Daniel Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 (edited) That is harsh, if he'd done Ivanovic some serious harm you could understand it, you wouldn't get that for trying to deliberately break someones leg on the pitch. It's not the point though. If you make a bad tackle, most of the time it's a pure accident. He has intentionally tried to harm someone. Not acceptable and 10 games is totally fair given his previous. I don't really agree because a wreckless challenge like we saw from mcmanaman could have ended the guys career, and that went unpunished. Wheras the Suarez so-called bite didn't even break skin because if there had of been a serious mark there the ref would have show him the red card. So obviously there was no real intent to hurt the guy but it was a stupid thing to do. A bad tackle that ends your career comes with the game i'm afraid. You have to make a tackle as part of the game and sometimes that can go wrong. Going out and biting someone isn't part of the game. It really doesn't matter if it broke the skin or not, the intent was there to cause harm, why else would you bite someone? If i was to take a gun and shoot at someone, but miss. Would i get let off because i didn't harm the person? Of course not. If this was rugby he would be getting way more games than 10. Edited April 24, 2013 by Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 (edited) That is harsh, if he'd done Ivanovic some serious harm you could understand it, you wouldn't get that for trying to deliberately break someones leg on the pitch. It's not the point though. If you make a bad tackle, most of the time it's a pure accident. He has intentionally tried to harm someone. Not acceptable and 10 games is totally fair given his previous. I don't really agree because a wreckless challenge like we saw from mcmanaman could have ended the guys career, and that went unpunished. Wheras the Suarez so-called bite didn't even break skin because if there had of been a serious mark there the ref would have show him the red card. So obviously there was no real intent to hurt the guy but it was a stupid thing to do. A bad tackle that ends your career comes with the game i'm afraid. You have to make a tackle as part of the game and sometimes that can go wrong. Going out and biting someone isn't part of the game. It really doesn't matter if it broke the skin or not, the intent was there to cause harm, why else would you bite someone? If i was to take a gun and shoot at someone, but miss. Would i get let off because i didn't harm the person? Of course not. If this was rugby he would be getting way more games than 10. Yes you do make a pretty convincing argument there. On the other-hand if you were a hunter and killed someone because you were wreckless would you not be prosecuted for manslaughter even though shooting is part of the sport. I think even though you have to tackle if you are wreckless in that tackle, end someones career, and although intent cannot be proved its still worse than a minor bite isn't it, where nobody is hurt. TBF he would have got away with a much lesser punishment if he hadn't got previous. He's possibly the best player in the premiere league. Edited April 24, 2013 by PaulC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 The fact of the matter is he has done this before and got banned for 7 matches He did not learn his lesson and has done it again. You do not hand out a lesser punishment if you re offend and do the same crime again? 10 matches is correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Liverpool fans will point out that the other ban was in Holland and therefore shouldn't be considered in this instance. Yep. Reduced to arguing he should be let off on a technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 (edited) Liverpool fans will point out that the other ban was in Holland and therefore shouldn't be considered in this instance. Yep. Reduced to arguing he should be let off on a technicality. They were happy to buy Suarez based on his footballing form in Holland but think his disciplinary form is irrelevant? Edited April 24, 2013 by brommy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoD Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 I really don't understand Liverpool and most of their fans. Suarez is so clearly in the wrong here (again), they should be throwing the book at him themselves and trying to get him to get his shit together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAZZAM Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 (edited) Suarez was warned about his behavior by the FA after the Evra incident and now has a bigger ban for repeat offending. Edited April 25, 2013 by KAZZAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyPowers Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 I'd like to think this will be the end of him in England but biting, punching, diving, lying, cheating, whingeing, abusing people are all qualities that are only going to endear him to the people of Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 I really don't understand Liverpool and most of their fans. Suarez is so clearly in the wrong here (again), they should be throwing the book at him themselves and trying to get him to get his shit together. Because Liverpool fans are the most deluded in the premier league Instead of accepting what Suarez did was wrong and was clearly out of order they think there is a massive conspiracy by the FA to dick them over I hope he leaves. Clearly their best player and they will fail to lure any other player near his skill level based on their mediocre league position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 You have to be disappointed with the club statement aswell complaining about the punishment. Liverpool FC are an absolute disgrace and they should be taking their medicine and severely reprimanding Suarez. Those images have gone global, what sort of message does that send out ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Do you think Suarez might have got a more lenient punishment if Liverpool had banned him first? Say if they had given him a five or six game ban (certainly something that takes him into next season because missing four dead rubbers this year is hardly a punishment) then the FA might not have extended it. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunther Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Question though; will he get 10 games + 2 for the ten yellow cards he has collected in the Prem this season? Which means 12 games? No - the 'amnesty' passed the previous week I believe, so 10 yellow no longer carries any ban. Same for I think Matty Lowton, who is now on 9 - if he gets booked again, he won't receive a ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 He misses the Newcastle game this Saturday which is a blow for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Its out of order that the FA are treating somebody who bites, like Suarez, more harshly than they treat somebody who makes racist comments. Like Suarez. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted April 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted April 25, 2013 RAWK. The gift that keeps on giving, in spec-tac-ular fashion. Just read this latest nugget. On a seperate note, during the Falklands Uruguay allowed the UK to use its airspace etc and supported the UK, tensions are high again in the South Atlantic, does anyone think we would get the same support from Uruguay now after the way as a country its citizen has been treated? People may say Suarez is too small to matter but I think this is going above the individual and many people are not happy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted April 25, 2013 That. Is. Genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 (edited) RAWK. The gift that keeps on giving, in spec-tac-ular fashion. Just read this latest nugget. On a seperate note, during the Falklands Uruguay allowed the UK to use its airspace etc and supported the UK, tensions are high again in the South Atlantic, does anyone think we would get the same support from Uruguay now after the way as a country its citizen has been treated? People may say Suarez is too small to matter but I think this is going above the individual and many people are not happy. PMSL.... Seriously Liverpool fans claim that everybody is against their club but come on statements like this do themselves no favours.... Here are a couple more gems "I'm wondering if Brendan is pressuring our players up too much. Carra was ready to murder on Sunday, can't remember ever seeing him so twisted, Shelvey was booked within minutes of coming on, Sturridge could easily have been sent off and this happened with Louis. This isn't like us at all, I get the feeling all is not well." Yes its all Brendan Rodgers fault..... "I think the FA is in the process of introducing a new card for disciplinary action on the pitch. It is the black card, and it is to be used every time Luis Suarez does something naughty. It carries a punishment that is double the standard given under normal circumstances" Actually here's a point i agree with it will match their black armbands perfectly... "I know this doesn't really mean much but I heard on a sports podcast (Slate's Hang Up and Listen) and one of the host was talking about the history of biting sports. He brought up this Ancient Greek Olympian sport of Pankration. It's a martial arts where you can do anything to you opponent except for gouge eyes and bite. It seems that cultural in sports that you are allowed to break legs with a tackle and elbow someone in the head but that is "part of the game". However, to bite someone now and even in the past was a faux pas. I know this doesn't mean his ban should be this severe but I just thought this was interesting and something to think about" I really don't know what to make of this one.... "We're moving from what I remember as the game to an X Factor, Britain's Got Talent, The Voice **** football game, where if those with Sky Remotes press their red button hard enough, or those on Twitter shout loud enough, the FA will act. Press red to vote for a longer suspension. **** off" Wow? "Standard chartered who are being hammered for being corrupt mother****** right now wont say a word with regards to this.. Too busy salvaging their own credibility" Exactly what do the sponsors have to do with this? Add another name to the LFC blame game "Appealing is a waste of time. Its a tory stitch up against Liverpool FC. Sure Suarez deserves a ban but 1st thatcher tries to destroy Liverpool FC allowing the lies about Hillsborough and now david cameron deems it requires the most senior political figure in Britain to pass comment on a Liverpool FC matter thus ensuring the **** suckers at the fa act with an over the top ban. *** you cameron and **** you the tory party. I hope Suarez stays and scores many more goals for us, give me a winner like Suarez over the likes of Downing who every week is in one rag or anther saying how well his career is going now and how much he is improving. I dont see a great deal of improvement." Perhaps i should put this one in the CONdem thread.. "HIS PREVIOUS BITING INCIDENT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS AS IT WAS NOT UNDER FA JURISDICTION, HIS RACIST BAN WAS NOT CLASSED AS VIOLENT CONDUCT AND AS SUCH CAN'T BE USED AGAINST HIM, THIS WAS HIS FIRST VIOLENT CONDUCT CHARGE WHILST UNDER FA JURISDICTION SO THEY SHOULD OF TREATED IT AS AN FIRST OFFENCE AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION HIS PLEA AS WELL AS THE OUTCOME OF SAID INCIDENT (IE: THE SKIN WAS NOT BROKEN, IT LOOKS MAD AND IT WAS BUT NO!!!!!!! PHYSICAL HARM WAS DONE) INSTEAD THEY DECIDED TO TAG IT ONTO HIS EXISTING RACISM CASE AND PREVIOUS BITING CASE WHICH IS AGAINST FA REGULATIONS, NEED I ******* SAY MORE?" U MAD BRO? Caps lock obviously broken... "If we don't appeal and he goes, im taking up the bundesliga, because this club isnt the same anymore anyway, and neither is football in the country in general. i feel sick saying that but like a few others ive been teetering on the bring for quite some time and this could be the tipping point" Wouldn't it make more sense to support the club Luis joins? Especially if you love him that much to abandon the club you have supported... O Rose thou art sick. The invisible worm, That flies in the night In the howling storm: Has found out thy bed Of crimson joy: And his dark secret love Does thy life destroy. Wtf? "As a ST holder can I claim a rebate from the FA or the club as I'm being denied watching the best player we have? I bought my ticket expecting full value for money in the knowledge Suarez would play when fit. These clowns are not fulfilling their commitments to provide me with the entertainment this lad brings to the game. It will be like watching/listening to the Beatles without John Lennon" Genius Edited April 25, 2013 by AshVilla 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyPowers Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Its out of order that the FA are treating somebody who bites, like Suarez, more harshly than they treat somebody who makes racist comments. Like Suarez. That was the annoying thing about the stupid 'well they only banned him 8 games for racist abuse, the FA must think racism is less serious than biting'. No, the FA just got the first one wrong, he should have been banned 20 games for the Evra affair. Lets not forget: Mr Evra said that after Mr Suárez said "I don't speak to blacks", he (Mr Evra) said "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada", which means "OK, now I think I'm going to punch you". To this he says that Mr Suárez replied "Dale, negro...negro...negro". At the time Mr Evra understood this to mean "OK, nigger, nigger, nigger". He now says it means "OK, blackie, blackie, blackie". http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jan/01/fa-report-luis-suarez-patrice-evra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnbull Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Can anyone confirm that the people who post on RAWK are actually adults? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 25, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted April 25, 2013 Can anyone confirm that the people who post on RAWK are actually adults? I can confirm this. Adult humans? That's a whole other question. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts