Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Luis Suarez Banned For 10 Matches For Ivanovic Bite







Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
52,738
Goldstone
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

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,185
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

Banned
Sep 11, 2008
3,754
None of your buisness
cannibalism deserves a harsher punishment. Suarez will be licking his fingers after this pathetic ban.
 


Muzzy

Well-known member
Jan 25, 2011
4,787
Lewes
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

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,312
Location Location
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.
 


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

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
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

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2003
21,863
England
Honestly, I'm staggered Liverpool are shocked by this. If they appeal they are morons.

Just accept he ****ed up and move on.
 
Last edited:




Kumquat

New member
Mar 2, 2009
4,459
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.
 












Albion 4ever

Active member
Feb 26, 2009
593
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.
 




Wrong-Direction

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2013
13,587
rat.jpg
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
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

New member
Jan 31, 2012
9,122
Eastbourne
:clap:

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......
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here