The Suarez Bite

[Major Tom]

Farce

[Guest LFD]

I don't know what is worse.

 

The bite by Suarez.

 

The FA being inept again.

 

Or our fans acting like hysterical drama queens.

[No2]

England have 2 world cup qualifiers in June, Steven Gerrard needs an operation on his shoulder similar to what Joe Allen just had done. Assuming Gerrard would also be out for a couple months then we must have it done the day after the season ends. No way on earth should the club delay surgery to help the England international side, if anything we should let it be known, loud and clear that he will miss both games and the poxy pre-season friendly they usually have.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

Farce

 

I find it odd that you think this case is a farce, whilst the Evra case wasn't. The latter is largely the reason the former has become what it has.

[Red Banjo]

I don't know what is worse.

 

The bite by Suarez.

 

The FA being inept again.

 

Or our fans acting like hysterical drama queens.

 

Your joking i hope?

 

Roy Keane got a 3 game ban for breaking Haland's leg in 2001. This was increased by a further 5 games when his autobiography revealed he did it on purpose a year later. 8 games for intentionally ending another players career.

 

Suarez gets more than that for a little bite.

 

Come off it mate. You think we might have a little right to be angry about this?

[Lario]

The ref saw the result, not the action which caused it, which meant he could take no action.

 

Biting is wrong whether it is a nip, it leaves marks, it draws blood, or takes a chunk of flesh.

 

There was no result. All he saw was Ivanovic pointing to his arm. The police went into the changing room afterwards to look at the mark and there wasn't one.

 

Completely irrelevant as Suarez admitted doing it, therefore no proof was necessary.

 

The complaint isn't that he was found guilty, but the ridiculous OTT nature of the sentence.

 

It's not completely irrelevant if you understood the point I was trying to make.

If the ref dealt with it at the time, meaning he needed proof, the FA couldn't have done anything. The fact that there was no mark meant the ref didn't/couldn't take action, so the FA could.

 

I know what the complaint is. I'm not one of the many mongs that infest these boards.

[Soleilrouge]

Further confirmation, if required, of Ian Ayre's ineptitude.

[Baltar]

I don't know what is worse.

 

The bite by Suarez.

 

The FA being inept again.

 

Or our fans acting like hysterical drama queens.

Okay, let's just all shut up and accept the ban. By opposing this we must be drama queens.

[Guest LFD]

You think we might have a little right to be angry about this?

 

Of course.

 

I'm talking about people saying they have had enough of football because of this.

[Newport]

Interesting to see that they gave him exactly the same amount of games the media and other pundits wanted. Independent, my arse!

[clangers]

I'm actually more pissed off with this than the Evra verdict, whilst I didn't agree with their decision then I could at least recognise the severity of the charges against Suarez but in this case, a bite? At worst a petulant, childish, unpleasant act but after witnessing it you'd struggle to refer to it as 'violent'.

[Guest LFD]

Okay, let's just all shut up and accept the ban. By opposing this we must be drama queens.

 

What do you suggest we do?

 

If we appeal it is more likely to be increased than reduced. That just damages us further.

 

Suarez was stupid, the FA were inept again, but there is fuck all we can do about it really.

[Guest davelfc]

Of course.

 

I'm talking about people saying they have had enough of football because of this.

 

No it's mainly pricks like you, utter pricks like you that tend to piss people off. You've been a twat about this since it happened. But then most of us realise you're a cunt so we tend to just accept it.

 

We shouldn't mock the afflicted.

[Manny]

Your joking i hope?

 

Roy Keane got a 3 game ban for breaking Haland's leg in 2001. This was increased by a further 5 games when his autobiography revealed he did it on purpose a year later. 8 games for intentionally ending another players career.

 

Suarez gets more than that for a little bite.

 

Come off it mate. You think we might have a little right to be angry about this?

 

Precisely. He's had protocol and rules ripped up in order to necessitate a ban that will keep him sidelined for more than a quarter of a season for committing an offence that - while unpleasant - had no physical or psychological effect on the "victim." In the meantime, the FA quite happily hide behind protocol and rules when the victim is left nursing broken bones and worse.

 

It's nothing short of victimisation. He served his time for the Evra thing - as wrong as we all thought it was. But basically, he has to carry that tag into every away match he plays, and now seemingly into further FA show trials. They're supposed to be above this - custodians of the game no less - but they seem as keen on the muckraking as the press, and as pleased with themselves for "upholding the image of the game" afterwards as any middle-England columnist.

 

They're supposed to lead on the key issues facing the game, but they're no better than any moron in any stand in any city. When it comes to discipline and rules, they're beyond useless. A token ban here and a token non-ban there and it all adds up to some sort of "consistency." And if your player suffers from the token ban or whatever? Tough.

 

Not. Fit. For. Purpose.

[Sut]

This message is hidden because xerxes is on your ignore list.

 

CHANGE THE RECORD OR SHUT THE FUCK UP

 

First person I've ever put on ignore (I think) and the forum seems a better place. I'm not doing a Lurtz at the screen anymore.

[DaveT]

Precisely. He's had protocol and rules ripped up in order to necessitate a ban that will keep him sidelined for more than a quarter of a season for committing an offence that - while unpleasant - had no physical or psychological effect on the "victim." In the meantime, the FA quite happily hide behind protocol and rules when the victim is left nursing broken bones and worse.

 

It's nothing short of victimisation. He served his time for the Evra thing - as wrong as we all thought it was. But basically, he has to carry that tag into every away match he plays, and now seemingly into further FA show trials. They're supposed to be above this - custodians of the game no less - but they seem as keen on the muckraking as the press, and as pleased with themselves for "upholding the image of the game" afterwards as any middle-England columnist.

 

They're supposed to lead on the key issues facing the game, but they're no better than any moron in any stand in any city. When it comes to discipline and rules, they're beyond useless. A token ban here and a token non-ban there and it all adds up to some sort of "consistency." And if your player suffers from the token ban or whatever? Tough.

 

Not. Fit. For. Purpose.

 

Agree with all of this. I desperately feel the need to express my sense of injustice about this blatant victimisation..... inconsistency doesn't begin to describe what's going on here.... and protest about it in some way. But I'm too angry right now to think clearly.

Amongst other things I feel cheated...... I've recently been told that my season ticket is going up to £850 next season. Now I find out that I'm not going to be able to watch the player who is probably the single biggest reason for me agreeing to renew that season ticket for three, maybe four home games. All because of the FA's vindictiveness. But when did the FA ever stop to think about the wishes of the match-going fan?

[Trumo]

The FA love to clamp down on those deemed to have brought the game into disrepute for the flimsiest of reasons, but when it comes to actually bringing the game into disrepute, the FA are at the front of the queue. A totally rancid organisation that is not fit to govern the national sport.

[Red Banjo]

Incase it gets missed by the myriad of anger, this is a great piece by Tomkins

 

Suarez Cheated By Incompetent FA | The Tomkins Times | News, Opinion, Statistics and Discussion about Liverpool FC Football Club

 

It’s easy to laugh at Liverpool fans getting indignant about Luis Suarez’s 10-game ban, and listing all manor of lesser punishments for more serious crimes (Ben Thatcher and Paul Davis to name but two) but it shows definite signs of bias in the FA’s thinking. Suarez has been singled out for who he is, rather than the crime he committed.

 

What Suarez did was wrong, but it was barely dangerous. It is childish and almost feral, and he needs anger management more than Charlie Sheen, but anyone in their right mind would rather have a soft bite that doesn’t even break the skin than all manner of premeditated assaults we see on a football pitch. True, we don’t want to see our children biting each other in the playground. But unless they are losing earlobes or noses, it’s preferable to them elbowing each other in the face or stamping on their stomachs. A ban had to handed down, but ten games is ludicrous.

 

John Terry’s four-game ban for racism looks increasingly lenient. Unlike Terry, Suarez has never been red-carded in England. Also unlike Terry, Suarez is not English. If you play for or captain the FA’s team it seems that you’ll get away with a hell of a lot more. Ask Neil Lennon, who was stamped on by Alan Shearer. The FA fudged the entire issue.

 

And what about when Robert Huth stamped on Suarez? That was pretty clear, too. It all just seems such a random mess, what your punishment will be. If you’re not liked by the FA, they will make up the rules as they go along. I’d imagine that Suarez feels cheated right now, given the ludicrous nature of his punishment.

 

If it insists on cracking down on this with disproportionate punishment, the time has clearly come for the FA to act on serious assaults that the referee thinks he has seen (but obviously hasn’t if he only issues a stern warning or yellow card). Seven years ago Jermain Defoe was merely booked for clearly biting future Liverpool star Javier Mascherano. The ref saw it. But it makes you wonder how he considered it no more than a yellow card offence and how the FA now consider biting to be a treble red-carder.

 

So many violent assaults this season have gone unpunished because the refs merely thought they saw the incidents, but clearly hadn’t. It seems totally arbitrary to face a subsequent punishment depending on the incompetence of the referee that day. If he is competent he sees it for what it is. But if he’s not too competent, he will read the situation wrong and you get away with it. Equally, if he’s not incompetent and merely unsighted, you are in trouble.

 

Mistakenly perceived acts of violence that lead to red cards can be overturned if it transpires that it wasn’t as bad as first thought, but serious violence that’s yellow-carded cannot be interfered with. I’m all for protecting the authority of referees but if they make a dreadful mistake it should be reviewable. All in all, the FA’s disciplinary sanctions are a farce. The sooner it dispenses with key personnel from major Premier League clubs the better.

 

Ten games is what you’d expect if Suarez bit off Ivanovic’s ear and spat it in the ref’s face. It would be the work of a monster, not a daft and inexplicable bite that didn’t even break the skin. The trouble is, the FA see Suarez as a monster. He’s been cast in that role by the media.

 

Suarez is by all accounts a lovely family man, but he’s also one who totally loses the plot when he crosses the white line. The FA and the media have turned him into a caricature.

 

Now the player has to decide whether to stay in England or move to Spain, where he’d be more understood. If Liverpool stand by him, as they appear to be doing, then he will feel a further sense of loyalty, but he must weigh that up against a country that seems violently opposed to him, with the FA clearly trying to drive him away. Even though Liverpool fans feel let down by his actions, I’m sure this punishment will only make fellow Reds love him even more.

[Red Banjo]

Double post.

 

Corrupt FA Cunts.

 

That is all

[ChrisM]

It's not completely irrelevant if you understood the point I was trying to make.

If the ref dealt with it at the time, meaning he needed proof, the FA couldn't have done anything. The fact that there was no mark meant the ref didn't/couldn't take action, so the FA could.

 

Even if the ref had seen it and booked him /sent him off, the FA could /would have done him anyway under their exceptional circumstances loophole, like they did with Ben Thatcher. He was fucked either way.

[fowler9]

pictures as the indepent panel welcome Luis Suarez to the hearing

 

[Soleilrouge]

If we do not successfuly appeal this then heads should roll at the top of our club.

That decision is grossly unfair and has a direct and material impact on the club financially. The rule of law and the requirement for just and equitable treatment extends to the FA.

[Garrincha]

If we do not successfuly appeal this then heads should roll at the top of our club.

That decision is grossly unfair and has a direct and material impact on the club financially. The rule of law and the requirement for just and equitable treatment extends to the FA.

 

I propose a night of the long knives style revolt, i won't be satisfied until some lad from Kirby is running down the street with Ian Ayre's severed head.

[Red Banjo]

Souness flapping his fucking gums again. 10 games is fair apparently

 

Shut the fuck up, you fucking whopper

[Faustus]

Souness flapping his fucking gums again. 10 games is fair apparently

 

Shut the fuck up, you fucking whopper

 

If I'd broken the jaw of a fellow professional and sold an exclusive to that rag, I'd have kept my head down and my mouth shut throughout all of this.

 

Cunt of a man.