Liverpool FC Forum

Get the fook back on topic and stop talking b0ll0x, the lot of you.....
This thread is about Suarez, not a forum for children to spat at one another.
Grow a pair, each, the lot of you....

bunglemark2 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:00 pm wrote:Get the fook back on topic and stop talking b0ll0x, the lot of you.....
This thread is about Suarez, not a forum for children to spat at one another.
Grow a pair, each, the lot of you....

Sorry dad

bunglemark2 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:00 pm wrote:Get the fook back on topic and stop talking b0ll0x, the lot of you.....
This thread is about Suarez, not a forum for children to spat at one another.
Grow a pair, each, the lot of you....

Go and get a beer yer miserable git....

You guys have some serious issues...

Kenny Dalglish on Luis Suarez ban: Why the FA panel bit off more than they could chew

By Kenny Dalglish

The football governing body's so-called 'independent regulatory commission' is anything but, writes Kenny Dalglish

What Luis Suarez did when he bit Branislav Ivanovic was unacceptable. No one is disputing that.

As far as I am aware, no one at Liverpool Football Club is running away from their responsibilities over that.

The club has said that he was wrong. Luis, himself, has admitted that he was wrong, and they were both right and wise to accept the punishment yesterday.

The issue is clearly in the length of the player’s ban and the fact that the FA’s disciplinary system is a horrible mess.

Let’s start with the fact that the FA said before they had appointed the so-called ‘independent’ regulatory commission that Suarez deserved more than the normal three-game ban.

Well, by saying that, they prejudiced the findings of the commission before it has even begun.

They appointed the people to sit on it and they have told them they are there to give him more than three games.

So those three people know they have to give the player more than three games just to justify their existence.

How ‘independent’ does that make the three-man commission?

I wish the FA would just stop playing with words. Because this panel wasn’t truly independent and to say it was is blatantly misleading.

The FA chooses who sits on it to begin with. Does that make it ‘independent’?

And who sits on it? An ex-player, an FA council member and a lawyer already known to the FA.

So there’s an FA council member on an ‘independent’ FA commission. That’s convenient.

And there’s an ex-player, who would probably like to do more work for the FA. That’s convenient, too.

Are they paid, by the way? Are they paid by the FA? Do they do it for free? I don’t know the answer to those questions but

I’d like to know.

The point is that the structure of an FA disciplinary procedure like this is inherently unfair.

If you commit a crime in this country, you get the right for your case to be heard by a jury that has no affiliation or responsibility to the people prosecuting you.

That’s not how the FA works it. In fact, their disciplinary system has now become so confused and riddled with anomalies that it is farcical.

They hide behind excuses about the referee saw it or didn’t see it, punished it or didn’t punish it.

So Jermain Defoe bites Javier Mascherano on the arm and gets a yellow card. Nothing more.

Suarez bites Ivanovic and gets 10 games. Why? Because the referee didn’t see it.

He still spoke to him about something and looked like he was warning him but he didn’t see it.

For the benefit of football in this country, there has got to be greater clarification of the rules and more balance in the way offenders are judged.

The most important thing is not the length of the sentence but how they reach it and that information needs to be made public at the time the punishment is announced. That would have alleviated much of the unnecessary discussion about the ban handed down to Suarez.

The FA has been in need of widespread reform for a long time. The need is getting more and more pressing.


These regulatory commissions have to be independent in more than just name.

-----------------------------

Well said that man 

Theres no doubt in my mind that Benny the beaut will disagree with KK, not because he believes KK is wrong, but because he has to disagree.
Its his nature

Good words from KK

Benny The Noon » Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:21 am wrote:Good words from KK

We can keep pointing fingers at everyone else and playing the blame game but all this starts
and ends with Suarez.

This rehabilitation talk is utter ***** really, he is an adult with a young family earning a
massive amount of money and all he has to do is play football and behave himself on the
field but regrettably the last part is beyond him.

What annoys me is he doesn't seem to care about the consequences and Suarez does what
he wants when he wants and expects everyone else to bail him out and its becoming boring
now.

Despite all the talk coming out of the club they must be sick of dealing with his baggage
and his team mates must be shaking their heads as they need Luis as much as we all do
but he keeps doing us over with these ridiculous antics.

ESPN

The Football Association's Independent Regulatory Commission believed that Luis Suarez had not "fully appreciated the gravity and seriousness of this truly exceptional incident'', and that was a contributing factor for his 10-game ban for biting Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic.

Suarez contested the FA's decision to seek a longer ban than the standard three-game suspension for violent conduct. However, Suarez on Friday decided not to appeal the 10-game punishment and issued an apology.


However, one surprising aspect of the report was that the Commission said it " did not take into consideration any previous Disciplinary Records of Mr Suarez and considered the offence in isolation".


Also, part of the evidence submitted by the Football Association was that "within a few hours of the match, reference to the incident was both headline news around the country and the top trend on twitter worldwide".


The Commisson did not take into account that no further action was taken against Jermain Defoe in 2006, and instead used the case of Brighton's Ashley Barnes, banned for a total of seven games for tripping up a referee, to judge the length of Suarez's ban.


The three-man panel featured Thura KT Win (Chairman of The FA Women's Premier League), Roger Pawley (Secretary of the Cambridgeshire FA), Brian Talbot (former Ipswich Town, Toronto Metros, Arsenal, Watford, Stoke City, West Bromwich Albion, Fulham and Aldershot) while Mark Ives, the FA disciplinary manager, acted as secretary to the Commission and was assisted by Mr Rob Marsh, FA senior disciplinary assistant.


The Commission stated: "We believe it is our duty to discourage any players at any level from acting in such a deplorable manner or attempting to copy what they had seen on the television. The incident of biting an opponent is alien to football and must remain so.''


It went on to say: "It is completely unacceptable and such truly disgraceful behaviour could also lead to possible health issues.


"This truly shocking incident had been seen by millions of viewers both domestic and overseas, as well as generating a great deal of interest and debate amongst countless numbers of people.


"Whilst we accepted that Mr Suarez's reputation had been impacted, these unsavoury pictures would have given a bad image of English football domestically and across the world alike.


"All players in the higher level of the game are seen as role models, have the duty to act professionally and responsibly, and set the highest example of good conduct to the rest of the game - especially to young players.


"In this regard and on this occasion, Mr Suarez's conduct had fallen far below the standards expected of him.


"We took into consideration Mr Suarez's apology, his personal statement, supporting letter from Mr Brendan Rodgers and the letter from Ms Zoe Ward (Liverpool's secretary).


"But when these were read in conjunction with Mr Suarez's denial of the standard punishment that would otherwise apply for violent conduct is clearly insufficient, it seemed to us that Mr Suarez has not fully appreciated the gravity and seriousness of this truly exceptional incident.''

kazza » Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:37 am wrote:ESPN

The Football Association's Independent Regulatory Commission believed that Luis Suarez had not "fully appreciated the gravity and seriousness of this truly exceptional incident'', and that was a contributing factor for his 10-game ban for biting Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic.

Suarez contested the FA's decision to seek a longer ban than the standard three-game suspension for violent conduct. However, Suarez on Friday decided not to appeal the 10-game punishment and issued an apology.


However, one surprising aspect of the report was that the Commission said it " did not take into consideration any previous Disciplinary Records of Mr Suarez and considered the offence in isolation".


Also, part of the evidence submitted by the Football Association was that "within a few hours of the match, reference to the incident was both headline news around the country and the top trend on twitter worldwide".


The Commisson did not take into account that no further action was taken against Jermain Defoe in 2006, and instead used the case of Brighton's Ashley Barnes, banned for a total of seven games for tripping up a referee, to judge the length of Suarez's ban.


The three-man panel featured Thura KT Win (Chairman of The FA Women's Premier League), Roger Pawley (Secretary of the Cambridgeshire FA), Brian Talbot (former Ipswich Town, Toronto Metros, Arsenal, Watford, Stoke City, West Bromwich Albion, Fulham and Aldershot) while Mark Ives, the FA disciplinary manager, acted as secretary to the Commission and was assisted by Mr Rob Marsh, FA senior disciplinary assistant.


The Commission stated: "We believe it is our duty to discourage any players at any level from acting in such a deplorable manner or attempting to copy what they had seen on the television. The incident of biting an opponent is alien to football and must remain so.''


It went on to say: "It is completely unacceptable and such truly disgraceful behaviour could also lead to possible health issues.


"This truly shocking incident had been seen by millions of viewers both domestic and overseas, as well as generating a great deal of interest and debate amongst countless numbers of people.


"Whilst we accepted that Mr Suarez's reputation had been impacted, these unsavoury pictures would have given a bad image of English football domestically and across the world alike.


"All players in the higher level of the game are seen as role models, have the duty to act professionally and responsibly, and set the highest example of good conduct to the rest of the game - especially to young players.


"In this regard and on this occasion, Mr Suarez's conduct had fallen far below the standards expected of him.


"We took into consideration Mr Suarez's apology, his personal statement, supporting letter from Mr Brendan Rodgers and the letter from Ms Zoe Ward (Liverpool's secretary).


"But when these were read in conjunction with Mr Suarez's denial of the standard punishment that would otherwise apply for violent conduct is clearly insufficient, it seemed to us that Mr Suarez has not fully appreciated the gravity and seriousness of this truly exceptional incident.''

I wish there is a smiley with sh1t coming out a bull's @ss so I could have used it

Oh FFS

"We took into consideration Mr Suarez's apology, his personal statement, supporting letter from Mr Brendan Rodgers and the letter from Ms Zoe Ward (Liverpool's secretary). But when these were read in conjunction with Mr Suarez's denial of the standard punishment that would otherwise apply for violent conduct is clearly insufficient, it seemed to us that Mr Suarez has not fully appreciated the gravity and seriousness of this truly exceptional incident.''

So because he apologised, but felt that a 3 match ban was sufficient, they had to prove to him that he had not understood how serious the matter was?
Maybe he should not have apologised and said he deserved a 10 match ban, would they have reduced it to 7 or 6?
They had it in for him from the start and were only seeing how much punishment they could get away with. This is a perfect stitch up whereby no matter what Suarez would have said and done they wanted him banned for a long time. If they could have justified it, i.e if Ivanovic would have been injured and/or the police would have been involved I am absolutely certain they would have kicked him out of english football.
What utter despicable cu'nts they are

It's f*cking ridiculous