Dont apologise JJ. Youre old, old people get confused. Same as in the other thread re - PSG. We make allowances because we love you mate.
x
So a ten game ban..
- Thread starter 6TimesaRed
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
x
Indeed. If one of those attack dogs advises that there's a reasonable prospect of success in doing so, the challenge should be to the whole rotten disciplinary structure.
Indecision.. It happens to the best of you old timers.
Er....
Not me mate, I still have my own teeth. No reference to current events intended BTW.
Ok. I just thought that earlier in the week you were very bullish in defending him. Thanks anyway.
I was. I am. Hes our player and I love him and dont want him to leave. I think thats different from being massively surprised by the ban though.
I feel the idea of 'rehabilitation' could be the cornerstone for a good defence to the length of the ban.
Argue that the 10 ban is simply punishment & to lower it to 6, having a further 10 games as suspended if he repeats the incident & having anger management as part of the punishment.
It would certainly fit the 'crime' better.
Argue that the 10 ban is simply punishment & to lower it to 6, having a further 10 games as suspended if he repeats the incident & having anger management as part of the punishment.
It would certainly fit the 'crime' better.
No thought process was given with the inital ruling, they pandered to Media Pressure.. Its clear Suarez has problems.. these are the underlying issues that need to be resolved.. He also about to get a Ban from International football for the punching incident.. Anger Managment or something similar is an absoloute must...
The basis of a part suspended ban with the look at rehabilitation is definatley the way forward.. The FA are in complete danger of Alienating one of the Premier Leagues Best Players.. Like Macca said just their is a danger that just banning him for ten games, will make stupid cnut even angrier.. He needs to be in a position where next season, after all his 'rehabilitation' where he can start a 'cleanish slate'
I've just explained why you'll never see any consistency in punishments all around the world wherever you want to look.
There are way too many (relevant) things to consider for things to appear simplistically consistent.
Each incident has to be dealt with on its own merit.
That's all totally irrelevant when the specific complaint is against the concept of cumulative punishment. How the FA operates is independent of that.
Brendan Rodgers has hit back at the Football Association for victimising Luis Suárez, insisting that his 10-match ban for biting Branislav Ivanovic is a punishment "against the man rather than the incident".
The Liverpool striker was charged with violent conduct over the incident, which occurred in Sunday's 2-2 draw against Chelsea at Anfield. Suárez was not booked for the bite and went on to score an injury time equaliser.
He later apologised and despite accepting the charge and subsequent club fine, an independent disciplinary panel decided to hand out a longer ban than usual.
Liverpool have until midday tomorrow to appeal and will make their decision after receipt of the disciplinary panel's report, which has to arrive with the club before 6pm on Thursday.
"It is the severity of the ban that has hurt most," said Rodgers. "That is something we are bitterly disappointed with - not so much the ban because everyone has seen it and Luis was very open and honest to know it was wrong."
The Liverpool striker was charged with violent conduct over the incident, which occurred in Sunday's 2-2 draw against Chelsea at Anfield. Suárez was not booked for the bite and went on to score an injury time equaliser.
He later apologised and despite accepting the charge and subsequent club fine, an independent disciplinary panel decided to hand out a longer ban than usual.
Liverpool have until midday tomorrow to appeal and will make their decision after receipt of the disciplinary panel's report, which has to arrive with the club before 6pm on Thursday.
"It is the severity of the ban that has hurt most," said Rodgers. "That is something we are bitterly disappointed with - not so much the ban because everyone has seen it and Luis was very open and honest to know it was wrong."
Like the majority of lads on here, I'm disappointed in Suarez and will not defend his behaviour on Sunday. The issue, however, is consistancy and fairness to all players and all clubs. Some perspective:
1. In 2013 Luis Suarez, a Liverpool player, let his frustration bubble over and in the heat of the moment, nips an opposing player on the arm. The player was able to complete the game.
FA punishment - 10 games
2. In 2001 Roy Keane, a Manchester Utd player, planned an attack on an opposing player before the game and shared this plan with his manager. He brutally, violently and intentionally ended his opponent's career. The player was stretchered off the field, was taken straight to hospital and never played again.
FA punishment - 5 games and no action taken against the manager who knew what was going to happen beforehand.
Unfortunately when it comes to being unbiased and applying common sense, our sport's governing body knows sweet FA.
EDIT - The FA only banned Keane for 3 GAMES for the assault. The 5 game ban was after the publication of his biography in which he admitted his intention to take Haaland out.
1. In 2013 Luis Suarez, a Liverpool player, let his frustration bubble over and in the heat of the moment, nips an opposing player on the arm. The player was able to complete the game.
FA punishment - 10 games
2. In 2001 Roy Keane, a Manchester Utd player, planned an attack on an opposing player before the game and shared this plan with his manager. He brutally, violently and intentionally ended his opponent's career. The player was stretchered off the field, was taken straight to hospital and never played again.
FA punishment - 5 games and no action taken against the manager who knew what was going to happen beforehand.
Unfortunately when it comes to being unbiased and applying common sense, our sport's governing body knows sweet FA.
EDIT - The FA only banned Keane for 3 GAMES for the assault. The 5 game ban was after the publication of his biography in which he admitted his intention to take Haaland out.
I thought he will start serving the 3 match ban immediately.
yup I think that too.. we are not contesting the initial 3 match ban, its the additional 7..
Wait, Alex Ferguson knew about this and nothing was done? That's outrageous if true.
Well good job no one kicked the ball at Haaland when he was down otherwise it would be conspiracy to attempted murder.
Yes, but they didn't say they'd publish it; maybe just sending it to the club?
The FA are so corrupt they are even trying to pin Bennett's charge on Suarez
Say the FA went a bit mental, and banned someone for 200 games and fined them 1mill for saying 'tits' during a game, I wonder what legal recourse the player would have? Seeing as the FA's answer to everything is 'we'll do as we like'.
Could Suarez take them to court for human rights, stopping him working, interfering with his life or something? Surely there's some ropey tree-hugging law they've breached? Ffs, Abu Qatada rolls the government over on a weekly basis, surely a decent lawyer could roll the FA over?
Could Suarez take them to court for human rights, stopping him working, interfering with his life or something? Surely there's some ropey tree-hugging law they've breached? Ffs, Abu Qatada rolls the government over on a weekly basis, surely a decent lawyer could roll the FA over?
I wouldn't mind the 10 game ban so much, if it was consistent with similar or worse incidents even. However it's not. Yet again, the FA have excelled themselves at being completely fucking inept at doing their job. The only bit of consistency they possess, is the ability to be inconsistent when it comes to Suarez.
The FA ought to behave like a sober, objective, responsible body, but instead it acts like some kind of neurotic, petulant, spiteful and dangerously mercurial organisation. Graham Bean - ex-FA compliance officer - was on the radio earlier today saying that the FA probably wouldn't have been so severe but he thinks it 'reacted' to LFC's suggestion that three games would be enough and decided to 'punish' them for their comments. Now even though that is just his opinion, it's still alarming that someone who knows the FA would even speculate that it - and its 'independent' judges - acts in such a way. It is supposed to look at a case calmly and dispassionately and decide on a fitting punishment that can be seen to be consistent with its basic principles. It can't bounce around 'topping up' punishments because someone somewhere, even informally,says something it doesn't like. It's madness.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
