Liverpool FC

[nirvana]

So, after a season of Brentan, what's the verdict ?

[77dave]

http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/features/130423/10-rubbish-man-united-players-more-premier-league-medals-steven-gerrard-196209

[77dave]

http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/the-man-who-ran-boston-for-the-96

[david3103]

http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/features/130423/10-rubbish-man-united-players-more-premier-league-medals-steven-gerrard-196209

Credit to Gerrard for turning down the chance to win a couple of titles elsewhere.

[77dave]

10 games

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11669/8669252/Liverpool-s-Luis-Suarez-given-10-game-ban-for-Branislav-Ivanovic-bite

http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/lfc-statement-on-luis-suarez-ban

[outragous76]

should be grateful thats all he got!

[77dave]

should be grateful thats all he got!

what penalty would you give him?

[aaron1867]

The "we're going to win the title next season"

will have to be "we're going to win the title the season after next season"

[sweet potata!]

should be grateful thats all he got!

what penalty would you give him?

Lethal injection or electric chair.

Outragous is easily outraged!

[outragous76]

should be grateful thats all he got!

what penalty would you give him?

Lethal injection or electric chair.

Outragous is easily outraged!

It's quite obvious that I see a human biting another human as far more disgusting than some on the forum!

It's largely irrelevant it happened on the football pitch! It's apparent that being a footballer is like a Teflon sheild in this world

It's his second offence of this lest we forget.

[celtic]

Think it's really tough for the FA to get the length of ban right.

Seems about right though. If he punched him, woulda probably got the same.

[The Camel]

Think it's really tough for the FA to get the length of ban right.

Seems about right though. If he punched him, woulda probably got the same.

This.

If it had been anyone other than Suarez, 10 games would have been a lot.

10 games seems harsh when you remember Ben Thatcher only got 8 for his assault on Pedro Mendes.

But you cannot forget Suarez's previous form.

[77dave]

That's my view, the FA are so inconsistent in the penalties they hand out how are you to decide what is fair.

I agree his previous needs to be considered but in not sure the Evra incident should be included in this case.

[Tal]

I don't think they would have been allowed to use the Ajax incident, because of it being a different FA. Might be wrong on that but wonder whether that played a part. He also accepted the charge and that is - in legal spheres - a mitigating factor (roughly ⅓ off the sentence in criminal cases)

[Peter Costa]

So, a ten game ban for violent conduct in which there was no mark to be seen anywhere, for an offence that carries a three match ban?

I heard all the arguments for such principles to be applied- he had previous, it was disgusting, it shouldn’t happen on a football field, it will teach him a lesson. The mind boggles at the reasons that some fans and media will use to justify the ruling.

Using the same arguments, would any player with previous at getting sent off, have his previous taken into consideration next time?  Just last week, a player  returned from a three game, only to be sent off with 20 minutes - what should his ban be 10 games? Why is a bite that drew no blood and left no mark be deemed worse than an elbow?  Is one different than the other?  Because biting is unusual, does that make more common offences within the violent act rule more acceptable?  Is violent conduct not the same, unless it is extreme violence with extreme outcomes?  Would Fellenie be banned for ten games next time he elbows or head-butts a player?

In have gone about the FA in the past and how they inept they are at doing there job. Their rulings have left each and everyone of us confused as to their criteria. And yet, in this case, I doubt if any other fans apart from LFC fans will be mystified. Why? Do fans not see the bigger picture here? Is what benfits your club more important than the overall integrity of the game and of the governing body?

I knew it would be a hefty ban, not because the incident warranted it, but because the media insured that the FA and or their chosen sheep would have no choice but to appease the masses. After, it is much easier to upset just one set of fans than nineteen sets.

I started to fall out of love for the game because of Suarez. His treatment left me mystified. Sure he was no angel and miffed opposition fans, but in terms of his actions, we see it in every match from all teams and from many players. His diving - seen a hell of a lot more from Bale alone - though you would not know it. Seen much worse from many players. Yet, Suarez‘s every little and pointless incident was picked upon, scrutinized with freeze-frame and dissected by millions of surgeons looking for a cancer that did not exist. Yet they kept finding it. If not blinded by hate - than certainly by a lack of fairness.

In truth, that’s disappointed me. I never watched the game in the hope of finding fault. I watched to appreciate skill from players full of passion and desire that I shared for the game. Seeing Giggs live for the first - I could not have imagined such elegance and grace. Denis Bergkamp - what skill. George Best, dazzled me as did countless others. Maradona - yes he hand-balled - but for sheer power and control , there was no one better.

As for their mistakes on and off the field, I did not know them to judge them as people. The number of times I have seen hate attached to the name Suarez baffles me.  You hate because…..he dived, he hand-balled, he got in a spat? Then you must hate 90% of footballers.

I cannot condone his actions and it is something that I simply would never have entered my mind to do when I played. But I saw worse, much worse!  And just because what I saw was more common, it did not make it any less disgusting. Point is - the argument that he deserved 10 games ban makes no sense. Taking into consideration a player’s history, makes no sense because a penalty has been served.  Having different rules and punishments for identical incidents because the referee saw it or not - makes no sense. If you want sense, the same rule must apply. Why? Because it leaves it open to abuse. In fact, the FA have abused this rule about 30 times this season alone.  

I thought the job of any governing body was to apply fairness and integrity above all else - no person in their right mind would ever accuse the FA of actually doing that.  

So lets hand out ten game bans - but do it across the board and not when someone sees fit or when the media and majority crave it.

I no longer watch Fox Soccer Channel or Sky Sports news or read newspapers as I have seen the hypocrisy shine through in the last couple of years. For fucks sake, we even had pundits and commentators calling Suarez a cheat for a hand-ball that was never intentional. Warren Barton even tweeted an apology over his outburst. Shame he couldn’t control the desire to appeases the masses instead of spouting pure garbage on live TV.

Yet within the hypocrisy and bigotry - there is hope. But only if Gary Neville becomes head of the FA in the years to come! If not, it will be more of the same, only next time, it could be one of your players or your team chosen as an example for all that is wrong in the world!