How many games will he be banned for? Poll

[sir roger]

6, I reckon & hopefully we can get it going asap as this season is over bar the shouting anyway.

 

I'll be honest, the media have been pathetic but I think he deserves a longer ban than 3games as although I love him, his actions were f***ing ridiculous.

[xerxes]

They are doing him for violent conduct and feel three matches isn't sufficient. FA statement here.

 

It's going to be tricky for the FA isn't it?

 

The violence of a bite is hardly career threatening, like a two footed tackle.

 

The "Cannibal of Ajax" incident sets a standard for punishment, but is outside the FA's jursidiction, and he still has the Jura punch hanging over him- he is going to struggle with witnesses for good character isn't he?

 

There is no precedent for a double biting offence, so he may expect an unprededented penalty.

 

It is reasonable to contrast the altruism of the displays for Anne and Boston with the wilful selfishness of his actions which will harm his colleagues and the club.

[Newport]

Apparently they said the same with the Hazard incident and he still got three games anyway, can we hire Chelsea's legal team?

[Lucky Pierre]

6. And the club will not appeal "So as to get as much of the ban over this season."

[Guest San Don]

I see the twats at the FA are saying a 3 game ban clearly isnt enough.

 

TBH, I dread to think but, they cant use the biting incident in Holland as its outside their juridiction. They can link it to the piece of shit incident because there's no 'race' issue involved.

 

That said, I'll be surprised if it isnt 6+ games and a hefty fine.

[zigackly]

They said the same with Hazard's statement and he only got three.

[Jonjo Baldy]

Such a shame his gonna lose out on the golden ball aswell. The rapist has scored 3 today. Suarez should have easily been Player of the year and golden boot.

[RobbieOR]

They said the same with Hazard's statement and he only got three.

 

Hazard got a red card at the time though.

 

Funny thing is he'd have been better off if the ref seen it and had given him a second yellow. Only a game ban then.

Edited April 22, 2013 by RobbieOR

[zigackly]

Hazard got a red card at the time though.

 

Sure, but I think they have to say that unless they are handing out the standard punishment.

 

See below:

 

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.

[RobbieOR]

Sure, but I think they have to say that unless they are handing out the standard punishment.

 

See below:

 

Puts a different slant on things alright. Cant see him only get 3, i'd wager 5 or 6.

[xerxes]

they cant use the biting incident in Holland as its outside their juridiction.

 

Clearly his previous will, and should, impact on the penalty, even though there isn't an English FA record. He can hardly say "I've never done it before" with that, and the FIFA disciplinary still looming for the Jara punch.

 

My concern is that ban will affect the start of next season, and it was wholy avoidable, not the FA's fault- just Luis'.

 

 

The club, his coleagues and the fans have every right to feel let down.

[a stoner]

3 games for a nibble surely!

[Guest ShoePiss]

When the question was first asked yesterday in a different thread I said 6 games, still thought that was what they'd hand out earlier today. Then I see Thommo talking 10 or more game ban on sky, sure he doesn't get to decide the outcome but it does influence expectation and I wonder if his comments influence the FA in their decision.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

When the question was first asked yesterday in a different thread I said 6 games, still thought that was what they'd hand out earlier today. Then I see Thommo talking 10 or more game ban on sky, sure he doesn't get to decide the outcome but it does influence expectation and I wonder if his comments influence the FA in their decision.

The FA have said due to the seriousness of the incident the normal three match ban is not sufficient in this case. He got a seven game one for doing it in Holland. This could be a massive ,massive ban as FIFA haven't yet said what action they will take over the punch Suarez threw in the Chile game.

I can see him being made a example of over this.

[Guest San Don]

Clearly his previous will, and should, impact on the penalty, even though there isn't an English FA record. He can hardly say "I've never done it before" with that, and the FIFA disciplinary still looming for the Jara punch.

 

My concern is that ban will affect the start of next season, and it was wholy avoidable, not the FA's fault- just Luis'.

 

 

The club, his coleagues and the fans have every right to feel let down.

 

Wrong on all counts again!

 

Previous under another association's jurisdiction cannot be used in the consideration of a sanction by another. Additionally, neither can any unproven act for the alleged Jara punch which again, is outside the FA's jurisdiction be used to sanction him.

[Conzo]

Anyone else worried that the FA will measure the ban in months rather than games? 8 would have him out till Christmas. This story is HUGE all over the world.

[Ranxerox]

Wrong on all counts again!

 

Previous under another association's jurisdiction cannot be used in the consideration of a sanction by another. Additionally, neither can any unproven act for the alleged Jara punch which again, is outside the FA's jurisdiction be used to sanction him.

 

perfect common sense, however I suspect the FA will feel entitled to set any number they choose without even mentioning the Ajax and Chile incidents openly.

[xerxes]

Wrong on all counts again!

 

Previous under another association's jurisdiction cannot be used in the consideration of a sanction by another. Additionally, neither can any unproven act for the alleged Jara punch which again, is outside the FA's jurisdiction be used to sanction him.

 

I know you struggle a bit with reading San Don.

 

The "Cannibal of Ajax" incident sets a standard for punishment, but is outside the FA's jursidiction, and he still has the Jura punch hanging over him- he is going to struggle with witnesses for good character isn't he?

 

I hope that helps.;)

[Guest ShoePiss]

Anyone else worried that the FA will measure the ban in months rather than games? 8 would have him out till Christmas. This story is HUGE all over the world.

 

No but the first thing I did when I saw your post was look at the other posts you've made since feb 12.

[zigackly]

The FA have said due to the seriousness of the incident the normal three match ban is not sufficient in this case.

 

They have to say that unless they are just giving him a three match ban immediately (see TK421's post that I quoted above), but when they worded the statement the same way for Hazard they ended up only giving him three matches.

[Jonjo Baldy]

Wrong on all counts again!

 

Previous under another association's jurisdiction cannot be used in the consideration of a sanction by another. Additionally, neither can any unproven act for the alleged Jara punch which again, is outside the FA's jurisdiction be used to sanction him.

 

But this is the FA we are talking about, they will take it into consideration just not formally, guaranteed.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

They have to say that unless they are just giving him a three match ban immediately (see TK421's post that I quoted above), but when they worded the statement the same way for Hazard they ended up only giving him three matches.

Cheers mate I missed that post. Well spotted over the Hazard statement from the Fa as they are the same.

There is difference though between the two offences committed.

Hazard was red carded and that meant he had the automatic three game ban on him. The FA wanted the committee to lengthen the ban from the three games.

Suarez wasn't red carded and isn't banned meaning the committee arnt deciding to lengthen the ban or not. So as there is no punishment to overturn they can give him what they want.

Remember Chelsea sent loads of evidence to the hearing stating why he shouldn't have his ban extended as well.

I think that's right unless he is banned now.

[Rambo]

didn't defoe get booked though?

 

anyway, he will get 7 games i reckon. hope we just take it on the chin. fucking hate the media i do. glad a few people on sky sports have brought up the defoe incident

 

not condoning what he did though. fucking mental.

 

He did. But if the offence is deemed serious enough on review the fa can still act. They obviously didn't deem it serious in 2006. But the recent spate of shit vampire program's means it needs clamping down on now.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

In all honesty I don't know why they don't just put one of these on him as problem would be sorted.

 

[xerxes]

Torres wears a mask, perhaps Luis should wear a muzzle?