Liverpool FC Forum

tonyeh » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:33 pm wrote: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.

gray area - I think that should be grey - and you call Luis an ejit 

It's the inconsistency of the ban with previous instances of violent conduct that most galls me, less so than the suggestions that biting only merits a modest ban. The Defoe case is the best example I can think of that serves as proof of this but you've also got to question, I think, why so many dangerous challenges - like the proverbial leg breakers -' have only resulted in three game bans and why many more have gone completely unpunished. You can never achieve complete consistency because no two cases are ever exactly the same but broadly similar offences should result in broadly similar sanctions, so when Defoe bites a player and only receives a yellow, an offence for which another player subsequently receives a ten match ban, I think the sense of shock, injustice and outrage, is justified.

But that's only half of it. It would be just as ridiculous if the FA had followed the Defoe precedent by taking no further action. Suarez still bit a player and for that deserves to be banned; for how long is the question. What length of ban is appropriate in the circumstances? Why three games and not six, and why six and not eight? Why not ten? Rather than it being purely a matter for discretion, what principles need to be taken into consideration in reaching these decisions? This is what underlies all of the discussion about 'love bites' and leg-breakers and I would agree with most of those who say that it's basically a question of harm caused and intent in light of previous cases. That an incident offends popular sensibilities more than another incident that results in greater harm to the player offended against isn't, IMO, a good reason to impose a greater punishment on the guilty party.

What, then, of Suarez's intent and the harm caused to Ivanovic? The video evidence is as clear as day on this point. Suarez takes Ivanovic's arm and goes, chops at the ready, to bite him. His jaw comes down on Ivanovic's arm and, though it may not have resulted in an injury, it was enough that Suarez intended to bite him and could have caused an injury, could have drawn blood. His previous bite whilst an Ajax player resulted in just that and there is good reason why players in all forms of sport are required to desist from play immediately after they have suffered a blood injury. That also has to be a reason to impose a higher punishment in this case.

It was violent conduct and then some, committed by a player with previous, and as such it warranted a lengthy ban. But ten games when the likes of Ben Thatcher can bulldoze and knock unconscious an opponent and only received an eight match ban definitely seems excessive. Consistency is the main issue. It wouldn't be so bad if everyone were playing by the same rules, no matter how draconian.

devaney » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:06 pm wrote:

tonyeh » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:33 pm wrote: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.

gray area - I think that should be grey - and you call Luis an ejit 

"Gray and grey are different spellings of the same word, and both are used throughout the English-speaking world. But gray is more common in American English, while grey is more common in all the other main varieties of English. In the U.K., for instance, grey appears about twenty times for every instance of gray. In the U.S. the ratio is reversed."

http://grammarist.com/spelling/gray-grey/

Cant believe the FA supporters are shocked or disappointed. Rejoice, your boys have done you proud!
8 game ban for racist abuse, 10 games for violent conduct: What would he have got if he had bitten evra?!

Shouldn't there be some sort of a trial or something for this kind of stuff? Because it looks as if these punishments or at least their length is given at random (or at certain targets, which ever you believe). The FA can't be allowed to decide for these bans in whatever way they want.

damjan193 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:09 pm wrote:Shouldn't there be some sort of a trial or something for this kind of stuff? Because it looks as if these punishments or at least their length is given at random (or at certain targets, which ever you believe). The FA can't be allowed to decide for these bans in whatever way they want.

What they do is bring an indepemdent panel to do the dirty work when their own punishment is not enough. A stitch up where they can say it had nothing to do with them, so showing no bias
Dirty sh'ithouse cu'nts

Thommo's perm » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:15 pm wrote:

damjan193 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:09 pm wrote:Shouldn't there be some sort of a trial or something for this kind of stuff? Because it looks as if these punishments or at least their length is given at random (or at certain targets, which ever you believe). The FA can't be allowed to decide for these bans in whatever way they want.

What they do is bring an indepemdent panel to do the dirty work when their own punishment is not enough. A stitch up where they can say it had nothing to do with them, so showing no bias
Dirty sh'ithouse cu'nts

That doesn't sound very fair. There should be a club official or some sort of a lawyer to defend the case of the accused player.

damjan193 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:31 pm wrote:

Thommo's perm » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:15 pm wrote:

damjan193 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:09 pm wrote:Shouldn't there be some sort of a trial or something for this kind of stuff? Because it looks as if these punishments or at least their length is given at random (or at certain targets, which ever you believe). The FA can't be allowed to decide for these bans in whatever way they want.

What they do is bring an indepemdent panel to do the dirty work when their own punishment is not enough. A stitch up where they can say it had nothing to do with them, so showing no bias
Dirty sh'ithouse cu'nts

That doesn't sound very fair. There should be a club official or some sort of a lawyer to defend the case of the accused player.

Theye make the rules up to suit them
The sad thing is the clubs never stand up to them even though they are wrong the vast majority of the time

damjan193 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:31 pm wrote:That doesn't sound very fair. There should be a club official or some sort of a lawyer to defend the case of the accused player.

He could have done but he accepted the charge. If the club want to challenge the severity of the ban they can, but having accepted the charge it can't now be revoked.

Lesson to learn from this affair: don't bite people, you're asking for trouble.

damjan193 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:31 pm wrote:

Thommo's perm » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:15 pm wrote:

damjan193 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:09 pm wrote:Shouldn't there be some sort of a trial or something for this kind of stuff? Because it looks as if these punishments or at least their length is given at random (or at certain targets, which ever you believe). The FA can't be allowed to decide for these bans in whatever way they want.

What they do is bring an indepemdent panel to do the dirty work when their own punishment is not enough. A stitch up where they can say it had nothing to do with them, so showing no bias
Dirty sh'ithouse cu'nts

That doesn't sound very fair. There should be a club official or some sort of a lawyer to defend the case of the accused player.

Theye make the rules up to suit them
The sad thing is the clubs never stand up to them even though they are wrong the vast majority of the time

10 games is f##king ridiculous, it`s almost a third of a season.
defoe gets a booking and luis gets 10 games?

eds » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:20 am wrote:23.10.2006 - The Football Association will take no action against Tottenham striker Jermain Defoe over the biting incident in Sunday's game with West Ham.

23.04.2013 - The Football Association has suspended Liverpool striker Luis Suarez for 10 games over the biting incident in Sunday's game with Chelsea.


Just putting all you lads on notice, seems like you all have VERY short memories.........

   

BOOM!

Got the ban predicted 2 days before the verdict........

Just goes to show you how predictable these c**ts are when there is a massive agenda behind all of this.

LFC2007 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:42 pm wrote:

damjan193 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:31 pm wrote:That doesn't sound very fair. There should be a club official or some sort of a lawyer to defend the case of the accused player.

He could have done but he accepted the charge. If the club want to challenge the severity of the ban they can, but having accepted the charge it can't now be revoked.

Lesson to learn from this affair: don't bite people, you're asking for trouble.

It shouldn't be an option (which may increase the length of the ban if you go for it), it should be obligatory, like every normal trial.

eds » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:49 pm wrote:

eds » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:20 am wrote:23.10.2006 - The Football Association will take no action against Tottenham striker Jermain Defoe over the biting incident in Sunday's game with West Ham.

23.04.2013 - The Football Association has suspended Liverpool striker Luis Suarez for 10 games over the biting incident in Sunday's game with Chelsea.


Just putting all you lads on notice, seems like you all have VERY short memories.........

   

BOOM!

Got the ban predicted 2 days before the verdict........

Just goes to show you how predictable these c**ts are when there is a massive agenda behind all of this.

Biting wasnt as dangerous in those days. Besides Defoes teeth are smaller...

Thommo's perm » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:55 pm wrote:

eds » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:49 pm wrote:

eds » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:20 am wrote:23.10.2006 - The Football Association will take no action against Tottenham striker Jermain Defoe over the biting incident in Sunday's game with West Ham.

23.04.2013 - The Football Association has suspended Liverpool striker Luis Suarez for 10 games over the biting incident in Sunday's game with Chelsea.


Just putting all you lads on notice, seems like you all have VERY short memories.........

   

BOOM!

Got the ban predicted 2 days before the verdict........

Just goes to show you how predictable these c**ts are when there is a massive agenda behind all of this.

Biting wasnt as dangerous in those days. Besides Defoes teeth are smaller...

"Nah gov was just 'aving a cheeky nibble on him. That was all."