-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* English Football Season 2012-13
- Thread starter marc71178
- Start date
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Good to see that Suarez got a reasonable punishment. I'd like to see less consistency from the FA though as due to his bizarre disciplinary record, I don't think it would have been unreasonable to see him cop an even bigger punishment.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Would love it so much if Liverpool appealed (after their usual bull**** about being shocked at the length of the ban) and the sentence got extended. Lucky not to get an indefinite ban pending psychological evaluation and treatment.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
10 seems excessive? Should his previous record be ignored completely? It's why comparing Suarez to Defoe is ludicrous extrapolation.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
It's not ludicrous. They didn't ban Defoe because they couldn't charge him beyond the 3 games for violent conduct. So the least they could consider a bite offence being worth in that case would have been 4. By doing 10 games they've more than doubled what the initial ban could be considered, at a minimum. But if you argue that the initial is worth more then you make the Defoe let-off look even worse. If you say its just 3 as a simple violent conduct charge, they've more than tripled it on the argument of a previous record. Either way, they're using double standards.
The FA's rules are so vague and open they can ban you easily within their guidelines. But the consistency isn't there and anyone denying it is simply favouring their distaste for Suarez over consistent treatment of all players. I don't know one Liverpool fan who thinks Suarez shouldn't be punished and a lot of people would have thought 6 games harsh but fair...but 10? There is simply no precedence nor consistency.
I'm just awaiting to read their ****amamie calculation. It should be comedy.
Last edited:
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Sadly, it's all over t'interweb this morning that they already have. Really hoping it's not true.
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
I'm clinging to the hope that they can persuade him to stay for a season now that they've got some cash. He can demand better wages at Bayern in 2014 as they'll be saving the transfer fee.
Do find it all a bit strange. Surley with the Gotze money and Champions League revenue they could afford to offer him a very big new contract. Very disheartening that people want to leave a side that is clearly going to achieve so much, that they are going to Bayern is even worse, not good for German football.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Applies to domestic competitive matches only. So no friendlies or international/European games will be affected.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Cheers, so they'll be without him for the first month of next season, pretty dumb stuff from the genius.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
I think Liverpool have already demonstrated a lack of sense re: how they have handled the entire thing to be honest (irrespective of whether they appeal). They, quite correctly, came out and condemned Suarez's actions very quickly, and dealt with things from their end swiftly and strongly, but made a complete balls up by then challenging the FA's assertion that 3 match ban would not suffice.
To any objective and reasonable person with any understanding of the disciplinary process, it's always been perfectly obvious that biting another player in the manner which he did (yes, that's right, MANNER, for those desperately, and erroneously, comparing this to the Defoe incident) was worthy of greater punishment than the standard penalty.
One suspects, that had they taken the punishment on the chin and accepted responsibility, or at the very least had the sense to wait and see what the FA's punishment would be before releasing statements that were always going to antagonise the powers that be, he would have copped a lesser penalty. Instead, they basically waved a red rag to a bull, and are now crying about the consequences. This will only be exacerbated if they appeal, but since he's their most valuable player and they can scarcely get by without him, they may feel they have no other choice.
Hopefully we'll see some more hilariously dire "Save Luis" shirts this weekend.
To any objective and reasonable person with any understanding of the disciplinary process, it's always been perfectly obvious that biting another player in the manner which he did (yes, that's right, MANNER, for those desperately, and erroneously, comparing this to the Defoe incident) was worthy of greater punishment than the standard penalty.
One suspects, that had they taken the punishment on the chin and accepted responsibility, or at the very least had the sense to wait and see what the FA's punishment would be before releasing statements that were always going to antagonise the powers that be, he would have copped a lesser penalty. Instead, they basically waved a red rag to a bull, and are now crying about the consequences. This will only be exacerbated if they appeal, but since he's their most valuable player and they can scarcely get by without him, they may feel they have no other choice.
Hopefully we'll see some more hilariously dire "Save Luis" shirts this weekend.