Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:33 pm wrote:The police did get involved and Ivanovic was the one who didnt want to press charges
The pictures and video are pretty conclusive that Suarez bit the player hence why the club disciplined him and why they accepted the charges.
red till i die!! » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:11 pm wrote:Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:33 pm wrote:The police did get involved and Ivanovic was the one who didnt want to press charges
The pictures and video are pretty conclusive that Suarez bit the player hence why the club disciplined him and why they accepted the charges.
no ivanovich didnt want to press charges but the police still have the right to pursue an assault if the victim doesnt want to press charges. they can bring a charge but they didnt,they also said there was no physical evidence of a bite, even with all that compelling evidence stacked against him.
the pictures thats paused right at the point where the mouth is open millimetres from his arm. all shocking but the problem is where is the pictures with sunken teeth ? the pictures of the injury ? even the teeth marks ?.
you wont find one benny, only in your head they exist.
the videos i seen showed suarez "ATTEMPTING" to bite another player and thats why they disciplined and fined him. had he of succeeded in biting him and inflicted an "INJURY" on the lad then im pretty sure the club would get rid of him and most of us would agree.
"pretty conclusive that suarez bit the player"![]()
The Good Yank » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:20 pm wrote:Gonna jump in here for a minute. Red till I die. Are you saying that Suarez wasn't in the wrong for pulling Ivanovic's arm towards his mouth, opening his mouth and placing his formidable teeth on said arm?
Your arguement is Suarez didn't submit enough downward pressure with the bite to warrant a ban?
red till i die!! » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:28 pm wrote:The Good Yank » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:20 pm wrote:Gonna jump in here for a minute. Red till I die. Are you saying that Suarez wasn't in the wrong for pulling Ivanovic's arm towards his mouth, opening his mouth and placing his formidable teeth on said arm?
Your arguement is Suarez didn't submit enough downward pressure with the bite to warrant a ban?
no thats not my arguement at all![]()
suarez attempted to bite ivanovich and for that i fully agree that he gets punished and a ban. not as excessive as the one that was handed out but yes he deserved a ban.
my arguement is that benny carrys on like suarez took a lump out of ivanovich when he clearly never even got his teeth in.
Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:25 pm wrote:red till i die!! » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:11 pm wrote:Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:33 pm wrote:The police did get involved and Ivanovic was the one who didnt want to press charges
The pictures and video are pretty conclusive that Suarez bit the player hence why the club disciplined him and why they accepted the charges.
no ivanovich didnt want to press charges but the police still have the right to pursue an assault if the victim doesnt want to press charges. they can bring a charge but they didnt,they also said there was no physical evidence of a bite, even with all that compelling evidence stacked against him.
the pictures thats paused right at the point where the mouth is open millimetres from his arm. all shocking but the problem is where is the pictures with sunken teeth ? the pictures of the injury ? even the teeth marks ?.
you wont find one benny, only in your head they exist.
the videos i seen showed suarez "ATTEMPTING" to bite another player and thats why they disciplined and fined him. had he of succeeded in biting him and inflicted an "INJURY" on the lad then im pretty sure the club would get rid of him and most of us would agree.
"pretty conclusive that suarez bit the player"![]()
Did the police really say there was no physical evidence of a bite ? Can you show me where they said that please.
So can you tell me why the club then accepted the charges if youre saying that Suarez didnt actually bite him ?
Why with lawyers etc they didnt press ahead with a case to deny it all - you seem pretty confident he only "licked" him and didnt actually bite him.
red till i die!! » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:31 pm wrote:
Did the police really say there was no physical evidence of a bite ? Can you show me where they said that please.
So can you tell me why the club then accepted the charges if youre saying that Suarez didnt actually bite him ?
Why with lawyers etc they didnt press ahead with a case to deny it all - you seem pretty confident he only "licked" him and didnt actually bite him.
Return to Football World Wide - General Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests