Has Suarez done it again?

[Deleted member 15344]

Plenty of wailing and whining going on - you just can't hear it.

So substitute the name Ya Ya You're and you'd still be up in arms about it...?

Really...?

Oh I can hear some noises that's for sure

The reaction would be the same regardless of the player.

 

[standrew]

Lol Suarez appealing i did say a campaign was imminent.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Personally I am pleased to see FIFA take decisive action and feel that the outcome, while arguably could be stronger, does send out a message. What he has done THREE TIMES now is undefendable. I would argue that there's still a world away from a badly timed tackle resulting in injury and a red card from someone that deliberately bites an opponent.

It has no place in the game and given the previous incidents, I am glad it is a blanket ban. If he had played for Barca, Bayern, Man Utd or any other top club and they'd been impacted the same way as Liverpool my opinion wouldn't have changed. The guy clearly has issues and if Liverpool decide to stick with him or he goes somewhere else, that he gets the professional help he needs

 

[pbrown7582]

Adidas have withdrawn his marketing from the WC and will be discussing the future in due course.

 

[One Planer]

Surely going in with two feet or head butting or throwing shows intent ? All players know they are outlawed

As soon as you start to mention exceptions then grey areas appear.

Did you know that Defoe was caught on camera biting a player - guess what punishment he received

Consistency is the key - none of them are

So Valencia went in to hurt the guy the other night?

No. He was off the floor, 2 footed too, but no, no intent.

If Suarwz had a 2 year international ban you'd be happy because he could still play for Liverpool. Pure and simple.

Any other debate is futile.

FIFA have acted within the rules of the game. I don't see the issue myself.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So Valencia went in to hurt the guy the other night?

No. He was off the floor, 2 footed too, but no, no intent.

If Suarwz had a 2 year international ban you'd be happy because he could still play for Liverpool. Pure and simple.

Any other debate is futile.

FIFA have acted within the rules of the game. I don't see the issue myself.

So the question is why did the FA deem an elbow worse than a bite at one stage ? One bite worthy of no further action - another worthy of ten games - consistency

One player guilty of racist abuse 5 games - another player guilty of racist abuse 10 games - consistency

If you are off the floor two footed going in for a challenge you know there is a chance you can cause more damage than any bite could do.

What I want is consistency.

FIFA make the rules so any act they do can be within the rules of the game !

They didn't even know what the "ban from all footballing activity" would mean.

Let's not start acting as if FIFA are the bastion of fair play.

 

[c1973]

I do hope FIFA are consistent now. Will all violent conduct at international level now incur bans to be served at club level? I doubt it.

What he done is inexcusable, but governing bodies need to be fair and consistent in their handling of all and any matters arising (violent conduct in this case) in the game. Was Zidane banned from ALL football for his headbutt?

I think a lengthy international ban should have been the punishment from FIFA. Liverpool appear to be the ones being punished here, unjustly at that.

As I said inexcusable behaviour, but yet again the ruling body gets it wrong. Imo.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Has anyone thought that maybe FIFA ban him from all football because he's not safe to be on a pitch??
End of the day Liverpool fans are upset because not only as Suarez made them look foolish for defending him all last season. But now Liverpool loose their best Player & look like loosing a massive transfer fee.

 

[chrisd]

Come on, there are certain things that transcend all other bad behaviour on the football field, spitting at an opponent, biting them or I guess we'd look at peeing on the prone body of a centre forward we'd just hacked down as a simple foul!

Suarez got what he deserved, of course he shouldn't be allowed to play any football for such a disgusting act! I seriously don't think Phil would have the same view if he was a Chelsea player

 

[One Planer]

So the question is why did the FA deem an elbow worse than a bite at one stage ? One bite worthy of no further action - another worthy of ten games - consistency

One player guilty of racist abuse 5 games - another player guilty of racist abuse 10 games - consistency

If you are off the floor two footed going in for a challenge you know there is a chance you can cause more damage than any bite could do.

What I want is consistency.

FIFA make the rules so any act they do can be within the rules of the game !

They didn't even know what the "ban from all footballing activity" would mean.

Let's not start acting as if FIFA are the bastion of fair play.

Oh let me guess player from non Liverpool clubs get a different decision (lesser) and all of a sudden it's about consistency?

I suppose when Barton picked up his ban for his end-of-season meltdown against Manchester City., that wasn't fair. The QPR skipper elbowed Carlos Tevez, kicked Kun Aguero and attempted to headbutt Vincent Kompany.

All the things you mention. Was that not consistent.

Or how about Ben Thatcher who was suspended for an elbow assault on Pedro Mendes, of Portsmouth, August 2006. The Portuguese midfielder was knocked out cold and suffered a seizure as a result of the challenge.

Consistent?


Or how about Roy Keane Manchester who was ruled out for five matches in 2002 for bringing the game into disrepute after admitting in his autobiography that a dangerous tackle on Manchester City midfielder Alf Inge Haaland the previous year?

Oh surprise. Non of them Liverpool players. Funny that.

You'll be telling me next that Robbie Fowler' 'White Line' celebration that saw him banned for 6 matches was an over reaction too.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Come on, there are certain things that transcend all other bad behaviour on the football field, spitting at an opponent, biting them or I guess we'd look at peeing on the prone body of a centre forward we'd just hacked down as a simple foul!

Suarez got what he deserved, of course he shouldn't be allowed to play any football for such a disgusting act! I seriously don't think Phil would have the same view if he was a Chelsea player

Regardless of the team the player played for would still believe any incident committed at international level should be punished at international level bar the obvious drugs and match fixing

If FIFA are to now ensure punishments cross to all football then they must ensure that counts for everyone and that the precedent they are setting now is followed through to all serious violent conduct incidents

The lack of consistency from the governing bodies is shocking

 

[chrisd]

Regardless of the team the player played for would still believe any incident committed at international level should be punished at international level bar the obvious drugs and match fixing

If FIFA are to now ensure punishments cross to all football then they must ensure that counts for everyone and that the precedent they are setting now is followed through to all serious violent conduct incidents

The lack of consistency from the governing bodies is shocking

It's not a lack of consistency, it's a recognition by FIFA that what he did was so appalling that it warranted a club ban too.

 

[Blue in Munich]

So the question is why did the FA deem an elbow worse than a bite at one stage ? One bite worthy of no further action - another worthy of ten games - consistency

One player guilty of racist abuse 5 games - another player guilty of racist abuse 10 games - consistency

If you are off the floor two footed going in for a challenge you know there is a chance you can cause more damage than any bite could do.

What I want is consistency.

One bite was a first offence, the other was a repeat offence. Don't know what the two different incidents of racist abuse were but why shouldn't there be a difference in the lengths of ban if there were different levels of abuse?

If we follow your logic, and using the drink driver analogy, a drink driver who is four times the limit should receive the same ban as one who is twice the limit because it's drink driving. Or a drink driver who is caught at three times the limit for the third time should receive the same ban as one caught at three times the limit for the first time because it is drink driving. Anyone with a degree of common sense can see that this argument is flawed, but because it affects your beloved Liverpool the blinkers are on and common sense goes out of the window.

There's an old saying in legal circles that rigid justice is the biggest injustice, yet that is what you appear to want. He got away light in my opinion, 6 months would have been nearer the mark and a warning that any further offence is a life ban. Apparently he's appealed which just beggars belief.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Oh let me guess player from non Liverpool clubs get a different decision (lesser) and all of a sudden it's about consistency?

I suppose when Barton picked up his ban for his end-of-season meltdown against Manchester City., that wasn't fair. The QPR skipper elbowed Carlos Tevez, kicked Kun Aguero and attempted to headbutt Vincent Kompany.

All the things you mention. Was that not consistent.

Or how about Ben Thatcher who was suspended for an elbow assault on Pedro Mendes, of Portsmouth, August 2006. The Portuguese midfielder was knocked out cold and suffered a seizure as a result of the challenge.

Consistent?


Or how about Roy Keane Manchester who was ruled out for five matches in 2002 for bringing the game into disrepute after admitting in his autobiography that a dangerous tackle on Manchester City midfielder Alf Inge Haaland the previous year?

Oh surprise. Non of them Liverpool players. Funny that.

You'll be telling me next that Robbie Fowler' 'White Line' celebration that saw him banned for 6 matches was an over reaction too.

What about when Defoe bit a player and the FA didn't act because they didn't deem it serious ?

So Keane admits to deliberately going to hurt someone and gets 5 games

Thatchers knocks someone out cold and gets what - 6 games

Barton got 6-8 I believe

Fowler reacts to people accusing him of drug taking and sniffs a line in celebration and gets 6 games

Do you think that's consistent ?

Physically assaulting people knocking them out , injuring them etc and on purpose gets less than a celebration ?

 

[chrisd]

One bite was a first offence, the other was a repeat offence. Don't know what the two different incidents of racist abuse were but why shouldn't there be a difference in the lengths of ban if there were different levels of abuse?

If we follow your logic, and using the drink driver analogy, a drink driver who is four times the limit should receive the same ban as one who is twice the limit because it's drink driving. Or a drink driver who is caught at three times the limit for the third time should receive the same ban as one caught at three times the limit for the first time because it is drink driving. Anyone with a degree of common sense can see that this argument is flawed, but because it affects your beloved Liverpool the blinkers are on and common sense goes out of the window.

There's an old saying in legal circles that rigid justice is the biggest injustice, yet that is what you appear to want. He got away light in my opinion, 6 months would have been nearer the mark and a warning that any further offence is a life ban. Apparently he's appealed which just beggars belief.

Spot on Blue, I would hope that for a frivolous appeal the penalty would be increased

 

[Rumpokid]

If he has ,or is appealing, and appeal is unsuccessful.Can punishment be increased like in other instances?..

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Spot on Blue, I would hope that for a frivolous appeal the penalty would be increased

Liverpool can't appeal but it's stupid for Uruguay to appeal

 

[chrisd]

Physically assaulting people knocking them out , injuring them etc and on purpose gets less than a celebration ?

As per the norm Phil, because it's a Liverpool player, you trivialise what was actually indefensible - it was clearly a celebration of drug taking and not quite the same as taking of a shirt or running into the crowd!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

As per the norm Phil, because it's a Liverpool player, you trivialise what was actually indefensible - it was clearly a celebration of drug taking and not quite the same as taking of a shirt or running into the crowd!

Not saying what Fowler did was right - but the same punishment or worse than trying to injure someone deliberately ?

 

[One Planer]

What about when Defoe bit a player and the FA didn't act because they didn't deem it serious ?

So Keane admits to deliberately going to hurt someone and gets 5 games

Thatchers knocks someone out cold and gets what - 6 games

Barton got 6-8 I believe

Fowler reacts to people accusing him of drug taking and sniffs a line in celebration and gets 6 games

Do you think that's consistent ?

Physically assaulting people knocking them out , injuring them etc and on purpose gets less than a celebration ?

So you are condoning glamorising drug ab/use in the public domain as being of lesser detriment to the game than overly physical/dirty challanges?


Words fail me.

If you want a reasoned debate Phil, take off the Liverpool tinted specs.