Liverpool FC Forum

The 10 game ban has come as no surprise to me whatsoever. The frenzied media sh.itstorm was just totally over the top. Even Cameron felt it necessary to have a go ffs. What is most disaapointing however is the behaviour of some of our own so-called fans who found it necessary to go on and on about the incident for days and then somewhat incredulously complain that the length of the ban was excessive. What the fk did these clowns expect !!!

Crazy ban, 10 games is a joke but, he shouldn't have done it.
Fantastic player but he needs to sort himself out, you can't go around biting people on a football pitch.

well shoot me down but i think 10 games is about right, he has done it before, ok he was not under the FA then but that should not matter.

There is a Silver Lining

Borini is back in training

10 games is harsh...on the team. But, tbh, it didn't really shock me that the crazy little fucker got that sort of a verdict. He has form and it was obvious the FA were going to come down hard on him.

He's an idiot, but unfortunately, he's an idiot that Liverpool have to rely on and he's let them down in the most ridiculous way.

There'll need to be some serious meetings going on during the Summer.

Benny The Noon » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:47 pm wrote:There is a Silver Lining

Borini is back in training

If he scores a goal, instead of biting his hand he should bite his elbow. 

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"   

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 7:11 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.

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.

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.

Get yourself down to the club and tell them so they can fight the charges then.

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.

show the evidence of a bite benny ? ie a picture of teeth marks or something like that. ive seen all the evidence of an attempted bite but yet none of an actual bite.

Suarez has admitted to biting Ivanovic.

There is no gray area here.

He's got his virdict and it's one that's clearly taking into account his past nonsense.

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.

show the evidence of a bite benny ? ie a picture of teeth marks or something like that. ive seen all the evidence of an attempted bite but yet none of an actual bite.[/quote]

Maybe the evidence is not being released to the public

Suarez has admitted it ffs you cant get anymore conclusive than that

You said the police said there was no evidence - can you show me where you got that information from

Was hoping for 6, feard it might be 8 so not that far from it.
The main thing in all of this:

After Evra-gate everyone but the dog knew Suarez was awalking bullseye. I said at the time after the whole mess that i hope
he tries to stay out of any trouble in the future just for that simple reason. It doesn't matter why, how, when ifs and buts, Everyone knew, even him that Suarez was a marked man on
probation. Just a year after that he goes and does something uncivilized and extremly retarded in front of the entire world.
Just a year after that shitstorm last season that put LFC in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, he goes and pulls something like this.
The action in itself is just plain stupid and cavelike, but add to that the known fact I just pointed out and it add even another dimensionm of stupidity to it.
Just so damn frustrating that he doesn't seem to have any restraint on the field. If this is what he can do even if he marked man, what'sm to say he won't do something stupid again?
i mean if Suarez headbutts a player next season(which may or may not happen) you can be sure it won't be a 3 match suspension.
Does Suarez know that?
Does it matter?