Liverpool FC Forum

Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:20 pm wrote:

devaney » Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:51 am wrote:

Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:43 am wrote:The Defoe situation is completely irrelevant because the ref dealt with it on the pitch and put it in his report. The FA can't then go against that. Same with the recent tackle in the Wigan match.

The precedent was set by Ajax and the Dutch FA when they set out their ban.

I believe that the ban will now be increased further because of the challenge to the possible length of the ban.

For once I wish we had just took the punishment and learned from it.

Hopefully they don't increase the ban by too much

Look lad I've being doing my very best to ignore your incredibly boring sanctimonious know it all garbage. I have only posted twice regarding Luis's recent incident on this thread. Why do you feel the need to drag this on and on? You have personally written approximately three pages on this incident. Just what the fk is wrong with you? Suarez will get a lengthy ban and it will be down to individuals like you that want to overly publicise his misgivings and make his indiscretions look considerably worse than they really are. IF YOU ARE ANY KIND OF A SUPPORTER GIVE IT A FKG REST.



Only an idiot would dismiss Defoe's biting offence as irrelevant regardless of how he was treated. Defoe bit a player. Suarez bit a player. If you can't see the relevance then you are even more stupid than I have previously given you credit for. Just for the record your overblown boring opinion is not FACT !!

Christ you're a dull webfan

For someone who doesn't care about what I post you certainly can't help replying

At least this time you got your brain cell working to respond to the correct post.

devaney » Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:46 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:20 pm wrote:

devaney » Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:51 am wrote:
Look lad I've being doing my very best to ignore your incredibly boring sanctimonious know it all garbage. I have only posted twice regarding Luis's recent incident on this thread. Why do you feel the need to drag this on and on? You have personally written approximately three pages on this incident. Just what the fk is wrong with you? Suarez will get a lengthy ban and it will be down to individuals like you that want to overly publicise his misgivings and make his indiscretions look considerably worse than they really are. IF YOU ARE ANY KIND OF A SUPPORTER GIVE IT A FKG REST.



Only an idiot would dismiss Defoe's biting offence as irrelevant regardless of how he was treated. Defoe bit a player. Suarez bit a player. If you can't see the relevance then you are even more stupid than I have previously given you credit for. Just for the record your overblown boring opinion is not FACT !!

Christ you're a dull webfan

For someone who doesn't care about what I post you certainly can't help replying

At least this time you got your brain cell working to respond to the correct post.

You're even to thick to realise why I tagged on to that particular post.

THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARING ABOUT WHAT YOU WRITE AND DESPERATELY TRYING TO IGNORE YOUR DIATRIBES OF NEGATIVITY.If I didn't know what Suarez had done it would be very easy to conclude from your overwhelming commitment to this thread  that he had very near killed somebody. GROW UP FOR FKS SAKE.

For the record you of all people has no right to call anybody dull 

An FA spokesman said: "We are unable to take any action because the referee has already dealt with the incident.

"Fifa regulations prevent us from taking retrospective action."

Manchester City defender Ben Thatcher was punished by the FA after the event earlier this season when his forearm smash left Portsmouth midfielder Pedro Mendes in hospital.

However, that incident was deemed as exceptional because Mendes suffered serious injury but in most cases, the FA's hands are tied because of Fifa's stance on the issue of retrospective punishment. 

stmichael » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:41 pm wrote:If he gets more than 8 games, the FA are effectively saying biting is worse than racism and the world has officially gone mad.

This is the FA we're talking about though.

Kenny Kan » Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:58 pm wrote:

An FA spokesman said: "We are unable to take any action because the referee has already dealt with the incident.

"Fifa regulations prevent us from taking retrospective action."

Manchester City defender Ben Thatcher was punished by the FA after the event earlier this season when his forearm smash left Portsmouth midfielder Pedro Mendes in hospital.

However, that incident was deemed as exceptional because Mendes suffered serious injury but in most cases, the FA's hands are tied because of Fifa's stance on the issue of retrospective punishment. 

Wrong. Again!

Your quotes appear old and out of date - can't tell as there is no source.

The rules have changed since then and because of that incident.

Proof that the FA do have retrospective action and have been criticised before due to their cherry picking nature of this 'new' rule which has been amended since your random quotes and more importantly since Defoe munched on Mascha.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... rther.html

http://bensaunders.blogspot.com.au/2013 ... hment.html

The English FA would have been within its rights to sanction Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney following an elbowing incident last week, according to FIFA President Sepp Blatter.

The FA said it could not retrospectively take action against Rooney for elbowing Wigan Athletic's James McCarthy in the back of the head in a Premier League match because, under FIFA rules, as referee Mark Clattenburg had already given a foul against the England man for obstruction, they could take no further action.

However, Blatter told a news conference after a meeting of the International Football Association Board (IFAB): 'This is up to the discretion of the national association.
'They can use video evidence in the discipline and control committee.

'They can impose or change a decision if a red or yellow card has been given to the wrong player. If there's violence the national association can intervene and punish a player -- this is permitted at the discretion of the national association.'

The FA were roundly criticised for taking no action against Rooney and their decision not to take any measures meant he was free to play in United's match against champions Chelsea at on Tuesday when he scored the opening goal, although United eventually lost 2-1.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... ident.html

Blatter says the association can use it's "discretion". Yet the FA slurs that term with the more apt term hypocrisy.

Anyway, keep digging Benny. 

supersub » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:12 pm wrote:What it boils down to is;

people who hate Suarez want him punished above and beyond what is reasonable
those that like Suarez want him punished within the realms of reason ie; 3 games

devaney » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:14 pm wrote:BTG - Less than 5 minutes to respond and you call me tedious. You really are a bit of a sad fk. In your own words - PLEASE HAVE A SERIOUS WORD WITH YOURSELF OR PREFERABLY WITH A PROFESSIONAL  !!

How much more garbage are you going to write about relevance. The Thatcher case makes it absolutely relevant.  You really are clueless.

Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:18 pm wrote:

supersub » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:12 pm wrote:What it boils down to is;

people who hate Suarez want him punished above and beyond what is reasonable
those that like Suarez want him punished within the realms of reason ie; 3 games

I don't "hate" Suarez

I want him to stop dragging the name of our club down , I want him to be spending more time on the pitch as opposed to spending time banned. I want him to grow up , I want him to repay the faith the club and fans have shown in him. This is going to be his last chance I believe at the club - next time and I think the club will sell him.

So the rules have changed since then

Again it's not relevant to this situation because the ref took no action on the pitch because he claimed to have not seen it which allows the FA to the take action

If the ref had seen the incident and given him a yellow card and then the FA decided to increase the punishment we could then start crying and complaining but there haven't been many situations when the FA have actually done that except the Thatcher situation - unless you can think of any others ?

Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:21 pm wrote:

devaney » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:14 pm wrote:BTG - Less than 5 minutes to respond and you call me tedious. You really are a bit of a sad fk. In your own words - PLEASE HAVE A SERIOUS WORD WITH YOURSELF OR PREFERABLY WITH A PROFESSIONAL  !!

How much more garbage are you going to write about relevance. The Thatcher case makes it absolutely relevant.  You really are clueless.

I think it's easier just to tell you to f*ck off. You're nothing , a stain on the carpet, a yappy Jack Russell - just a waste of space



Post more words in capital letters next time to show that you're really angry

supersub » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:24 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:18 pm wrote:

supersub » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:12 pm wrote:What it boils down to is;

people who hate Suarez want him punished above and beyond what is reasonable
those that like Suarez want him punished within the realms of reason ie; 3 games

I don't "hate" Suarez

I want him to stop dragging the name of our club down , I want him to be spending more time on the pitch as opposed to spending time banned. I want him to grow up , I want him to repay the faith the club and fans have shown in him. This is going to be his last chance I believe at the club - next time and I think the club will sell him.

you clearly put yourself in the hate bracket

I said those who want an unreasonable punishment and those that want reason to prevail...


I would hope you would want the FA to to set a reasonable punishment being a "Liverpool " supporter....perhaps in the line of previous biting incidents in this country

Kenny Kan » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:26 pm wrote:

So the rules have changed since then

Again it's not relevant to this situation because the ref took no action on the pitch because he claimed to have not seen it which allows the FA to the take action

If the ref had seen the incident and given him a yellow card and then the FA decided to increase the punishment we could then start crying and complaining but there haven't been many situations when the FA have actually done that except the Thatcher situation - unless you can think of any others ?

They have changed since the Thatcher incident - 2006. Therefore similar offences and punitive decisions thereafter ARE RELEVANT

Your missing the point.

Whether or not the ref missed Suarez's actions is a moot point. The FA are using retrospective action, fair enough, but by their own standards they should only hand out a 3 game ban to Suarez  because they didn't intervene in Defoe's case (when they could have since this rule came into play AFTER the Thatcher incident) and extend his ban beyond three games.

They were content to see Defoe get a 3 game ban for biting. But they're doing their utmost in this incident to see Suarez banned for longer but for the same crime.

Fair? doesn't even need answering.