[Archived] Premier League Happenings

[Batman.]

Ten matches is a joke.

[gumboots]

True, it's not enough. When we punish kids at school the punishment has to get progressively worse and eventually you end up punishing quite minor offences in an over the top way if you can't see any improvement. He's not learning so you have to get through somehow. 8 last time; it has to go up. Biting someone is disgusting. He may find it acceptable but most of us grow out of it when we are 2 or 3 years old. It's not his first offence and nor will it be his last unless people stop defending him and he really faces the consequences of what he has done and how abhorrent it is to most of us.

[Tom]

Ten matches is a joke.

Could have been much more could have been less

Lets go to the extreme, he could have had some horrible disease he was unaware of and potentially risking the health of a fellow pro

Now hyperbole aside I think anywhere between 6 and 12 games would have been fair

The problem is the FA just seem to assign arbitrary numbers to things

[Batman.]

3 Matches was fine. I'd rather be bitten by Suarez than beaten to a pulp by Fash and the Crazy Gang back in the day. Football is too soft.

[Aberdeen Blue]

Ten matches is a joke.

Yet Aguero gets away with a potentially career ending lunge on sideshow Bob........ The FA are total joke!

[gumboots]

They are bound by their own stupid rule that if a ref sees something and deals with it on the pitch then they are reluctant to increase that for fear of undermining the ref. Surely what has to happen is the ref has to deal with immediate issues on the pitch but there is a review if it subsequently appears that things are worse than the ref - who has a blooming difficult job and gets a split second to see things - at first thought. That's not undermining the ref - it's supporting him. In school I often deal with incidents on the ground, so to speak, but refer them to year heads etc, saying what I've done but suggesting they get involved too. Nobody thinks that's weak - it's called teamwork.

[Guest Norbert]

3 Matches was fine. I'd rather be bitten by Suarez than beaten to a pulp by Fash and the Crazy Gang back in the day. Football is too soft.

True, but I don't think biting is in any of the rules, whereas there was always the chance Vinny Jones might actually pull off a good tackle.

[Amo]

Which tackles are you talking about here? I'd argue most tackles are intended to get the ball, but players are just reckless and go into the tackle without caring about who they have to go through to get it. There are few cases where you can conclusively prove a player was going in to purposefully injure another (Keane on Haaland is one that springs to mind off the top of my head, though that was obviously a while back).

Aguero's "tackle" on Luis? http://youtu.be/JiK05g9MkEg

McManaman's "tackle" on Haidara?

[DE.]

The first one, obviously Aguero should have been punished severely for that.

The second one, he's going for the ball and is just reckless and doesn't give a sh1t about the welfare of the player he's tackling against. I don't think you can say that tackle is "solely aimed to harm the opposition player" ... he just doesn't care if he hurts him or not.

Both instances should have been retrospectively dealt with, obviously. It doesn't mean that Suarez deserved any less of a punishment for his actions, though - all it proves is that the FA are a joke.

[Guest Norbert]

First time I've seen the Augero incident. That was awful, and frankly it is within sight as Cantona on that fan. He should never moan about any penalty decision or foul not given again.

[gumboots]

The point surely is that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Just because they don't get it right sometimes doesn't mean that when they do get it right they should be castigated for being harsh. Change the rules to let them deal with incidents afterwards even if the ref has seen them. As i said earlier - it's not undermining the ref, it's ensuring appropriate punishments are dished out, even if sometimes it takes a while

[Mike E]

I think another issue is the FA not having a clear set of rules over this type of thing. Is there anything about 'probation' in the FA rules? If they have punished him with a 10 game ban due to probation (which is essentially explained by gumboots' excellent school analogy) then I agree with it.

However, if the punishment is SOLELY because of the bite, then it is unduly harsh and should only have been for 3 games. I eagerly await the written reasons tomorrow.

[K-Hod]

The way I interpret it- he had a 7 game ban in Holland for the same thing, he's persistently been a bell-end whilst being here, and clearly hasn't learnt his lesson, so it's almost like a 'repeat offence' which has totted up his sentence IMO.

As proven by this latest facade with Suarez, you really don't need to give scousers much of a reason to get on their high horse.....

[LeChuck]

The way I interpret it- he had a 7 game ban in Holland for the same thing, he's persistently been a bell-end whilst being here, and clearly hasn't learnt his lesson, so it's almost like a 'repeat offence' which has totted up his sentence IMO.

Apologies if I've gotten this wrong so somebody please correct me if I have...

However, in relation to the above, legally the FA can not reference the previous incident because it was in Holland and therefore a different association. Obviously off the record they have taken it into consideration, but in any of the documentation they can't reference it. I believe they can't even reference the Evra thing because it was a completely different issue.

Some from a legal standpoint Liverpool probably have grounds for a valid complaint. I think the ban will get reduced if they go for it because of the above.

[K-Hod]

Apologies if I've gotten this wrong so somebody please correct me if I have...

However, in relation to the above, legally the FA can not reference the previous incident because it was in Holland and therefore a different association. Obviously off the record they have taken it into consideration, but in any of the documentation they can't reference it. I believe they can't even reference the Evra thing because it was a completely different issue.

Some from a legal standpoint Liverpool probably have grounds for a valid complaint. I think the ban will get reduced if they go for it because of the above.

Oh yeah, I agree on the legal standpoint.

Just the way I viewed the matter tbh, as the lad clearly hasn't learned, and perhaps they wanted to make an example of him almost, as much of a great player as he is, I'd sooner he just left the PL altogether now, sick of hearing about him in the news all the time!

I think Liverpool may be thinking along the same lines also.....

[EgyptianPete]

Oh yeah, I agree on the legal standpoint.

Just the way I viewed the matter tbh, as the lad clearly hasn't learned, and perhaps they wanted to make an example of him almost, as much of a great player as he is, I'd sooner he just left the PL altogether now, sick of hearing about him in the news all the time!

I think Liverpool may be thinking along the same lines also.....

If me or you did this in the workplace you would be sacked, and possibly be arrested for GBH if the person you bit was so @#/? about it, if you had previous that could mean jail, just because he plays for Liverpool he should get off lightly, sorry no, 10 matches is fair enough, he is a professorial footballer who should know better but thinks he can get away with anything, time to put a stop to his nonsense.

[T4E]

Liverpool FC should accept that Suarez has been a helmet yet again and get on with it. Instead they're playing the victim card, as per usual.

[EgyptianPete]

Liverpool FC should accept that Suarez has been a helmet yet again and get on with it. Instead they're playing the victim card, as per usual.

Agreed

[DE.]

The problem Liverpool have is, the current ban doesn't work out THAT badly for them. Their season is basically over this year anyway so Suarez missing the last 4 games is neither here nor there. Missing 6 games at the start of next season isn't so bad when it could have been all 10.

However, should they appeal, I believe the process will be delayed which would mean if upheld they lose him for more games at the start of next season as he won't have used up as many in the next couple of weeks, or the ban will get longer which brings about the same consequence.

[Mike E]

Being honest, I'm happy with the ban MOSTLY because Suarez is a detestable piece of @#/?. But with regards to the length of the ban and the way it's been administered, I think Rodgers' suggestion of 5-game ban (followed by a further suspended ban of 5-games should he be red carded again) would have been a better way to deal with it ONLY in the context that he gets some serious psychological help over the summer.

In fact, Rodgers suggested 6 games followed by a further 6, so was (in theory) advocating more games. The only issue there is:

Isn't that what his probationary period was all about? Isn't probation essentially an undecided 'suspended ban', which Suarez has now triggered?

[Batman.]

Looks like in future he'd be safer just calling the odd African 'El Negro.'

Joke of a suspension; potentially career ending tackles = three games, a wee nibble on the bicep = ten games.

[Guest Norbert]

Even the red victims (aka Liverpool fans) will have to concede it isn't the first time Suarez has been a bellend in a Liverpool shirt, let alone throughout his career. He's a more talented version of Joey Barton, I don't think he has done half as much off the pitch.

[Stuart]

Joke of a suspension; potentially career ending tackles = three games, a wee nibble on the bicep = ten games.

The things is, the FA have, to a degree, an idea when it comes to football related stuff, and will have certain tariffs. When it comes to biting, it's not really what you expect on a football pitch so they make it up as the go along - probably gauged by the media and public reaction.

Otherwise they'd need a massive tome of potential non-football related events:

Player took a dump on the field of play = 3 games

Player threw dump at another player = 5 games

Player drove sports car onto pitch = 3 games

Player had a whizz on another player's leg = 4 games

At the end of the day Suarez shouldn't have tried to eat an opponent. He should suck it up and accept whatever punishment he gets but instead we have to hear about him being the victim of dodgy arbitration. He'll be complaining Ivanavic contains traces of horse DNA next!

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Hopefully he'll take the hump and clear of elsewhere, cheating kean.

What's more stupid is that if the ref had booked him he wouldn't have got ANY punishment!

[Mike E]

The things is, the FA have, to a degree, an idea when it comes to football related stuff, and will have certain tariffs. When it comes to biting, it's not really what you expect on a football pitch so they make it up as the go along - probably gauged by the media and public reaction.

Otherwise they'd need a massive tome of potential non-football related events:

Player took a dump on the field of play = 3 games

Player threw dump at another player = 5 games

Player drove sports car onto pitch = 3 games

Player had a whizz on another player's leg = 4 games

At the end of the day Suarez shouldn't have tried to eat an opponent. He should suck it up and accept whatever punishment he gets but instead we have to hear about him being the victim of dodgy arbitration. He'll be complaining Ivanavic contains traces of horse DNA next!

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Hopefully he'll take the hump and clear of elsewhere, cheating kean.

What's more stupid is that if the ref had booked him he wouldn't have got ANY punishment!

But biting would (surely) come under violent conduct? Hence his charge of 3 games (initially).

[gumboots]

Looks like in future he'd be safer just calling the odd African 'El Negro.'

Joke of a suspension; potentially career ending tackles = three games, a wee nibble on the bicep = ten games.

Vampire?