*Official* English Football Season 2012-13

[Ikki]

He got a 7 game ban in Holland for the same, so they couldn't have given him less for his second offence here. Plus he was apparently warned when he got banned for the Evra incident that it will be taken into account if he were to face future charges.

What are you talking about? Holland's FA is not England's. They have their own rules. They have to be consistent. Paul Davis punched a player out and got 9 matches. Fellaini, this year, admitted to headbutting and got 3 for violent conduct. Similar offenses including elbows and other violent conduct get the same. Defoe did the same exact thing and got nothing. And they're allowed to retrospectively charge people in special circumstances - which on their own site is defined by conduct that would receive more than the standard 3 game ban. So if Suarez's conduct is worthy of 10, then Defoe's is easily comparable to at least half that. Yet they chose not to retrospectively ban him.

The message they're sending is that you can fly in two-feet and try to end someone's career and you'll get less than what was an inconsequential bite. What Suarez did was more weird than dangerous. Nobody disputes that he deserves to be banned, but 10 games?! The FA are a complete joke.

 

[Eds]

All for giving large bans for offences like this (particularly for repeat offenders), but when you've got Jermain Defoe getting off scot free for the same thing, there's something very wrong.

 

[Uppercut]

None of those are comparable because they weren't 621st offences. 10 games makes sense because banning him for 7 games evidently didn't work.

 

[Cevno]

Of course they could. Different authorities.

They could theoretically yep, but they take those things into account before deciding the punishment. It would just seem odd that for his second offence he is getting less punishment than he got for his first.

 

[Uppercut]

All for giving large bans for offences like this (particularly for repeat offenders), but when you've got Jermain Defoe getting off scot free for the same thing, there's something very wrong.

Defoe definitely got off light but I'm sick of people saying they were "the same thing". Defoe sort of reached his head forward and pinched Mascherano with his teeth as if he was failing to dunk for an apple. Suarez gripped onto Ivanovic's arm with both hands and sunk the teeth in as hard as he could.

 

[marc71178]

He'd completed his ban in Holland hadn't he? Was due back the next game Ajax were scheduled to play.

As for comparing it to Defoe, well that's just lolable. One was provoked (and seen by the referee), the other wasn't. As one was seen, it can't have been banned for.

The joke is the people defending him or calling it "insignificant"

 

[Uppercut]

Unfortunately they don't get to consider all the scumbag stuff Suarez did that he got away with.

 

[fredfertang]

Suarez pays the price for his record I'm afraid, as he should, and if there was an element of "to discourage the others" about it then I can't see he can take issue with that either - bloke needs to learn how to behave himself as, remarkable and worrying as it may be, he is a role model for those who know no better

 

[Cevno]

He'd completed his ban in Holland hadn't he? Was due back the next game Ajax were scheduled to play.

Yeah, you're right actually. He had 1 game left when he moved to Liverpool.

 

[Ikki]

Defoe definitely got off light but I'm sick of people saying they were "the same thing". Defoe sort of reached his head forward and pinched Mascherano with his teeth as if he was failing to dunk for an apple. Suarez gripped onto Ivanovic's arm with both hands and sunk the teeth in as hard as he could.

Which left no mark, nor bruise.

"Ivanovic was checked over for injuries by Chelsea after the game – there were none – and the Met police officer who visited the club's training ground also looked for bite marks or bruises. He too saw nothing. The officer, acting with the police on Merseyside, asked Ivanovic whether he wanted to press charges. He did not"

They were basically the same thing. And worse, the ref saw Defoe do it.

He'd completed his ban in Holland hadn't he? Was due back the next game Ajax were scheduled to play.

As for comparing it to Defoe, well that's just lolable. One was provoked (and seen by the referee), the other wasn't. As one was seen, it can't have been banned for.

The joke is the people defending him or calling it "insignificant"

Provocation is not an excuse. Especially since, by their own standards, what Mascherano did (a bad tackle) is nowhere near a bite (10 match banning offence). This is like saying a punch to the face is OK if a bad tackle is made prior to provoke the player. Make sense.

EDIT: yes, it can be banned for, even if the ref has seen it.

 

[Eds]

As one was seen, it can't have been banned for.

My point?

 

[Ikki]

Retrospective bans can still be made whether or not the ref saw it but in 'exceptional circumstances'.

The FA | Football Rules & Governance - Not Seen Incidents

Go to 3:30 and watch the rest. 'Exceptional circumstances' includes situations which go beyond merely upgrading a yellow to a red but ones where the severity of the transgression would garner more than the usual 3 match ban. Clearly, the Defoe instance applies if Suarez's is worth 10 here.

EDIT/ADD: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/oct/24/newsstory.sport7

So they said the Defoe bite wouldn't warrant more than 3 games. Did I say the FA were a joke?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Unfortunately they don't get to consider all the scumbag stuff Suarez did that he got away with.

Totally agree, he did Mirallas in that derby match too and that was worse than the Distin one.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah there are loads of examples. Something Liverpool would do well to remember before pulling out the anti-Liverpool conspiracy card for the millionth time.

 

[sledger]

Yeah there are loads of examples. Something Liverpool would do well to remember before pulling out the anti-Liverpool conspiracy card for the millionth time.

I like it when this happens though. The level of butt-hurt is hilarious. This thread is QED of that.

 

[Cabinet96]

This got 8 matches

I'm hardly a massive Liverpool and Suarez fan, but I definitely think something like this is much worse. What Suarez did was incredibly weird, bizarre and more than a bit concerning, but from what I've seen, what he did didn't cause any extreme pain or damage.

Obviously he's a repeat offender and all that though, which does complicate things a little bit for me trying to come to a conclusion on whether the decision was fair, harsh or lenient. But I hardly think anyone trying to argue for it being harsh should be branded playing the anti-Liverpool conspiracy card.

 

[sledger]

But I hardly think anyone trying to argue for it being harsh should be branded playing the anti-Liverpool conspiracy card.

It's not just anyone doing it though.

 

[social]

Suarez pays the price for his record I'm afraid, as he should, and if there was an element of "to discourage the others" about it then I can't see he can take issue with that either - bloke needs to learn how to behave himself as, remarkable and worrying as it may be, he is a role model for those who know no better

Brilliant stuff Fred

I am so sick of people saying "I know he's a **** but he's our **** so that is ok"

The guy is a **** - end of

Unless football starts cracking down on these guys, every team will have "our ****"

 

[Pothas]

Wow this is fantastic, please can Bayern not buy Lewandowski.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, incredible. Pretty pumped up right now.