But but but Roy Keane didnt have any previous. Oh wait........................
So a ten game ban..
- Thread starter 6TimesaRed
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
But but but Roy Keane didnt have any previous. Oh wait........................
That bite was VICIOUS.
In terms of seriousness, I'd rank the 3 bites as follows:
1. Suarez vs Bakkal
2. Defoe vs Mascherano
3. Suarez vs Ivanovic
I don't second guess and present it as fact like you're doing. I'm simply asking for back up of your assertions - and you're not providing any.
Mark every court has inconsistencies in the punishments handed out because there are numerous factors in every incident to take into account. You aren't ever going to get total consistency. So to moan about it is wasting your time.
If you think your argument is valid - if you're ever charged with anything in court. Argue a defence like the one you're putting forward now. See how you get on.
PA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Amazingly, they're massively more balanced on that show than they ever were on Sky.
Every presenter on talksport with the exclusion of Adrian Durham and Andy Jacobs have been fairly balanced.
No im arguing that the root cause needs to be resolved.. and things have been put in place to help Suarez.. There is also the argument about the FA's lack of consistancy..
5 game ban with 5 suspended imho sits better.. Their is also a better incentive not to do it again.. You do and your fcuked.. not only will you receive the automatic Suspended sentance but what ever other punishment the FA decide to dish out on you too..
Sorry
Dont be sorry, you made me actual laugh.
Durham is just a WUM.. I had to turn it off yesterday.. He was giving Liverpool Supporter pelters.. One guy called in with a perfectly reasonable argument.. He then tried to say all Liverpool fans are deluded..
Alan Brazil wasn't much better this morning either...
My anger with this isn't so much the ban but the FA's continual lack of consistancy
Durham does it to get a reaction. Jacobs is just a plank.
I agree about the lack of consistency. But I dont think you can use it as a reason to not suspend a player for a given period of time who is a serial offender.
He has brought it on himself the silly bugger.
I honestly don't remember one single person saying he should not be suspended.
Those legal principles that cleared Terry but didn't stop the FA banning him. Hmmmm.
I'm jealous.
No we are all stereotypical scouse benefit scroungers, milking the system.. 😉
You Work, We play... 😀
Is that human ale house still going? Incredible.
And he likes to remind us of that fact every morning... *yawn smiley*
Im just wondering Oncy. Have you had a change of views since Monday?
Unlike all those permanent suspensions, you mean?
Backing up what? I'm not making assertions, I'm pointing to ambiguous rulings by using similar offenses and incidents with a wide range of different approaches. I'm asking if you think it's consistent. You're asking me to back it up with evidence to suggest otherwise, it's going around in circles. Show me evidence of clarity within the rulings? You can't and I'm fucked if you can show me clear cut examples to prove consistency, so we're both at odds.
Do me a favour, quit with the "yeah but in a court of law, if you stood up and said that.......".
If Anne Williams had stood up in court 24 years ago and said the police were partly to the blame for Kevin's death at Hillsborough, people would have asked her to provide evidence and she wouldn't have been able to do so, it doesn't mean the suspicion wasn't without reason. Put the fucking text book away.
Peter, with all due respect both you and others keep referring to cumulative punishment as is the norm in society and it's courts, the difference here I believe is that society has County Courts, Tribunals, Magistrates Courts, Crown Courts, High Court, Appeal Courts, Supreme Courts o.s.v. where people have the right to appeal and indeed can get financial help to do so, the F.A. is answerable to no one and they themselves rule on appeals against there own decisions i.e. a successful appeal would show they themselves have originally made a false ruling, they are unlikely to do that. So in summation I would say there is no relation to what is 'so widely accepted in society at large' and what goes on behind closed doors at a totalitarian organisation, and the two systems shouldn't be compared.
JJ I honestly dont know what you are talking about.
I suggested its hard to argue with the length of the ban and you are in your own head reading that I think people think he shouldnt be banned!?
Maybe a lie down?
If the aim of the FA is simply to make the player feel persecuted, then 10 games is about right. It will probably make his behaviour even worse because he won't give a damn. He'll be past caring. If the aim of the FA is to make him change his ways, then 4 games and a monitored course of anger management counselling would suffice, because he could start a new season with a fresh outlook and be judged accordingly. The current judgement stinks, and even most in the media - the FA's only apparent criterion for evaluating its own performance - think it stinks, and the club should go out and hire the fiercest lawyers available to knock down the FA's house of cards once and for all.
At last the most sensible post in the whole thread.. KInda my point im getting at...
Oncy, I now get that that's what you wanted to convey but I don't reckon you did so clearly in that previous post and I'm afraid I did think you were alleging that people think he shouldn't be banned. Some on your side of the debate have given other ludicrous and misleading summaries of what the rest of us are saying, and I made the mistake of judging your post by their standards. Soz.
Not really mate. I didnt think it was an anything. I think there is massive hysteria and an overreaction and I think that a 4 game ban would have been right.
But Im not a zealot. Hes a dick. He bit someone. I cant really argue with the FA banning him for ages.
Im pissed off of course as I dont think it was in any way serious. But I cant argue with it.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
