The Suarez Bite

[Paco]

Are they allowed to ban him for 20? What's the maximum? Surely a 20 game ban would breach some sort of law as it's obviously disproportionate (no previous for violent conduct etc.).

 

Joey Barton got 12 for setting fire to sergio aguero and this is obviously worse than that.

[Jonjo Baldy]

Gary Neville's take on it

 

[YOUTUBE]AC7Q-rR-l4Y[/YOUTUBE]

 

farking neville speaking some honest sense...wow

[xerxes]

I'm dead proud of him. Some LFC fans, and certainly the executive's can hang their heads in shame if they voice anything but support for one of our own

 

Biting is wrong

 

Biting on two separate occasions is stupid.

 

Wilfully letting down the Club, your team mates and the fans by getting yourself banned is foolish.

 

LFC is more than another football club, it is special because of our history, our traditions, our achievements. All of that was done without biting people. It is good to see Rodgers and Ayre talking about values, something all LFC supporters should be able to buy into- those that don't should try another club.

[Guest ShoePiss]

I hope he stays.

 

I love that picture taken of him just after biting Ivanovic, he looks fucking nefarious, like he's about to leg it down a Victorian sewer system and get back into the shadows.

 

 

 

At the end of the day, I love Suarez to bits. I'm made up with him, and things like this are annoying but at the same time I'm dead proud of him. Some LFC fans, and certainly the executive's can hang their heads in shame if they voice anything but support for one of our own, and someone who hasn't actually seriously harmed anyone.

 

Just have some faith in the knowledge that this will all blow over in the next couple of weeks. It always does. Christ, look at Di Canio, I bet you forgot he was a Nazi rape monster didnt you?

 

In much more serious football news, the bint who tried to get FIFA on the straight and narrow has resigned because FIFA just dont give a fuck about transparency and fairness. This is the big story, and that woman should be front and centre so that we can all hear the ugly truth about FIFA and change the game for the better. But there you go, that's the true reflection of the decorum and intelligence of the journalists.

 

It's shameful. I feel sorry for them, they're better than this, they've just sold out whatever integrity they had a young boy in order to 'get in' with Fleet Street. Anger, suspicion, vitriol, spite, envy, greed, none of these things make you happy, and those lads must be truly sad inside.

 

When you say you're made up with him and dead proud, you're talking generally rather than what he did yesterday aren't you?

 

That said, even if you are talking generally I struggle to understand how you can be made up and dead proud of him.

[KMD7]

He's gonna get 12 games isn't he? They'll be out to rob him of a quarter of next as well as the last few games of this one. The F.A absolutely hate him. And they'll claim they're justified as well. The cunts.

[Cij]

I want to preface this by saying that what Suarez did was unacceptable and a violent conduct charge was inevitable. The offence warrants a ban and neither the club, Luis or our supporters can have any complaints about that.

 

However, the manner in which The FA has approached the charge is outrageous. The words "... it is The FA’s contention that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances" belies the fact that they have prejudged the matter. Irrespective of how Suarez is depicted in the media, he is entitled to the same treatment and protection as any other player facing a similar charge. Surely he must be afforded an opportunity to explain his actions before rushing to judgement? What if there were mitigating factors?

 

It is telling that The FA did not feel the need to couch Fellaini's charge for head-butting Shawcross in similar language. Similarly, Huth's charge for his forearm smash on Senderos didn't elicit any superfluous commentary nor did Cabaye's charge for his studs-first kick to the face of Brighton's El-Abd. Why has Suarez been singled out for exceptional treatment particularly when The FA act as judge and jury so the dice is loaded anyway?

 

What Suarez did was wrong. That said, Ivanovic does not appear to have sustained even a minor injury. Is anybody seriously contending that what he did was more dangerous than the myriad of violent incidents which The FA has allowed to go unpunished (Aguero on Luiz, Rooney's elbow on McCarthy , Callum McManaman etc.). Also, Popov only received a 3 match ban for spitting at Kyle Walker - is the Ivanovic incident really all that much worse?

 

This is without even citing the Defoe / Mascherano incident which is on all fours with what happened yesterday. The referee, despite clearly seeing the incident, decided it only merited a yellow card. Different strokes, eh?

 

[YOUTUBE]JzXBSvngRR0[/YOUTUBE]

 

If we leave the faux-moral outrage aside for one moment, what Suarez did was a red card offence but does not merit any more punishment than a three game ban. His behaviour was not unprecedented, it was not as dangerous as many other incidents which have attracted 3 games bans (or less!), and I still cannot fathom how the officials can contend that they saw no part of the coming together given that Friend gave Suarez a ticking off at the time. In the explanatory video on The FA website Le Saux clarifies that once the officials see part of the "coming together" no retrospective action will be taken even if the "misconduct" was overlooked.

 

The fact that The FA are clearly gearing up for a mammoth ban "to set an example" is exactly what is wrong with football in England. All incidents should be judged on their merits but clearly that is not the case. Was yesterday's incident really more dangerous or unacceptable than:-

 

[YOUTUBE]ypPMMvc33FY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]JiK05g9MkEg[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]IjVU6Twg2lg[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]OXHT3k0pX70[/YOUTUBE]

[Staniola]

Great post Cij. Bob on

[xerxes]

I want to preface this by saying that what Suarez did was unacceptable and a violent conduct charge was inevitable. The offence warrants a ban and neither the club, Luis or our supporters can have any complaints about that.

 

However, the manner in which The FA has approached the charge is outrageous. The words "... it is The FA’s contention that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances" belies the fact that they have prejudged the matter.

 

 

Given that Louis, and the club, have admitted to, and apologised for, the offence, the wording is hardly outrageous.

 

I agree that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the penalties for different offences.

 

The problem with biting, is that it is so unusual. it isn't a football problem, it is one associated with pre-school children, and repeat offences on the football field are unheard of. So if you are going to commit unusual acts, more than once, you are going to get an unusual amount of attention.

 

Ivanovic and Chelsea deserve credit for not making a meal of it- even if Luis did.

 

And the Scotty Rd boys are printing up the Luis "jaws" T shirts as I speak!

[BCM]

That was his last game guaranteed, gone out with a big in a true genius style. He'll be off in summer, I don't think he will want to take another season from a shitty country like England, and the shitty hypocritical media, the shitty hypocritical FA and all the hypocritical moral high horse never do bad goers, not forgetting this shitty mediocre mid table team. His too good for this league, theres absolutely nothing else interesting about the EPL nor Liverpool apart from Suarez, who else gives more entertainment? both footballing wise and character wise? If he moves to Bayern, I'll be following him, his about the only thing I find interesting in Football, the game has gone so unbelievably dry.

 

Out of interest how many other people have been punished by the FA retrospectively?

 

good post that mate, whilst i cant condone what Luis did. Your right , football in this country is full of boring cunts, even rooney has had the edge coached out of him.

Its all about the product

[gap30]

Some proper shit posted here about the 'traditions' and 'the good name' i love him to bits, how he plays is a mirror image of most peoples lives in this city (well mine anyway) i have had to fight to get to where i am now (not much!) but you know what i mean. Fuckin leg it with your moral outrage wools

[Megadrive Man]

Theres a real sceptical part of me that thinks he's done this on purpose, to force a move away from English football. If he does go in the summer, this would be consecutive moves off the back of deliberately biting someone. The only consolation I will take from this is that I think there is no way he will move to another English club now, which was always my big worry.

 

I do think that the media have gone way overboard on this though.

 

I noticed on the BBC website that they had a Luis Suarez gossip column, and a separate transfer gossip column dedicated solely to him biting someone. Have they ever done anything like this before?

 

Yes he is very much in the wrong, and should get a ban, but as the previous poster pointed out its no worse than many recent incidents.

[dennis tooth]

I BLAME THE TOOTH

[Guest ShoePiss]

I BLAME THE TOOTH

 

You can't handle the tooth.

[Code]

Piss easy this one, Suarez declear himself not guilty as he has nothurt anyone with this supposed violent conduct since it was not violent.

[Nightcat]

I think Suarez did very well. Now I support him even more.

[zigackly]

However, the manner in which The FA has approached the charge is outrageous. The words "... it is The FA’s contention that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances" belies the fact that they have prejudged the matter.

 

I'm going to get fed up of posting this at some point, but they have to word it like that or give a straight three match ban and have no hearing. It's in their rules:

 

It appears to me from the bits in bold below that the FA can decide at the time they charge the player whether or not they will be offered the standard punishment, and the statements which follow will reflect that.

 

 

Schedule A

Standard Directions for Incidents on the Field of Play which fall within Law 12, which were not seen by Match Officials, but caught on video (serious foul play, violent conduct, spitting at an opponent or any other person, offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures)

 

For Players of Clubs of The FA Premier League, Football League, Football Conference National Division and The FA WSL.

 

(a) General Principles

These Standard Directions are subject to the terms of the Regulations of The Association and the relevant Memorandum. In the case of any conflict, first the Regulations and then the relevant Memorandum will apply. These are Standard Directions; they may be deviated from at the discretion of the

Regulatory Commission dealing with any given case, if the circumstances of that case so dictate.

 

Under these Standard Directions, The Association may charge a Player with Misconduct under the Rules of The Association for incidents on or around the Field of Play, excluding the tunnel area, that are caught on camera but not seen and dealt with by the Match Officials at the time. The Charge may be accompanied by an offer of the standard punishment that would apply to the offence had it been seen and reported by the Match Official(s) during the match.

 

In exceptional circumstances, where The Association is satisfied that the standard punishment that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient, no standard punishment offer will be made in the charge letter.

 

They worded Hazard's very similarly and only ended up giving him a standard three matches as a result of the hearing.

[xerxes]

Yes he is very much in the wrong, and should get a ban, but as the previous poster pointed out its no worse than many recent incidents.

 

I don't think there has ever been an example of a name footballer convicted of biting incidents twice, that is what is attrcating the attention.

 

Worryingly I don't think there is any conspiracy here, he just lost it.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

Why do we get pissed on so often?

[xerxes]

Some proper shit posted here about the 'traditions' and 'the good name' i love him to bits, how he plays is a mirror image of most peoples lives in this city (well mine anyway) i have had to fight to get to where i am now (not much!) but you know what i mean. Fuckin leg it with your moral outrage wools

 

Our tradition and good name is what makes the Club what it is, don't knock it, it has been hard won.

 

Locally, biting in a brawl is a no-no, stabbing, shooting, kicking and punching yes, but biting is for young children.

[James Dean]

It was fucking hilarious. The mass hysteria following it even more so.

 

The ban, not so much.

 

It'll blow over, it always does.

[Anubis]

The mass hysteria following it even more so.

 

I often used to wonder how it was, after accusations of witchcraft based on the flimsiest of evidence, people actually were burned alive. Then you witness the behaviour of the country at large over this. Madness. Absolute madness.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

 

Cunt.

[Guest ShoePiss]

It was fucking hilarious. The mass hysteria following it even more so.

 

The ban, not so much.

 

It'll blow over, it always does.

 

It hasn't blown over with Suarez, even when not involved in an incident he's brought up time and time again. I don't know how you can think that when there are so many examples of this, all the time.

 

There isn't a month that goes by without something Suarez has done being brought up in the media.

[zigackly]

Cunt.

 

I thought that was quite funny.

[Cij]

I'm going to get fed up of posting this at some point, but they have to word it like that or give a straight three match ban and have no hearing. It's in their rules:

 

 

 

They worded Hazard's very similarly and only ended up giving him a standard three matches as a result of the hearing.

 

Thanks Zigackly - I wasn't aware of that.