explain them to others is trolling ?

No Ross, being an obnoxious motherfucker is- which you have been for the last 18 months. I don't what happened to you or what the buzz is you get from acting like complete know it all wind up gobshite but you're a complete embarrassment to yourself. Crack on blustering away as much as you want though because you're just getting completely ignored now. It's a real shame you're an admin/mod because I'd have you on ignore you tedious cunt along with other trolls.

 

[mark1975]

1. Defoe isn't a precedent. If an Independent Panel had looked at the incident then it would have been.

Keane didn't admit that until his book, much later.

So I put it to you again, if you believe he deserves a ban why are you coming back with arguments filled with half truths and untruths in defence of him ?

If we do similar in the appeal papers we will be fucking laughed at. We know the factors the FA consider, there's room to argue within them without talking a load of shite.

What difference does him admitting it later make? Congratulations on being selective, again. I'm not trying to put forward a legal case, I'm saying the laws are inconsistent, you think that the broader realm of punishments is just symptomatic of the differing offenses. There are parallels in terms of other players not being reprimanded in respect of past convictions.

Anyway, as I said, I'm done. You're being an obnoxious dick, no one's putting forward a legal case and I'm fucked if I'm pandering to your ego massaging, because of a fucking qualification. People wonder why legal eagles are fucking hated, it's because they fail to recognise the flaws in the system and treat the system as it's fucking doctrine.

 

[mark1975]

A sure sign you've lost the argument.

A sure sign I can't be arsed dealing with your ignorant shite. I've countered it enough, as I said pages ago, put the fucking books away.

 

[mark1975]

No Ross, being an obnoxious motherfucker is- which you have been for the last 18 months. I don't what happened to you or what the buzz is you get from acting like complete know it all wind up gobshite but you're a complete embarrassment to yourself. Crack on blustering away as much as you want though because you're just getting completely ignored now. It's a real shame you're an admin/mod because I'd have you on ignore you tedious cunt along with other trolls.

Afuckingmen.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

Ok - I don't want to lock this thread, but if this continues, it will happen. So, will our protagonists take a break and return at a later date.

 

[Modo]

booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Rosco]

No Ross, being an obnoxious motherfucker is- which you have been for the last 18 months. I don't what happened to you or what the buzz is you get from acting like complete know it all wind up gobshite but you're a complete embarrassment to yourself. Crack on blustering away as much as you want though because you're just getting completely ignored now. It's a real shame you're an admin/mod because I'd have you on ignore you tedious cunt along with other trolls.

Take a look at yourself.

I ask you to show me the power under which the FA could have punished Defoe. You copy and paste the rule that allows them to reduce the automatic 3 match ban for a sending off to something less. And you say I can interpret everything the way I want, it's what they do.

Totally fucking childish. If you can't accept being pulled up for being totally fucking wrong and totally idiotic that's on you.

Like others I get totally fed up with the default "everybody's out to get us" , woe is me sorry for ourselves bullshit that gets pulled every single time. Man the fuck up you big pussy

 

[Rosco]

What difference does him admitting it later make? Congratulations on being selective, again. I'm not trying to put forward a legal case, I'm saying the laws are inconsistent, you think that the broader realm of punishments is just symptomatic of the differing offenses. There are parallels in terms of other players not being reprimanded in respect of past convictions.

Anyway, as I said, I'm done. You're being an obnoxious dick, no one's putting forward a legal case and I'm fucked if I'm pandering to your ego massaging, because of a fucking qualification. People wonder why legal eagles are fucking hated, it's because they fail to recognise the flaws in the system and treat the system as it's fucking doctrine.

What difference does it make ? You told me in your post that he admitted it beforehand. You lied. And the difference it makes is intent is considered.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Ross, who talks to people like they're 2 months old telling people to grow up. Ha.

 

[Rosco]

Ross, who talks to people like they're 2 months old telling people to grow up. Ha.

Hey, to distract from the fact none of you have a clue what you're on about why don't you just have a pop at me instead ?

 

[mark1975]

Take a look at yourself.

I ask you to show me the power under which the FA could have punished Defoe. You copy and paste the rule that allows them to reduce the automatic 3 match ban for a sending off to something less. And you say I can interpret everything the way I want, it's what they do.

Totally fucking childish. If you can't accept being pulled up for being totally fucking wrong and totally idiotic that's on you.

Ross, do you think the rulings are fair? Do you think there's consistency? Forget the guidelines, because they don't really determine the length of bans beyond the norm. Do you think that the FA have shown consistency with the 10 game ban or that it was fair taking into consideration past crimes (bearing in mind they themselves have said they couldn't consider the Dutch ban), in comparison to other repetitive offenders?

Ferdinand was fined by the FA for his Ashley Cole tweet, it was a fellow pro and the FA chose their involvement. His fine was £45k. This is a player who has been fined by the FA for multiple driving offences, calling a radio DJ a "Faggot" and being banned for a lengthy period for skipping a drug test. This was in the year that Suarez was given an 8 match ban and Terry a 4 match ban for racist slurs. Do you think that shows consistency? Do you think the FA took Ferdinand's previous convictions into consideration? It's also worth noting that after the ban, Ferdinand then Tweeted that he "wasn't sorry, couldn't give a shit and that he was entitled to post whatever he wanted" - with no subsequent action taken against him.

 

[jimmy]

Rosco, I've lost any hope of reading all the post on this thread -i's about 50 pages too long, as it's been repeating itself (and I'm not referring to your side of the debate only).
I'd just like to make an observation:

Football is a game of passion and enthusiasm. We here are football fans and as such are passionate about the Suarez biting issue.
Many of us here cannot see the logic of this harsh punishment he got, and are looking at past similar events as reference.
Others can see the logic behind the punishments andn are arguing for this.
You are the only one (I might have missed otheres?) who keep talking to us like a lawyer, telling us to read all sorts of rules etc.

The majority of us are not lawyers and are not really interested in all the small letters. I fully understand that rules and laws are essential if we want to avoid chaos. No question about that. Howerver, rules and laws have to make sense, and the same applies to the interpretaqtion of the people interpretting and enforcing them (the FA in this case).
I, and most others here, simply feel that those people at the FA have forgotten that and are too busy with themselves and how important they are, leaving all reason aside. This was true in the Suarez - Evra case, and is even more so this time.
There's no point for you to keep telling us the small letters of the rules, because I think people here are sick of those FA rules and the way they are interpretted by those officials.

 

[Spionkop69]

Great footballer, truly truly great footballer actually.

But he's a cock, and I don't think there's any disputing that either.

I don't like him, and I fail to see how anyone can really. Good judge of a footballer is how you'd view them if they played for someone else. Well I can safely say I'd think he's the biggest bellend in football if he played for anyone else.

It's not really my main gripe though. I find the excuse-making for him nauseating, and entirely predictable. It's always the same old bollocks; from shit like this to the complete overreaction to why we're not on first on match of the day or whatever. It's all quite embarrassing really.

I guess I'm a better different sort of football supporter.

I've fixed that for you. Its not like you to be that modest.

 

[Rosco]

Show me a court that's consistent Mark.

There is no consistency anywhere in the world because consistency = injustice. Every incident is considered on it's own merit. There is no perfect system. That's why I think the arguments like the one above are totally irrelevant.

I'm not sure why events off the pitch should be considered. There isn't logic to it.

I said at the time I felt a 4 match ban was legally right for Suarez, given the problem with the corroboration evidence but we never appealed the decision. That's our problem for not correcting a mistake.

The argument for reducing the ban isn't based on finger pointing and moaning. It's based on the fact there was no harm done.

 

[Rosco]

Rosco, I've lost any hope of reading all the post on this thread -i's about 50 pages too long, as it's been repeating itself (and I'm not referring to your side of the debate only).
I'd just like to make an observation:

Football is a game of passion and enthusiasm. We here are football fans and as such are passionate about the Suarez biting issue.
Many of us here cannot see the logic of this harsh punishment he got, and are looking at past similar events as reference.
Others can see the logic behind the punishments andn are arguing for this.
You are the only one (I might have missed otheres?) who keep talking to us like a lawyer, telling us to read all sorts of rules etc.

The majority of us are not lawyers and are not really interested in all the small letters. I fully understand that rules and laws are essential if we want to avoid chaos. No question about that. Howerver, rules and laws have to make sense, and the same applies to the interpretaqtion of the people interpretting and enforcing them (the FA in this case).
I, and most others here, simply feel that those people at the FA have forgotten that and are too busy with themselves and how important they are, leaving all reason aside. This was true in the Suarez - Evra case, and is even more so this time.
There's no point for you to keep telling us the small letters of the rules, because I think people here are sick of those FA rules and the way they are interpretted by those officials.

You can't make sense of anything if you don't read the rules Jimmy.

 

[mark1975]

Show me a court that's consistent Mark.

There is no consistency anywhere in the world because consistency = injustice. Every incident is considered on it's own merit. There is no perfect system. That's why I think the arguments like the one above are totally irrelevant.

I'm not sure why events off the pitch should be considered. There isn't logic to it.

I said at the time I felt a 4 match ban was legally right for Suarez, given the problem with the corroboration evidence but we never appealed the decision. That's our problem for not correcting a mistake.

The argument for reducing the ban isn't based on finger pointing and moaning. It's based on the fact there was no harm done.

I know there can't be a concrete ruling that would see broader offenses punished in the same way. But just like similar length punishments for a broad range of crimes in society, it's open to interpretation and subsequently, mistakes.

The argument isn't really based on "no harm done", it's based on comparative situations and the general consensus that he's been singled out while other players have repeatedly offended and not faced similar accumulative punishments. I've never once considered that there being "no bite marks" or whatever is in any way significant or relevant.