Liverpool F.c.

[MrRed]

Barca or Madrid look like they need a bit of bite up front.

[alfieconn]

Well the FA has certainly come down hard on him.

I feel that this is rather harsh. By all means punish the player, I have no problem with that. But why punish the club and it's fans by not having a player available to play. The club nor the fans told him to bite the opponent. Saurez should be the one who suffers so I would have thought a 6 game ban and a really hefty fine i.e. 500,000 to a million Pounds would have been better. Lets face it, on his wages he can afford it and would more likely be a harsher lesson to him.

Now all that happens is that Saurez can take a long holiday with full pay while the club, team and fans suffer.

A Pitbull gets put down after biting someone, although that would probaly be a bit too harsh

Edited April 25, 2013 by alfieconn

[MrRed]

[JacknDanny]

Well Cech wears that hat thing. Both Ba and Torres both have worn a face mask.

I think Adidas or Nike should come up with a custom built muzzle for Suarez and then the FA make him wear it next season. Problem solved.

[smokie36]

I certainly got this wrong. I thought that Liverpool should have handed him a three match ban themselves and be seen to do the right thing. Then maybe the FA would have just added a couple.

Hopelessly over the top imho. Suarez should be mocked for behaving like a childlike halfwit, especially on such an important day, but a ten match ban <deleted>!! Hopelessly OTT...

And as I tried to point out above....he is now playing in the sand with his bucket and spade until September.

Nice!

[smokie36]

(and if I was Liverpool's manager I'd have the lad on boot cleaning during the time it takes to see out the ban.)

Daft thing to say Ken....those days are long gone.

[BangrakBob]

I don't know why this thread was opened up, as we were already 5 pages into it on the LFC thread, now we have 2 going. I can only assume it for the joy of travel2003 and his/her personal aversion to Suarez.

Edited April 25, 2013 by BangrakBob

[SantiSuk]

Agree BB. There seems to have been an outbreak of people opening up new threads at the drop of a hat when many of them could easily have been incorporated eslewhere. I particularly find the rash of demise threads tedious.

I thought about proposing that we self-regulate and suggest alternative venues when new threads appear (Im not going to push it on our mods who have a hard enough job weeding out the offensive). But then again TiT and who welcomes more rules?!

[carmine]

Agree BB. There seems to have been an outbreak of people opening up new threads at the drop of a hat when many of them could easily have been incorporated eslewhere. I particularly find the rash of demise threads tedious.

I thought about proposing that we self-regulate and suggest alternative venues when new threads appear (Im not going to push it on our mods who have a hard enough job weeding out the offensive). But then again TiT and who welcomes more rules?!

Thats anarchy!! And who are you callind a t1t?

[smokie36]

Agree BB. There seems to have been an outbreak of people opening up new threads at the drop of a hat when many of them could easily have been incorporated eslewhere. I particularly find the rash of demise threads tedious.

I thought about proposing that we self-regulate and suggest alternative venues when new threads appear (Im not going to push it on our mods who have a hard enough job weeding out the offensive). But then again TiT and who welcomes more rules?!

mrboj's finger hovers over that new Man Citeh thread several times a day....I'm sure of it.

[mrbojangles]

Agree BB. There seems to have been an outbreak of people opening up new threads at the drop of a hat when many of them could easily have been incorporated eslewhere. I particularly find the rash of demise threads tedious.

I thought about proposing that we self-regulate and suggest alternative venues when new threads appear (Im not going to push it on our mods who have a hard enough job weeding out the offensive). But then again TiT and who welcomes more rules?!

mrboj's finger hovers over that new Man Citeh thread several times a day....I'm sure of it.

Not at all smokes. They haven't got their own ideas and are just trying to copy ours. No way will that thread be as successful as the United in decline thread

[mrbojangles]

As suggested, I have merged the Suarez 10 game ban thread into this one.

[smokie36]

Agree BB. There seems to have been an outbreak of people opening up new threads at the drop of a hat when many of them could easily have been incorporated eslewhere. I particularly find the rash of demise threads tedious.

I thought about proposing that we self-regulate and suggest alternative venues when new threads appear (Im not going to push it on our mods who have a hard enough job weeding out the offensive). But then again TiT and who welcomes more rules?!

mrboj's finger hovers over that new Man Citeh thread several times a day....I'm sure of it.

Not at all smokes. They haven't got their own ideas and are just trying to copy ours. No way will that thread be as successful as the United in decline thread

Given the way they worded it you might be able to close it next May anyway.

[mrbojangles]

Agree BB. There seems to have been an outbreak of people opening up new threads at the drop of a hat when many of them could easily have been incorporated eslewhere. I particularly find the rash of demise threads tedious.

I thought about proposing that we self-regulate and suggest alternative venues when new threads appear (Im not going to push it on our mods who have a hard enough job weeding out the offensive). But then again TiT and who welcomes more rules?!

mrboj's finger hovers over that new Man Citeh thread several times a day....I'm sure of it.

Not at all smokes. They haven't got their own ideas and are just trying to copy ours. No way will that thread be as successful as the United in decline thread

Given the way they worded it you might be able to close it next May anyway.

[StevieH]

so paul davis breaking glenn cockerill's jaw with a punch gets nine games, ben thatcher's forearm smash on pedro mendes leaving him with concussion and requiring oxygen got eight games, suarez gets ten. more than a quarter of a season. for an offence that while totally weird and stupid didn't injure anyone, didn't draw blood, didn't affect the match, didn't require ivanovic to spend days in hospital. good to know. christ i hate the FA.

[carmine]

so paul davis breaking glenn cockerill's jaw with a punch gets nine games, ben thatcher's forearm smash on pedro mendes leaving him with concussion and requiring oxygen got eight games, suarez gets ten. more than a quarter of a season. for an offence that while totally weird and stupid didn't injure anyone, didn't draw blood, didn't affect the match, didn't require ivanovic to spend days in hospital. good to know. christ i hate the FA.

Surprised no ones thrown Jermaine Defoe into the mix. I think Jol called the bite part of the game and it was forgotten. Have i missed something?

[smokie36]

[rixalex]

I certainly got this wrong. I thought that Liverpool should have handed him a three match ban themselves and be seen to do the right thing. Then maybe the FA would have just added a couple.

Hopelessly over the top imho. Suarez should be mocked for behaving like a childlike halfwit, especially on such an important day, but a ten match ban <deleted>!! Hopelessly OTT...

Hopelessly over the top? With all of these sorts of decisions on punishment, be it regarding reckless tackles, racist abuse, biting or whatever, there is no scientific way of measuring what the punishment should be. The decisions the FA makes are totally subjective and based on opinion, just as they would be whoever was making the decision.

I think, at the end of the day, when a player does something stupid like this, the player, the club and the fans just have to take it on the chin, whatever the decision is. Many Liverpool fans though have taken this decision conveniently as an excuse to focus their anger on the FA, and vent about them... or vent about the English media.. or vent about Eric Cantona. What about the man who almost without any provocation at all, committed the act, knowing full well the effect it would have?

They might have come out with all the right words and sentiments of condemnation about Suarez's behavior, but do you actually get the sense that Liverpool fans are actually angry with Suarez? I don't. I think they all still love him. Reminds me a little of the Chelsea fans and their relationship with Abramovich. He can do the stupidest thing and they'll murmur their discontent, but when it comes to the crunch, they'll all still, to a man, file up in line behind him. Pretty sad.

[oldgit]

so paul davis breaking glenn cockerill's jaw with a punch gets nine games, ben thatcher's forearm smash on pedro mendes leaving him with concussion and requiring oxygen got eight games, suarez gets ten. more than a quarter of a season. for an offence that while totally weird and stupid didn't injure anyone, didn't draw blood, didn't affect the match, didn't require ivanovic to spend days in hospital. good to know. christ i hate the FA.

I entirely agree. His action was never going to finish Ivanovic's career,unless he's got rabes. As far as the report that a primary school kid was "doing a Suarez" during a game,firstly,where on earth did they get that 'news' from? Secondly,if true,he needs a clump.

[BangrakBob]

I certainly got this wrong. I thought that Liverpool should have handed him a three match ban themselves and be seen to do the right thing. Then maybe the FA would have just added a couple.

Hopelessly over the top imho. Suarez should be mocked for behaving like a childlike halfwit, especially on such an important day, but a ten match ban <deleted>!! Hopelessly OTT...

Hopelessly over the top? With all of these sorts of decisions on punishment, be it regarding reckless tackles, racist abuse, biting or whatever, there is no scientific way of measuring what the punishment should be. The decisions the FA makes are totally subjective and based on opinion, just as they would be whoever was making the decision.

I think, at the end of the day, when a player does something stupid like this, the player, the club and the fans just have to take it on the chin, whatever the decision is. Many Liverpool fans though have taken this decision conveniently as an excuse to focus their anger on the FA, and vent about them... or vent about the English media.. or vent about Eric Cantona. What about the man who almost without any provocation at all, committed the act, knowing full well the effect it would have?

They might have come out with all the right words and sentiments of condemnation about Suarez's behavior, but do you actually get the sense that Liverpool fans are actually angry with Suarez? I don't. I think they all still love him. Reminds me a little of the Chelsea fans and their relationship with Abramovich. He can do the stupidest thing and they'll murmur their discontent, but when it comes to the crunch, they'll all still, to a man, file up in line behind him. Pretty sad.

I'm look forward to hearing their justifying statement today.

[rixalex]

As far as the report that a primary school kid was "doing a Suarez" during a game,firstly,where on earth did they get that 'news' from? Secondly,if true,he needs a clump.

No idea if true or not either, but my memory of school, dim though it may be, particularly primary school, was all about going through stupid crazies most of which picked up from movies, music or TV. Never lasted very long but did often spread like wildfire up and down the country. So i wouldn't be at all surprised if kids in the UK are now going around "doing a Suarez". Would you?

[StevieH]

oliver holt in the mirror is on the money. the FA has set a really dangerous precedent here and hasn't judged the incident in isolation, which they should have done.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/luis-suarez-bite-ban-10-1851893

Luis Suarez ban: The FA is wrong to suggest a shocking but trivial bite is worse than racial abuse

Chief sports writer Oliver Holt is uncomfortable with the strange and sinister sliding scale of punishments football's authorities hand out

Moral relativism can be used to attempt to excuse, or at least soften, misdemeanours of many kinds.

It is not often, fortunately, that the penalties for racially abusing someone and biting an opponent on the arm invite comparison.

But in the troubling case of Luis Suarez and Branislav Ivanovic, the FA appear to have slithered into rather a sinister position.

No one with a brain would dispute that Suarez deserved to be punished for biting Ivanovic during the Liverpool-Chelsea game at Anfield on Sunday.

What he did was shocking, animalistic and stupid and fully warranted a ban from the game.

But the offence was trivial.

No one was hurt.

The trainer was not called.

There has not been any suggestion that Ivanovic needed medical attention.

Ivanovic’s career was not endangered, as say Massadio Haidara’s was by Callum McManaman’s tackle when Wigan played Newcastle recently.

And yet for this heinous nip, the FA has chosen to ban Suarez for 10 games.

That’s two more than Suarez got for racially abusing Patrice Evra.

That’s six more than John Terry got for racially abusing Anton Ferdinand.

That’s 10 more than McManaman got for taking Haidara out at the knee.

I’m sorry, but I think that’s instructive.

Painfully instructive.

It means they care less about a player being abused because of the colour of his skin than they do about a bite that may not even have broken his skin.

Maybe the majority agree with that sliding scale of punishments, but it seems strange and sinister to me.

Yes, they’re both wrong but the FA has decided that one is more wrong than the other.

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.

This is the same FA, after all, who turned the other way when they were told England fans had sung a racist song at a World Cup qualifying tie in San Marino.

So this is where they stand.

They consider biting someone on the arm a more serious footballing crime than racial abuse.

It’s moral relativism, sure, and, once again, there is no point trying to defend Suarez.

No one’s ever done that.

Yes, the yummy mummy on top of the Clapham Omnibus might be yah-yahhing her approval for the punishment meted out to a football wretch.

When he was banned for eight games for racially abusing Evra, some Liverpool fans said he was being victimised by the FA.

They were wrong.

Now, many are saying the same thing.

This time, they are right.

The FA has picked on an easy target.

It has taken the easy decision.

It has pleased the crowd.

And in the process, it has set a dangerous, depressing precedent.

[alfieconn]

so paul davis breaking glenn cockerill's jaw with a punch gets nine games, ben thatcher's forearm smash on pedro mendes leaving him with concussion and requiring oxygen got eight games, suarez gets ten. more than a quarter of a season. for an offence that while totally weird and stupid didn't injure anyone, didn't draw blood, didn't affect the match, didn't require ivanovic to spend days in hospital. good to know. christ i hate the FA.

You always get a longer sentence if you have previous Stevie ! it probaly would have been 4 or 5 matches for a first offence.

Edited April 25, 2013 by alfieconn

[StevieH]

I certainly got this wrong. I thought that Liverpool should have handed him a three match ban themselves and be seen to do the right thing. Then maybe the FA would have just added a couple.

Hopelessly over the top imho. Suarez should be mocked for behaving like a childlike halfwit, especially on such an important day, but a ten match ban <deleted>!! Hopelessly OTT...

Hopelessly over the top? With all of these sorts of decisions on punishment, be it regarding reckless tackles, racist abuse, biting or whatever, there is no scientific way of measuring what the punishment should be. The decisions the FA makes are totally subjective and based on opinion, just as they would be whoever was making the decision.

I think, at the end of the day, when a player does something stupid like this, the player, the club and the fans just have to take it on the chin, whatever the decision is. Many Liverpool fans though have taken this decision conveniently as an excuse to focus their anger on the FA, and vent about them... or vent about the English media.. or vent about Eric Cantona. What about the man who almost without any provocation at all, committed the act, knowing full well the effect it would have?

They might have come out with all the right words and sentiments of condemnation about Suarez's behavior, but do you actually get the sense that Liverpool fans are actually angry with Suarez? I don't. I think they all still love him. Reminds me a little of the Chelsea fans and their relationship with Abramovich. He can do the stupidest thing and they'll murmur their discontent, but when it comes to the crunch, they'll all still, to a man, file up in line behind him. Pretty sad.

correct. so we have to rely on common sense. and in this instance the FA has said that this non-injuring bite is worse than racism, worse than setting out to end a guy's career, worse than breaking a guy's jaw and worse than concussing someone with a forearm smash.

i'm not defending suarez, as i've said throughout he's guilty as sin. but the punishment here simply doesn't fit the crime.

[MrRed]

Can you get it into your head Stevie he has previous doing the same thing in Holland.

He also has an inquiry going on with FIFA for punching a player.

He has also been banned for racially abusing a fellow professional.

He has also been accused and booked for diving on many occasions this season.

He is a bad egg and has self control problems on the pitch.

I think the FA has acted quickly and purposeful for once and at the end of the day the clamp down has to start somewhere,he will not be the last.

Your continued support of him being hard done by is bordering on being stupid and obsessive as if he is the only greatest player ever to play for LFC.

Maybe just maybe you would be better getting rid and spending the 40 million on somebody with a respect for the club and his teammates and manager,and most of all the supporters he has continually let down.

[redrus]

Can you get it into your head Stevie he has previous doing the same thing in Holland.

Sorry mate,

The incident in Holland cannot be used in evidence, as it was under a different FA.

redrus

[chrisboyo]

Mrred, the English FA can't bring up previous bans or incidents that are being investigated as these two incidents are outside of the FA's control.

Suarez was banned by the Dutch FA, how can the English now use this against them when they have no power there? FIFA have said they are looking into the punch by Suarez, so again, FIFA are looking into this and the FA can surely not use this against him as they have no power to.

The divining comment you made, I hope that when other players get banned for violent conduct, the FA has the balls to ban them for longer as they are all dive. The darling of the media and can do no wrong in their eyes, Gareth Bale is a diver and has been yellow carded enough times for diving then Suarez. Christ, even phil Neville did it against Liverpool this season.

You can't defend what Suarez has done and I accept he deserves a ban. If the FA want to charge him with violent conduct, which they state receives a 3 game ban, then only give him the 3 game ban and be done with it. To now say that biting is worse than racism is a joke as per the article above.

[StevieH]

Can you get it into your head Stevie he has previous doing the same thing in Holland.

Sorry mate,

The incident in Holland cannot be used in evidence, as it was under a different FA.

redrus

correct.

[StevieH]

Can you get it into your head Stevie he has previous doing the same thing in Holland.

He also has an inquiry going on with FIFA for punching a player.

He has also been banned for racially abusing a fellow professional.

He has also been accused and booked for diving on many occasions this season.

He is a bad egg and has self control problems on the pitch.

I think the FA has acted quickly and purposeful for once and at the end of the day the clamp down has to start somewhere,he will not be the last.

Your continued support of him being hard done by is bordering on being stupid and obsessive as if he is the only greatest player ever to play for LFC.

Maybe just maybe you would be better getting rid and spending the 40 million on somebody with a respect for the club and his teammates and manager,and most of all the supporters he has continually let down.

you're all over the place here. see chrisboyo's post for some illumination.

let's make this simple, ed. do you think suarez biting ivanovic was a worse thing to do on a football pitch than concussing a player with a forearm smash, breaking a guy's jaw, deliberately attempting to end an opponent's career or using racist insults?

[katana]

One of the shocking things about the bite was the apparent lack of provocation. If Ivanovic had kicked a lump out of him beforehand it might have gone some way to explaining things.

Yes and no. They were having words after the first half ended and the had to be separated in the tunnel.

The bite incident occurred in the 73rd minute, ca 43 minutes after they left the pitch at the end of the 1st half. Way long enough for any 'adrenaline' to have disappeared that might have explained a sudden and spontaneous reaction like that.