Liverpool FC Forum

At least you agree that it's stupid.

When Suarez was banned in the Dutch league, he was also seen by the ref. Made no difference.

I just have one question for you Benny. Do you think that kicking, headbutting etc. is less serious and deserves a lesser punishment than giving someone a f*cking hickey?

Thommo's perm » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:16 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:08 pm wrote:I'm saying that Suarez being punished for 5 or 6 games would be an appropriate punishment for what he did.

Why is that appropriate?

Because I think it is - I believe it's a strong enough punishment for the action.

damjan193 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:17 pm wrote:At least you agree that it's stupid.

When Suarez was banned in the Dutch league, he was also seen by the ref. Made no difference.

I just have one question for you Benny. Do you think that kicking, headbutting etc. is less serious and deserves a lesser punishment than giving someone a f*cking hickey?

The incident was seen by the ref who then referred it to the Dutch FA and they acted on it as did his own club.

They are all serious incidents - there is no "serious" scale written down somewhere. Barton kicked Aguero and got how long ? 7 games I think ? Fellani should have got more

But they are all irrelevant and have nothing to do with what Suarez has done.

They are relevant Benny. They should all be treated the same way but they aren't. That's my whole point.

And of course there is no written scale of what's more serious, it's just common sense. The possibility of giving someone a concussion is far worse than giving someone something less serious than a love bite.

damjan193 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:31 pm wrote:They are relevant Benny. They should all be treated the same way but they aren't. That's my whole point.

And of course there is no written scale of what's more serious, it's just common sense. The possibility of giving someone a concussion is far worse than giving someone something less serious than a love bite.

So do you take previous into account then ?

And please read up on the dangers of a human bite.

Benny The Noon » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:18 pm wrote:

Thommo's perm » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:16 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:08 pm wrote:I'm saying that Suarez being punished for 5 or 6 games would be an appropriate punishment for what he did.

Why is that appropriate?

Because I think it is - I believe it's a strong enough punishment for the action.

Hes already had a 7 match ban for biting and it didnt deter him, so why should a 5 or 6 match ban be strong enough?
Please think about your answer before writing it so it makes sense
Thanks

Come on man, dangers of a human bite? It wasn't even a bite, but even if it was I'm sure it isn't as serious as a f*cking brain damage.

damjan193 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:Come on man, dangers of a human bite? It wasn't even a bite, but even if it was I'm sure it isn't as serious as a f*cking brain damage.

Who has been given brain damage or even concussion ?

Benny The Noon » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:42 pm wrote:

damjan193 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:Come on man, dangers of a human bite? It wasn't even a bite, but even if it was I'm sure it isn't as serious as a f*cking brain damage.

Who has been given brain damage or even concussion ?

You, by the look of your logic

Thommo's perm » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:36 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:18 pm wrote:

Thommo's perm » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:16 pm wrote:
Why is that appropriate?

Because I think it is - I believe it's a strong enough punishment for the action.

Hes already had a 7 match ban for biting and it didnt deter him, so why should a 5 or 6 match ban be strong enough?
Please think about your answer before writing it so it makes sense
Thanks

Well I thought it is quite clear -

Because its my own opinion that 5-6 games is strong enough.

Thommo's perm » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:44 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:42 pm wrote:

damjan193 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:Come on man, dangers of a human bite? It wasn't even a bite, but even if it was I'm sure it isn't as serious as a f*cking brain damage.

Who has been given brain damage or even concussion ?

You, by the look of your logic

??

Yes but you havent said why?
You do know why dont you?

Benny The Noon » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:42 pm wrote:

damjan193 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:Come on man, dangers of a human bite? It wasn't even a bite, but even if it was I'm sure it isn't as serious as a f*cking brain damage.

Who has been given brain damage or even concussion ?

No one. Shawcross was given a headbutt, which might have led to a concussion. We're talking about possible dangers of some violent action, none of which actually occurred in the given examples.

Thommo's perm » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:46 pm wrote:Yes but you havent said why?
You do know why dont you?

Because I think it's more serious than your average red card offence hence a stronger punishment than just a 3 game ban.

Hopefully you can grasp it now.

damjan193 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:46 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:42 pm wrote:

damjan193 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:Come on man, dangers of a human bite? It wasn't even a bite, but even if it was I'm sure it isn't as serious as a f*cking brain damage.

Who has been given brain damage or even concussion ?

No one. Shawcross was given a headbutt, which might have led to a concussion. We're talking about possible dangers of some violent action, none of which actually occurred in the given examples.

But no one has been concussed so its irrelevant.