The Suarez Bite

[zigackly]

So we are not going to have a hearing and just go with whatever the FA decide.

 

What, now?

[Anubis]

So we are not going to have a hearing and just go with whatever the FA decide.

 

Well thats sounds like an excellent idea, its almost so good only a genius like Ayre could come up with it.

 

We're not contesting it's violent conduct. We are contesting the length of the ban. So there will be a hearing.

[Marko121]

We're not contesting it's violent conduct. We are contesting the length of the ban. So there will be a hearing.

 

This is the bit that's unclear. Are we (LFC) contesting it? There is nothing on the website, or is Suarez contesting it himself ? And we have told him he is on his own

[Anubis]

I think its expressed as him contesting it because it's his charge, but I think the club will support him.

[Marko121]

I think its expressed as him contesting it because it's his charge, but I think the club will support him.

 

I hope you are right, but you never know with our lot

[zigackly]

It's a personal hearing. The club will presumably lay on legal support, or whatever inept bollocks passes for it this time.

[Strontium]

It's a personal hearing. The club will presumably lay on legal support, or whatever inept bollocks passes for it this time.

 

 

We'll have our top law guy on the case again

 

[Gym Beglin]

"I'm not wearing a tie AT ALL".

[Guest San Don]

I'm not sure what is more embarrassing, a Liverpool player biting an opponent, or some of our support claiming that biting abroad doesn't count, and that it was "only a little bite".

 

Desperation for the dollar, as opposed to our core values, has reached G&H proportions.

 

Stop talking shit for one minute if you can and think.

 

If the ref had of spotted the incident and done nothing, how many games ban would he be looking at? AFAIA zilch, he be home free.

 

Now if the ref had of spotted it and given him a second yellow, how many game ban would he be looking at? Answer, 1.

 

Now imagine the ref had of spotted it and given him a straight red, how many games ban would he be looking at? Answer, 3.

 

So you tell me how by the ref (and his lino) missing the incident, is Suarez deemed to be worthy of more than a 3 game ban?

 

Answer, he shouldnt be but probably will get more than 3. That's what people are indignant about.

[ChrisM]

sexrex, former FA Compliance Officer Graham Bean was on the radio the other day, and claimed the previous incident in Holland could not be taken into account as it occurred under another jurisdiction. He said that under FA rules this would have to be dealt with as a first offence for violent conduct, and even the Evra incident could not be taken into account as it wasn't relevant.

[Ne Moe Imya]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think the club has handled this correctly.

 

Immediate apology from both the club and Luis, to both the supporters and to Ivanovic. Then, admit the charge, because to argue that he's not guilty of violent conduct would be farcical. However, dispute the fact the part about the length of the ban being more than 3 games, because that gives the club/Luis an opportunity to point out that Defoe got nothing for his bite, and to show all the times when players going in and breaking ankles with dangerous tackles has gotten a 3-match ban.

 

The FA are still going to ban him for more than 3 games, but the hearing might show them that it's not as clear cut as they'd like to think re: banning him for 10 or 15 games, and we might get the ban down to, say, 5 games. And no one can say that we're justifying what he did; as much as we might hate it, the PR part is a big factor in our response here.

[Megadrive Man]

I am really worried that they are going to make an example out of him because of the amount of attention this has got.

 

I can see some sort of monthly ban being handed out.

[zigackly]

sexrex, former FA Compliance Officer Graham Bean was on the radio the other day, and claimed the previous incident in Holland could not be taken into account as it occurred under another jurisdiction. He said that under FA rules this would have to be dealt with as a first offence for violent conduct, and even the Evra incident could not be taken into account as it wasn't relevant.

 

We've been telling him that for pages and pages. He will either completely ignore it and make exactly the same comment again, or accuse you of not understanding his highfalutin logic.

[navbasi]

I can't see what the club or Ayre have done wrong?

[Paco]

Suarez/the club have said they dont think that a 3 game ban is insufficient.

 

Hopefully they use the defoe mascherano case.

 

They re still goin to fuck him anyway

[Saintslfc13]

I can't see what the club or Ayre have done wrong?

 

So far they haven't done anything wrong. It remains to be seen how any hearing will go and what our response will be to the outcome of that but so far so good. Swift apology, and swift action, the only thing else I can think of would be the club suspending him themselves but that's hardly supporting him and isn't likely to change the FA's opinion at all so why do it? Only thing it would serve to do is piss off Suarez and most of us, whilst having us look like the club that enjoys getting bent over.

[Strontium]

Suarez/the club have said they dont think that a 3 game ban is insufficient.

 

Hopefully they use the defoe mascherano case.

 

They re still goin to fuck him anyway

 

 

Of course they're going to fuck him because the FA are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

 

The FA claimed that they couldn't retrospectively punish Defoe because the referee had seen it and it has to be an exceptional case (cf Ben Thatcher on Mendes) for them to take retrospective action in those circumstances.

 

However Suarez's bite, though not seen by the ref, is deemed an exceptional case worthy of more than the usual 3 match ban.

 

So despite the Defoe and Suarez bites being for all intents and purposes identical, only the latter is considered exceptional by the FA!

 

The FA pick and choose when and how to apply the rules, and it stinks to high heaven. In any other walk of life we would call this corruption.

[Newport]

If the ref had seen it he would have gotten a red card and a three match ban.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If he wasn't Luis Suarez of course.

[piscinin]

PR Machine in Overdrive. Hijacks Carragher's daily mail column.

 

Luis Suarez bites Branislav Ivanovic: Suarez was wrong but he is not the first - Jamie Carragher | Mail Online

 

Before you carry on reading, it is important to make this point: this is not me trying to defend the indefensible. This is an attempt to put some perspective on the Luis Suarez saga.

It was said in the aftermath of Sunday’s game against Chelsea, firstly by Graeme Souness as he began his analysis on Sky, that nobody is bigger than the club and that Liverpool should make Luis pay the heaviest penalty by getting rid of him.

Now I am not for one moment trying to sugar-coat the incident in which Luis bit Branislav Ivanovic. It was wrong on all levels. You simply don’t expect to see a grown man bite another grown man — that is behaviour you would associate with nursery school.

 

 

But the way things are now being pitched is that Liverpool have got to do something about the rotten apple in their midst.

It is as if Luis is the only player to have represented Liverpool who has ever been embroiled in controversy.

That simply isn’t the case.

 

 

We have had it many times before, as have every other club in the country. I know this as I was responsible for one incident in January 2002. I threw a coin into the crowd at Highbury during an FA Cup tie against Arsenal after one had initially been flung at me.

Souness, who was captain of Liverpool at the time, broke the jaw of Dinamo Bucharest’s Lica Movila during a European Cup semi-final in 1984 when he punched him in an off-the-ball incident.

It was a serious incident but it is one which fans and some of his old team-mates speak almost nostalgically about.

 

Hard man: Graeme Souness had his controversial moments at Liverpool

 

Robbie Fowler had his scrapes, too. There was outrage after he celebrated a goal against Everton in April 1999 by mimicking drug taking. A couple of months earlier he was hugely condemned when he taunted Graeme Le Saux with a homophobic gesture.

Jan Molby was sent to jail in October 1988 for three months for a drink-driving offence.

More recently, Steven Gerrard appeared in court charged with affray but was subsequently found not guilty.

Every one of the players I mention regretted what happened and Luis is the same. More importantly, the club stood by every one of them.

 

 

Standing by their men: Jan Molby spent three months in jail in 1988 for drink-driving and Steven Gerrard was in court charged with affray but was found not guilty

Luis is normally a bubbly lad around the training ground. He tends to mix mainly with the other South Americans in the group but he is well liked all around because he has a fantastic attitude to his job and just loves playing football.

'I'd rather be bitten than have my leg broken'

 

In my time at Liverpool, very few players have possessed an appetite to win the same as mine but Luis has got it. He trains well every day. When we get a day off, he will come in to do extra work and there is nothing arrogant or flash about him. He slots into the group without problem.

Yesterday, however, it was clear that events had taken a toll.

Luis knows he has done something seriously wrong, letting himself down. He has been told that a repeat of such behaviour will not be tolerated and the club’s stance has been different from how it was following his altercation with Patrice Evra.

But, rather than hounding him out of the country, shouldn’t we be helping him?

We have a top psychologist in Steve Peters who comes to the club once a week and he could have as big a role as our manager, Brendan Rodgers, for Luis.

 

Crossing the line: Robbie Fowler mimics drug taking during a goal celebration

Ian Ayre has stated that the club are not looking to sell Luis. History shows that message has always been the same. What happened when Tony Adams was released from jail in February 1991 after serving a sentence for drink- driving?

He went back to captain Arsenal and won eight major honours. Look at Eric Cantona.

 

Less than eight months after returning from his eight-month ban for an assault on Crystal Palace fan Matthew Simmons, he had inspired Manchester United to the Double. It is selfish but clubs need their best players.

As Martin Samuel said in his column yesterday, perhaps if a player of lesser ability had been guilty of Luis’s offence, he would have been shown the door by now. Again, a precedent at Anfield has already been set.

 

 

During the Hillsborough memorial service in 2009, Charles Itandje and Damien Plessis were caught laughing and messing around. Itandje, a third-choice keeper with a terrible attitude, was banished immediately. Plessis, who was viewed as being a player of promise, was admonished but stayed.

Morally you could say such standards are wrong but it happens in any walk of life, not just football. If someone is exceptional at what they do, many people are prepared to put up with them regardless of the hassle they may cause.

 

People may say this is a Liverpool-biased opinion but I don’t want to see another world-class player leave the Barclays Premier League, like Xabi Alonso, Cristiano Ronaldo and Cesc Fabregas have.

We are talking about one of the top five players in world football here.

Finally, I would like to finish by putting forward a thought from a footballer’s perspective about the incident.

The bite was shocking, no question, and everyone who has seen it was amazed. Yet was it worse than a challenge that could end someone’s career?

 

I know what it is like to have your leg broken by a reckless tackle. Lucas Neill cost me six months of my career in September 2003 when he played for Blackburn. Would I have preferred to have been bitten? Absolutely.

I suspect that Branislav Ivanovic, who has conducted himself with great credit in the aftermath, would agree. You can get up and carry on after a skirmish. If someone shatters your leg, you wonder whether you will play again.

[Guest ShoePiss]

That article doesn't sit well with me at all.

[Lee909]

A good piece

I just wished he highlighted the Defoe incident,though that may have been looked at as a cheap shit seeing as he is still playing.

[xerxes]

A measured piece by Carra.

 

I'm glad he didn't want to "suger-coat" the incident - Luis might have wanted another bite.

[Biscao]

Brilliant by Carra as always.

[lroy]

i think that the fa will try the man as apposed to the crime .

its no worse than a career leg breaking tackle

[Guest davelfc]

i think that the fa will try the man as apposed to the crime .

its no worse than a career leg breaking tackle

 

This is the main problem, it's totally unfair and this is why we as fans get so angry. They will also allow themselves to be swayed by the media, self appointed arbiters and moral judges 'Sky' whip the whole thing into a frenzy.

 

Monday they had an ex ref, a football PR man, their sports correspondent and cameras outside Anfield. Followed up with some ex FA chief and the view of that wicked rich prick, the PM, all of whom had already made up their minds that this was some heinous crime that called for the maximum punishment possible.

 

After what appeared an eternity of talking about Suarez they finally got to some trivial news items, the death of at least 200 Chinese in an earthquake.

 

Yep, the death of 200 Chinese falls well below the pecking order for the slavering mongs that watch Sky, a man having a 'nip' (without a mark I refuse to accept bite) at another football player. An act that is indefensible and utterly childish ranks above the lives of 200 people. Shows you where society is these days.