Liverpool FC Forum

[eds]

i really hope tomorrows verdict isnt the end of luis career with us.
he has stated he would think anymore than 3 matches would be excessive but id say he is secretly hoping its no more than 5. if his ban is extreme to the point that he misses a chunk of next season then id say he'd decide he has had enough of the prem.
5 matches and maybe another 3 suspended depending on future offences, imo would send out a decent message from the f.a, but a cantona style ban would just prove they have an agenda against him.
id like to believe that this incident will deter any clubs interested but it wont at all and if he carries his form through to the confederations cup then he'l rip it up and the list of suitors will grow.
gonna be a long summer with his future in the air

I wouldn't be suprised if they suspend him for a season or at least half a season with the levels of hysteria going on at the moment.

This kind of puts the owners in a much more comfortable situation, if they are considering selling him.

They can now simply turn around now and say, "look we had to sell him for the good of this club, no point in him watching from the sidelines for so long".

I can imagine the lemming patrol (some who frequently post on this forum), all gleefully clapping and cheering as Suarez is sold while we watch Manure win title number 21, 22, 23, etc as we keep languishing mid table, season after season.

[Kenny Kan]

3 game ban for violent conduct. Take it move on.

That is if the k.unts at FA keep in line with their own rules, and seeing how Defoe's 3 game ban wasn't intervened for anything more, all should be good

   

However, Suarez disputes the FA's belief that the standard ban of three matches is insufficient in this instance, due to the severity of his offence. 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news ... -Wednesday

This is the exact kind of s.hit hypocrisy that will get Reds' foaming at the mouth and rightly so, fair play to Suarez for disputing this hypocritic dispute - it seems that because he is already public enemy number 1 and the press and media are running all sorts of s.hitehawk peer pressuring views that he'll get a lengthy ban, when his record for violent conduct has been exemplary in this country - he's never had a red card, he's apologised quick smart, Ivanonic doesn't want to (excuse the pun) make any more of a meal out of it, Liverpool FC have fined him - SO WHY DO THE FA WANT TO UNDERMINE THE PRECEDENT THEY'VE SET WITH DEFOE AND WHY WOULD THEY ALTER THEIR OWN RULES?

[Benny The Noon]

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

[LFC1990]

The Defoe situation isnt irrelevant. Defoe got booked after the official had seen the incident. The 2 bites wernt diffrent in terms of intent or malice.

If one ref thinks that a biite is only worthy and the Fa thinks it is worthy of a 5,6,7,8 match ban then something isnt right which we all know.

If Suarez gets 6 games i wouldnt be too bothered aslong as next year we dont get UTD and City first 2 games.

He plays in the confederations cup so will need some time off to get him fresh for us. Miss the rest of the season and 2 of next year id take that and walk away.

I have a feeling the Fa will push for something north of 10

[devaney]

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 !!

[supersub]

[quote="[url=http://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1203336#p1203336]

heimdall » Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:19 pm[/urlI can understand a punch being thrown, a nasty tackle or even a headbutt as retaliation, although I don't condone it, but biting, and lets not forget he meant to cause harmAre you?
Do you really condone or understand a grown man biting another? Not sure what your background is but biting is not something a man does.

You are so right! We should let players get away with murder because it's "manlier". Bitchy biters should be banned for life, simply because that's what women do and not men.

I admire the flawless logic some of you people posses.

thread gets more bizarre by the minute
biting is so girly that it should be punishable by 8 -10 game ban......breaking legs is a butch approach to footy therefore 3 games is plenty( we need the thugs on the pitch to keep the manly appeal [/quote]
I hope you are being sarcastic, as was I [/quote]

Unfortunately this three post quote max thingy seems to play havoc when trying to make a sarcy point....

[jacdaniel]

Because its Suarez... I can see the ban being 10+ games.   
If its anything too ridiculous I can see him leaving alright.

[mart]

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.

They cant? What did they do with Ben Thatcher then?

If they really think its a serious offense they can do whatever they want.

[Kenny Kan]

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. 

Wrong!

The 'Ben Thatcher' rule changed that which happened prior to Defoe munching on Mascha.

The FA have every right to take retrospective action whether an official deals with it or not. The FA decided NOT to intervene his (Defoe's) 3 game ban - THEY'VE SET THE PRECEDENT.

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

Fools logic.

There is no footballing mandate that states 'all' various national football association authorities, must adhere to the same rules of punishment. The Dutch decision technically has no baring in English football whatsoever.

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 

Well, now that you know the FA could have extended Defoe's ban and authorized retrospective action but didn't AND that English football isn't bind-ed to correlate exactly with Dutch punitive decisions you may think again, but for some reason I suspect this is falling on deaf ears.

Suarez has every right to question why the FA have stepped in to urge an independent panel why a 3 game ban isn't sufficient punishment when the letter of the law states: violent conduct is a 3 game ban, or why the FA didn't step in and insist on Defoe getting more than a 3 game ban.

They are exhibiting double standards and making their own rules up as they go along, they need to be called out for doing this, and hopefully Suarez and his representatives do just this. Otherwise, most would accept the fair and just 3 game ban and just 'move on'.

[jacdaniel]

Good post Kenny Kan

Doubt we will fight this in any way though.  Our owners seem more interested in good PR and image than justice.

[red till i die!!]

just listening to that turd bryan swanson on ssn and he is claiming the F.A want suarez punished severly and they will press the independent panel for a hefty ban. he claims the panel will not use his ban in holland as previous but they will use the evra affair because they warned him about his future conduct.

maybe we should hire the same 4 people that the F.A sent to uefa to beg on behalf of shrek 

[Benny The Noon]

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. 

Wrong!

The 'Ben Thatcher' rule changed that which happened prior to Defoe munching on Mascha.

The FA have every right to take retrospective action whether an official deals with it or not. The FA decided NOT to intervene his (Defoe's) 3 game ban - THEY'VE SET THE PRECEDENT.

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

Fools logic.

There is no footballing mandate that states 'all' various national football association authorities, must adhere to the same rules of punishment. The Dutch decision technically has no baring in English football whatsoever.

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 

Well, now that you know the FA could have extended Defoe's ban and authorized retrospective action but didn't AND that English football isn't bind-ed to correlate exactly with Dutch punitive decisions you may think again, but for some reason I suspect this is falling on deaf ears.

Suarez has every right to question why the FA have stepped in to urge an independent panel why a 3 game ban isn't sufficient punishment when the letter of the law states: violent conduct is a 3 game ban, or why the FA didn't step in and insist on Defoe getting more than a 3 game ban.

They are exhibiting double standards and making their own rules up as they go along, they need to be called out for doing this, and hopefully Suarez and his representatives do just this. Otherwise, most would accept the fair and just 3 game ban and just 'move on'.

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.

[Benny The Noon]

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.

[heimdall]

Christ you really are a first class tool

I wonder if you will be so happy when they extend the ban considerably because he didnt agree with it being over 3 games. It proven that fighting the FA doesn't work - but you are either blinded by your "rehab" method or just plain thick to realise that. We will prob lose Suarez for even longer now - enjoy your celebrations.

Suarez getting banned is correct - it's a punishment that fits what he did - it's only clueless clowns that can't see that - so you fit right in.

He is either guilty of violent conduct of he isnt.
No-one has been injured, Ivanovic has said he wants no further action to be taken, the police arent involved. Yet the corrupt and spiteful FA want to hang Suarez out to dry and you advocate us going along with that. If they extend the ban it wont be because theyre right or fair, it will be because they are wicked. I am happy that he is standing up for himself against injustice, not because he is innocent, but because he wants to be treated fairly.
If you believe they would have treated him more leniently if he would have accepted the charge, even though they stated that 3 games was "clearly insufficient", then you are probably the most Fu*king thick cu'nt I have ever had the pleasure to communicate with. So you carry on with youre FA ar'selicking comments about a punishment that fits and leave Liverpool supporters to get behind one of our players.

Ok so who is going to start the Justice for Suarez campaign then? FFS you clowns have no sense of honour or integrity, what Suarez did was wrong, it embarrassed the club but of course that doesn't matter because it fits into your victim mentality of the whole world being against you and the club. Its called paranoia people and its rather pathetic.

[stmichael]

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.