Luis Suarez Banned For 10 Matches For Ivanovic Bite

[brightonmark1234]

i feel he should of got then 10 games

 

[Triggaaar]

He was booked so they couldn't take retrospective action. But I guess you knew that was the reason for it rather than him being black.

Well obviously I know it wasn't because he was black. The rule that you can't give a retrospective ban is ridiculous though.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I don't see that 10 games is harsh. The Dutch FA banned him for 7 matches for his first biting offence and he's gone and done it again, so you'd expect the punishment for the second incident to be more severe, which it is.

For once I think the FA have got this right - they've basically said you can have your seven-game ban for biting plus three games on top for doing it again.

 

[The Truth]

cannibalism deserves a harsher punishment. Suarez will be licking his fingers after this pathetic ban.

 

[Muzzy]

Suarez, is he going to end up as despicable as El Hadji Diouf? He's certainly giving it a go.

Total cock in my book!

 

[Easy 10]

Ian Ayre: "Both the club and player are shocked and disappointed at the severity of today's independent regulatory commission decision. We await the written reasons tomorrow before making any further comment."

And they have until Friday to appeal. I hope they do, its deemed frivolous, and the ban extended to 15 games. That'd be LOVELY.

 

[Hillian1]

Reading some of the Liverpool forums is quality.

So far:

The FA is racist.
The FA is corrupt.
They should take the FA to court.
They should boycott the FA cup.

Brilliant stuff.

 

[Acker79]

But zero games banned if you bite someone but you're black - then it's ok.

Or is it because isn't English? Terry got half the ban Suarez did for the same offence.

Suarez has plenty of previous, therefore he can hardly claim previous good behaviour as a mitigating factor. Essentially his case was 'yes I was stupid, but I have apologised and donated some money to charity.' He has already served a 7 game ban for an almost identical offence, so he can hardly claim innocence.

On that basis alone, I can't say I am surprised at the outcome.

I don't see that 10 games is harsh. The Dutch FA banned him for 7 matches for his first biting offence and he's gone and done it again, so you'd expect the punishment for the second incident to be more severe, which it is.

For once I think the FA have got this right - they've basically said you can have your seven-game ban for biting plus three games on top for doing it again.

But is it fair to use the dutch incident? It was a different league, a different authority. Punishments there should have no bearing on punishments here.



FA bans. Barton (12, violent conduct), Suarez (10, violent conduct). Suarez (8, racism), Terry (4, racism)
(in fairness, the barton thing was based on three counts in the same incident)

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Honestly, I'm staggered Liverpool are shocked by this. If they appeal they are morons.

Just accept he ****ed up and move on.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

They have clearly taken the Racism issue into account, the cheating and the violent conduct.

 

[Kumquat]

Well obviously I know it wasn't because he was black. The rule that you can't give a retrospective ban is ridiculous though.

The rule is that if it is dealt with in play then you can't add another punishment afterwards. I agree that it needs to be looked at, but still not sure why you mentioned him being black.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Honestly, I'm stagged Liverpool are shocked by this. If they appeal they are morons.

Just accept he ****ed up and move on.

Always the victims

 

[Hillian1]

It gets better.

We should remove our players from the England set up, they are trying to destroy us.

#prayforliverpool

 

[rool]

how do we know he wont do it again

He has to wear a muzzle from next season

 

[Albion 4ever]

I don't see that 10 games is harsh. The Dutch FA banned him for 7 matches for his first biting offence and he's gone and done it again, so you'd expect the punishment for the second incident to be more severe, which it is.

For once I think the FA have got this right - they've basically said you can have your seven-game ban for biting plus three games on top for doing it again.

I was listening to Radio 5 yesterday I think (might have been Monday), and an ex member of the FA disciplinary panel was saying that offences in other countries cannot be taken into account. Also, the FA could not take into account the long ban that he served last season for racism. The only other evidence they could consider was of violent conduct in this country. As I believe he has not ever been charged with violent conduct before in this country (so technically his first offence of this kind) I feel the punishment is a bit strong.

As a previous poster has already said... Surely racism or attempting to trip a referee is much worse than biting someone.

 

[Napper]

Gives him plenty of time to chew over his actions

 

[Wrong-Direction]

 

[BensGrandad]

Absolutely absurd reaction from the FA and according to them they are unable to take retrospective action if the ref saw anything and decided to take no action, but it suits them to take action this time. Would the same action have been taken against Evra, Welbeck or Defoe had they done it, I doubt it very much. The FA is full of mamby pambys trying to be politically correct

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

It gets better.

We should remove our players from the England set up, they are trying to destroy us.

#prayforliverpool

Were not really missing out on much in that case anyway !!!

Absolutely absurd reaction from the FA and according to them they are unable to take retrospective action if the ref saw anything and decided to take no action, but it suits them to take action this time. Would the same action have been taken against Evra, Welbeck or Defoe had they done it, I doubt it very much.

Not really as Evra, Welbeck or Defoe dont have previous history of racism or biting opposition players......

 

[red star portslade]

Reduced to 8 if he agrees to have his teeth removed.