10 Games

[FanchesterCity]

So what your saying is Manny is wrong but also 80% right?

 

ha... no, he claimed there wasn't a single fan in the country who gave a toss unless it's about their own club's players...

 

I disagree. There's plenty of neutral fans who think the ban is too strong, and are sick to death of inconsistency at the FA (but not surprised by it).

 

I'm one of them, and I know plenty of others (including United fans) who think this incident is over hyped. Admittedly, we're a minority, but it's not right to think nobody cares. Plenty do.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

:wallbutt:

Ha! I cant believe you've based your position on what wiki says instead of the KNVB.

 

Here's the word, when a player is transferred across confederations, such as Suarez from holland to england, the registration holding association has to give international cearance on the registration \ transfer papers all being correct and the player is able to play for his new club etc.

 

That means the KNVB informs the fa and LFC all is in order, there's no bans outstanding, no fees outstanding etc, etc. I guess the KNVB must have said he didnt need to serve the full ban then :whistle:

Read it KNVB 7 game league ban he got the ban for the match on 20th November. They played six more league games before he came to us meaning 1 game left he played against stoke.

Wiki was to show Ajaxs matches that season and to show you only 6 league games played from the ban.

[ChrisM]

Where the fuck is this written report?

[FanchesterCity]

Fair enough - I would agree that there's a minority that see through it and are aware that it's dangerous having an organisation in charge that makes up the rules. But it's a definite minority.

 

I must admit I may have been in the majority that don't care about the implications of the FA making up the rules as it went along - I was too busy laughing at Ferdinand and his 8 month ban etc. But we've been on the receiving end of this kind of shite pretty much since Suarez put pen to paper on his first contract, and it's made me think about the wider context. So when I see a player - or a club - suffer at the hands of the FA's ineptitude, I'm aware of the fact that it won't be long until it's Suarez and Liverpool's turn. Again.

 

Every club suffers at their hands on a fairly routine basis as a result of their lack of consistency. With one obvious exception.

 

I think more and more are starting to question what's going on in the game. And there's some glaring inconsistencies. Also there's an alarming lack of transparency.

 

Is biting worse than a headbutt? I'm not saying yes, or no, I'm just asking that the FA decide and make it clear. Is it worse than an intentional horror tackle? I'd like to know one way or the other, then I can understand better...

 

e.g.

Rash tackle (careless, but not intentional) = 3 games

Deliberately violent tackle posing risk of serious injury = 12 games

Headbutt = 12 games

Spitting = 6 games

Foul language or gesture = 3 games

Racist/homosexual gestures or comments = 10 games

etc

 

etc etc... then we'd all stand a chance of understanding. Of course there'd still be arguments about 'deliberate' or 'rash', but we'd still understand the criteria for a ban.

As it stands now, we don't know.

 

Some are saying "it's not just about the nastiness, but the damage to the image of the game" - fair enough, but still, is a headbutt less damaging to the image of the game than a bite?

 

I don't think it's too much to ask of the FA to make this clear. And if there is no ruling... then fine, make a new one.

 

There's also this issue of 'the referee saw it'. The FA (with some merit) say this is to avoid undermining referees and stop a wave of Monday morning 'second opinion' requests. I have some sympathy with that. BUT, are they saying the referee's pride is worth more than the image of the game? If he sees an incident (e.g. Aguero stamp on Luiz) but gets the decision wrong... that's ok?. Countless kids saw Aguero jump two footed onto Luiz. So the image of the game is worth less than a ref's pride?

 

They are basically full of crap (the FA), and blow neither hot nor cold consistently.

And I've just about as much respect for that dickhead Gordon Taylor representing the players. He's every bit as bad from the players side of things.

 

Maybe the game would improve if things DID go to a court of law. The FA and PFA could just fire most of themselves and hand over a few million quid (from the saved wage bills) to the Court Service and let the courts decide these matters. I'd be happy with that.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Where the fuck is this written report?

The club had to receive by 6pm so they have it but not said anything since I don't think mate.

[ChrisM]

Yeah, I thought once we had it it would be made public by the FA.

 

Probably tomorrow.

[FanchesterCity]

Out of curiosity, how can it be right that Liverpool only have a set period to decide to appeal (or not) before they get the report?

 

Surely, the timeline should begin once they are in receipt of the report, then can form a more rational decision based on the full judgment and rationale given to them?

 

As it stands now, how can they know what factors influenced the decision?

 

e.g.

If the report says "we considered this to be a dangerous act" - then Liverpool might opt challenge that.

If the report says "we didn't believe the act itself was overly violent, but deemed the cumulative behaviour of the player warranted a heavy reprimand" - then Liverpool might opt not to challenge.

 

Again, not saying one is right or wrong, just that it's important for LFC to know the rationale before deciding!!! Sounds like they are being forced to decide to appeal in complete darkness!

 

Edit - based on the above reports, perhaps the timeline does start after receipt of the report right?

[DaveT]

Out of curiosity, how can it be right that Liverpool only have a set period to decide to appeal (or not) before they get the report?

 

Surely, the timeline should begin once they are in receipt of the report, then can form a more rational decision based on the full judgment and rationale given to them?

 

 

Made exactly the same point tonight to my missus (not that she was listening). According to the BBC web site - 'Liverpool received the Football Association's written reasons for the 26-year-old's ban on Thursday.

There is a deadline of 12:00 BST on Friday for an appeal to be lodged.'

 

Just yet another example of what a shoddy ,not-fit-for-purpose organisation the FA is.

[Red Soul]

Out of curiosity, how can it be right that Liverpool only have a set period to decide to appeal (or not) before they get the report?

 

Surely, the timeline should begin once they are in receipt of the report, then can form a more rational decision based on the full judgment and rationale given to them?

 

As it stands now, how can they know what factors influenced the decision?

 

e.g.

If the report says "we considered this to be a dangerous act" - then Liverpool might opt challenge that.

If the report says "we didn't believe the act itself was overly violent, but deemed the cumulative behaviour of the player warranted a heavy reprimand" - then Liverpool might opt not to challenge.

 

Again, not saying one is right or wrong, just that it's important for LFC to know the rationale before deciding!!! Sounds like they are being forced to decide to appeal in complete darkness!

 

Edit - based on the above reports, perhaps the timeline does start after receipt of the report right?

[Red Soul]

[/b]

 

Yes.

[Red Banjo]

I'm seriously debating whether to seek legal advice and take the FA to court myself.

 

As a football fan i mean, they are sucking the life out of the sport. The game is disappearing down the tubes and we are all standing idle letting it happen.

 

If you went to all 92 League grounds over the course of a season and quizzed the paying supporter - the one's who fund its very existence - and asked them if they were happy with the FA and the way the game is governed, i would expect the answer would be nearly 100% in favour of no.

 

Why should they be allowed to continue to strangle the life from the game? They are utterly inept and out of touch with almost every aspect of the game. Its embarrassing almost every time they are asked to do anything.

[Guest San Don]

Out of curiosity, how can it be right that Liverpool only have a set period to decide to appeal (or not) before they get the report?

 

Surely, the timeline should begin once they are in receipt of the report, then can form a more rational decision based on the full judgment and rationale given to them?

 

As it stands now, how can they know what factors influenced the decision?

 

e.g.

If the report says "we considered this to be a dangerous act" - then Liverpool might opt challenge that.

If the report says "we didn't believe the act itself was overly violent, but deemed the cumulative behaviour of the player warranted a heavy reprimand" - then Liverpool might opt not to challenge.

 

Again, not saying one is right or wrong, just that it's important for LFC to know the rationale before deciding!!! Sounds like they are being forced to decide to appeal in complete darkness!

 

Edit - based on the above reports, perhaps the timeline does start after receipt of the report right?

 

How about a fit up?

 

Minimal time to review the findings and submit your appeal to dissaude you appealing. Make a mistake or miss something out of your appeal then its a flippant appeal and gives the fa grounds to say so and add further games to the ban.

 

And there was I thinking justice is supposed to be above all. Silly, silly me. :whistle:

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Ha! I cant believe you've based your position on what wiki says instead of the KNVB.

 

Here's the word, when a player is transferred across confederations, such as Suarez from holland to england, the registration holding association has to give international cearance on the registration \ transfer papers all being correct and the player is able to play for his new club etc.

 

That means the KNVB informs the fa and LFC all is in order, there's no bans outstanding, no fees outstanding etc, etc. I guess the KNVB must have said he didnt need to serve the full ban then :whistle:

Your right sorry It is reported as a 7 league game ban but it seems that 1 game was a cup match which was Included. So sorry I repped you before when you first answered me.

[A_S]

Luis should be encouraged by the fact that both Pepe and Brendan have openly suppoorted him and should decide to appeal, as I can't see the club then leaving him on his own this time.

 

A point of difference between this and the Evra case is that this time the club has openly said Luis was wrong and a ban was justified, whereas before it was always denying any wrongdoing at all, ie appealing the severity of a ban would be easier IMO than appealing the verdict itself.

[Lupin]

Ha! I cant believe you've based your position on what wiki says instead of the KNVB.

 

Here's the word, when a player is transferred across confederations, such as Suarez from holland to england, the registration holding association has to give international cearance on the registration \ transfer papers all being correct and the player is able to play for his new club etc.

 

That means the KNVB informs the fa and LFC all is in order, there's no bans outstanding, no fees outstanding etc, etc. I guess the KNVB must have said he didnt need to serve the full ban then :whistle:

 

It's simpler - KNVB actually gave him a 5 match ban - Ajax added two matches of their own as punishment to make it 7 - ergo, the 2 Ajax matches being club based did not form part of his registered punishment and were unenforcible when he came to us.

[Major Tom]

Is biting worse than a headbutt? I'm not saying yes, or no, I'm just asking that the FA decide and make it clear. Is it worse than an intentional horror tackle? I'd like to know one way or the other, then I can understand better...

 

e.g.

Rash tackle (careless, but not intentional) = 3 games

Deliberately violent tackle posing risk of serious injury = 12 games

Headbutt = 12 games

Spitting = 6 games

Foul language or gesture = 3 games

Racist/homosexual gestures or comments = 10 games

etc

 

etc etc... then we'd all stand a chance of understanding. Of course there'd still be arguments about 'deliberate' or 'rash', but we'd still understand the criteria for a ban.

As it stands now, we don't know.

 

 

At the moment, the ban lengths are almost arbitrary and decided by the media outcry as much as anything else.

 

In rugby they have a scale for bans, so (eg) a bite gets from between 4 weeks and 26 weeks, depending on the nature of the incident.

 

The FA really need to work some guidelines in, for their own benefit as much as anyone else's.

 

I really cannot believe how poorly football is administered. It's actually farcical.

[Guest ShoePiss]

"A bite gets between 4 weeks and 26 weeks"

 

Yeah it sounds like rugby has got it all boxed off.

[Major Tom]

Sure, there is still a subjective nature to any ban (there has to be), but they have something to work as opposed to football, which is just a fucking shambles.

[JD74]

I'm seriously debating whether to seek legal advice and take the FA to court myself.

 

As a football fan i mean, they are sucking the life out of the sport. The game is disappearing down the tubes and we are all standing idle letting it happen.

 

If you went to all 92 League grounds over the course of a season and quizzed the paying supporter - the one's who fund its very existence - and asked them if they were happy with the FA and the way the game is governed, i would expect the answer would be nearly 100% in favour of no.

 

Why should they be allowed to continue to strangle the life from the game? They are utterly inept and out of touch with almost every aspect of the game. Its embarrassing almost every time they are asked to do anything.

 

Take a football fan's class action against the FA? That could be interesting!

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

It's simpler - KNVB actually gave him a 5 match ban - Ajax added two matches of their own as punishment to make it 7 - ergo, the 2 Ajax matches being club based did not form part of his registered punishment and were unenforcible when he came to us.

Go on to KNVB they made it a 7 game ban, Ajax hadsaid they were suspending him for two but that dosent matter as it was a seven game ban handed t o him. That is why he never came to us before the 31st as the 7th game was on the 30th and so ended the seven game ban.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Go on to KNVB they made it a 7 game ban, Ajax hadsaid they were suspending him for two but that dosent matter as it was a seven game ban handed t o him. That is why he never came to us before the 31st as the 7th game was on the 30th and so ended the seven game ban.

Luis Suarez handed seven-match ban for bite - ESPN FC