Liverpool FC

[nirvana]

Don't particularly want to defend Suarez but given the cheating that goes on and the malevolence of many challenges it seems quite harsh.

OTOH, not really much to complain about either - just suck it up and move on.

[kinboshi]

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!

Excellent post.

[The Camel]

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.

He bit someone before and got 7 games.

Obviously it has to be more for a second offence.

[The Camel]

I have no doubt if Suarez wasn't such a brilliant player Liverpool would have shown him the door for this latest episode of ill discipline.

I'm all for giving people second chances, but third, fourth and fifth chances?

When does is enough enough?

At some stage Liverpool have got to get rid of this scumbag.

If it was Jonjo Shelvey or Andre Wisdom they would have done.

[Tal]

I have no doubt if Suarez wasn't such a brilliant player Liverpool would have shown him the door for this latest episode of ill discipline.

I'm all for giving people second chances, but third, fourth and fifth chances?

When does is enough enough?

At some stage Liverpool have got to get rid of this scumbag.

If it was Jonjo Shelvey or Andre Wisdom they would have done.

Same can be said of Di Canio but I agree.

10 games seems to be the exact amount to make the Liverpool fans fume for being too harsh and everyone else fume for being too lenient.

In an odd way, that sort of feels like justice.

[nirvana]

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!

Yep, I find it odd he gets singled out for diving/cheating (well maybe not quite singled out). Meantime if a Bale, Rooney etc, go down cause someone faintly touched their shirt they try to justify it as OK - 'he was touched'  Really ? all very silly and puts me off prem football hugely

[Tal]

I don't see how any fan could want to see a player wear their shirt who closes his eyes when the ball comes to him at head height, so that he could wave his hand in the way instead. That honestly disgusts me.

Taarabt ducking the free kick. Kieron Dyer holding onto the post at a corner for dear life.

You get the idea.

That's not even cheating for your own team's benefit.

[The Camel]

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!

Yep, I find it odd he gets singled out for diving/cheating (well maybe not quite singled out). Meantime if a Bale, Rooney etc, go down cause someone faintly touched their shirt they try to justify it as OK - 'he was touched'  Really ? all very silly and puts me off prem football hugely

Don't disagree with your posts often Mr Nirvana but this is complete bs.

Gareth Bale (and Ashley Young) are vilified for diving very often - not sure where you got Rooney from don't think he's ever had the reputation of a diver.

You may think Suarez gets alot of abuse for diving, but possibly that is because he dives more than other player.

[sweet potata!]

I'd like to call bs on the preceding post please, thanks.

[The Camel]

It's a long video but worth watching

[nirvana]

@Camel

Maybe I have picked bad examples - I am slightly biased as a gooner since I would have a predisposition to use Spuds and Man U players as examples of whatever meagre point I try to make.

I guess I get fed up with tough guy ex footballer pundit types getting faux outraged about this kinda stuff. There's a kind of nudge nudge wink wink quality to me about some of their disapproval of a bad challenge or discussion of someone being 'professional' or 'clever' in winning fouls as opposed to simply cheating. But someone steps outside their norm and spits or bites and they nearly burst.

Personally, I'd much rather someone spat at me, or bit me on the arm, than broke my leg with a late one.

Perhaps it all just shows that if you try to have any moral relativism about this stuff it just surfaces that we all look at things differently

[sweet potata!]

It's a long video but worth watching

I stopped after 2 secs, I mean the title is mis-leading when it opens up with him being crunched by Rodwell.

[The Camel]

@Camel

Maybe I have picked bad examples - I am slightly biased as a gooner since I would have a predisposition to use Spuds and Man U players as examples of whatever meagre point I try to make.

I guess I get fed up with tough guy ex footballer pundit types getting faux outraged about this kinda stuff. There's a kind of nudge nudge wink wink quality to me about some of their disapproval of a bad challenge or discussion of someone being 'professional' or 'clever' in winning fouls as opposed to simply cheating. But someone steps outside their norm and spits or bites and they nearly burst.

Personally, I'd much rather someone spat at me, or bit me on the arm, than broke my leg with a late one.

Perhaps it all just shows that if you try to have any moral relativism about this stuff it just surfaces that we all look at things differently

I agree alot of the pontificating by ex footballers is a load of old pony, but it is definitely true there is far more diving and play acting in today's game than there was 30 years ago.

[Acidmouse]

I think people are defending someone who is absolute pond life on the pitch, match after match after match, he is the quintessential foreign cheat. Everything I hate in football shines bright through Suarez, arrogance, lack of humility, diving, constantly berating the refs, gesturing at players, a racist and now someone who bites others on the pitch. Obviously something needs to be done because the poor chap does not seem to learn from his past mistakes....

If the FA did not give him a lengthy ban it would send out all the wrong message.

Reasoning bad tackles or previous misdemeanors from others have gotten alot less length bans is simply not relevent.  Not one single person can say he didn't mean to bite him, has he spoken about why he did it? has he tried to reason with himself and let people know there are real problems with his personality? Lolpool coming out saying the ban is very severe is again a PA disaster, if ever there was a time to keep stum and accept the dose of medicine that was handed out is now.

lol so hard at people saying he was being hassled all game and this, that had happened before.

He tried to bite someone ffs, fuk off from our game we dont want you.

[The Camel]

I think people are defending someone who is absolute pond life on the pitch, match after match after match, he is the quintessential foreign cheat. Everything I hate in football shines bright through Suarez, arrogance, lack of humility, diving, constantly berating the refs, gesturing at players, a racist and now someone who bites others on the pitch. Obviously something needs to be done because the poor chap does not seem to learn from his past mistakes....

If the FA did not give him a lengthy ban it would send out all the wrong message.

Reasoning bad tackles or previous misdemeanors from others have gotten alot less length bans is simply not relevent.  Not one single person can say he didn't mean to bite him, has he spoken about why he did it? has he tried to reason with himself and let people know there are real problems with his personality? Lolpool coming out saying the ban is very severe is again a PA disaster, if ever there was a time to keep stum and accept the dose of medicine that was handed out is now.

lol so hard at people saying he was being hassled all game and this, that had happened before.

He tried to bite someone ffs, fuk off from our game we dont want you.

Excellent post.

Pretty surprised Liverpool supporters are:

1. Defending/supporting the scumbag

2. Even questioning the length of the ban. 10 games seems on the light side to me.