Liverpool FC Forum

devaney » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:28 pm wrote:

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

The capitals are not a sign of anger. I HAVE USED THEM TO HELP YOU READ !!

I've got to say that your highly articulate description of me is just exactly what you are     

I'm off to play golf so I apologise in advance for not being able to respond to your next rapid and no doubt pathetic response.

Please don't rush back.

supersub » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:38 pm wrote:[quote="[url=http://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1203429#p1203429]Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:33 pm[/url

Whatever punishment Suarez receives will be the fault of Suarez himself because its his actions that have caused the problems the club currently faces.

whatever punishment he receives above the 3 match ban that is customary will be the fault of the media driven hysterics that will ultimately influence the puppet FA....To claim the clubs problems are due to Suarez is a bit rich....do you mean without him we would be top 4 material  [/quote]

Yes the current problem we face is down to Suarez.

And it's not the first off the field problem he has caused.

"Not one player will ever be bigger than the club"

If Suarez doesn't bite Ivanovic then this whole incident doesn't exist.

Defoe got a yellow card in the match - didnt realise that meant a 3 game ban.

Now your intentionally being thick or you're either on  a wind-up. His second yellow IIRC for biting and then a 3 game ban.

The FA it appears will use retrospective action when the ref has dealt with the incident when a serious injury has occurred. Unless you can think of another situation ?

Again, totally irrelevant. You'd actually have a point if they'd used retrospective action to overrule and extend Defoe's ban - but obviously (at the time) they didn't deem the crime serious enough, or that "serious injury" had occcured from it - sound familiar?

There is one simple way to stop this from happening 

Sure, but that doesn't mean unjust and double standard punitive decisions should take place, or does it Benny? Because this is what you're clearly alluding to.

Defoe only got one yellow in that match - not two. And even if he did two yellow cards means 1 game ban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 050700.stm

He should have been sent off for the incident and been given a long ban but he wasnt - that's the error.

Do you believe that Defoe should have been sent off and got a longer than normal ban ?

banned for 10 games. f#ck me.

biting is now officially worse than racism. nice one.

And ten matches is way over the top.

honestly, i don't know how the FA sleep at night. six games more than calling someone "a f#cking black c#nt" and four more than ben thatcher got for a forearm smash that could have potentially given pedro mendez brain damage.

it stinks. they're punishing the man, not the offence.

stmichael » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:09 pm wrote:honestly, i don't know how the FA sllep at night. six games more than calling someone "a f#cking black c#nt" and four more than ben thatcher got for a forearm smash that could have potentially given pedro mendez brain damage.

it stinks. they're punishing the man, not the offence.

Hasn't the ban been handed out by the Independant Panel as opposed to the FA

At least it's less than the amount handed out to Di Canio

I expected 5-6 at worst but 10 games is wrong. Not sure what would happen if the club appealed

He should have been sent off for the incident and been given a long ban but he wasnt - that's the error 

The "error" or double standards were that the FA didn't use retrospective action and ban Defoe for 10 f.ucking games like they just have Suarez.

That's no f.ucking error that's corrupt and unjust.

ku.nts.

Kenny Kan » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:14 pm wrote:

He should have been sent off for the incident and been given a long ban but he wasnt - that's the error 

The "error" or double standards were that the FA didn't use retrospective action and ban Defoe for 10 f.ucking games like they just have Suarez.

That's no f.ucking error that's corrupt and unjust.

ku.nts.

Again the FA were given free reign because the ref didnt see the incident so didnt have to go against the ref. It was easy for the FA to then hand it onto the Independent Panel who have banned him.

mart » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:11 pm wrote:

tubby » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:02 pm wrote:That's him done for the season. Wonder what sort of ban he will get for this. I think at least 5/6 games.

Since its Suarez i'm guessing 10 games.

Just as i expected.

Again the FA were given free reign because the ref didnt see the incident so didnt have to go against the ref. It was easy for the FA to then hand it onto the Independent Panel who have banned him.
 

AGAIN Benny your wrong "free reign" or not, it's irrelevant. As has already be proved over the last couple of pages of this thread, the FA can jump in when the like. Stop trying to argue this point - you've lost it.

The FA have one of their men on the panel, so quite how "independent" this panel is, is anyone's guess. However, 10 games says it's independent doesn't it, with the FA in the background demanding a "lengthy ban". yeah right.

another farcical decision handed out on the back of a media linge mob....benny and the like have got their pound of flesh , which was more the Luis got with the harmless love bite he gave Ivanovic..

So why don't the FA jump in every time a ref gets something wrong - apart from the Thatcher incident when have they actually jumped in when the ref has handled the situation on the pitch ?

It appears that they only deal with situations that the ref doesn't see.

supersub » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:25 pm wrote:another farcical decision handed out on the back of a media linge mob....benny and the like have got their pound of flesh , which was more the Luis got with the harmless love bite he gave Ivanovic..

No one wanted any "pound of flesh"

But you keep trying to find something that isn't there.