Merged: Red card tackles (and Suarez)

[Admin]

I can't see how Liverpool, or indeed Rodgers can overlook this. Suarez was clearly done for it in 2010' whilst at Ajax so the bottom line is, he has re-offended in the space of 3 years. On top of this, he was also banned for racially abusing another player. I'm sorry, but in my eyes Suarez has blown his chuff in the Premiership and Liverpool have no other choice but to sell him. If they don't, they are seen as supporting a player of his caliber.   

[jarv]

Kind of a goofy thing to do. :005:

[Logicalman]

oo-er, just saw the video of the previous incident when the"Cannibal of Ajax" was banned, and guess who his manager was then?

Go on, try.   You can't,  OK, clue #1: His initials are MJ

A sidepoint, when he was sold to Ajax, Martin was no longer his manager (damn, gave it away, didn't I?)

[Forever Fulham]

I don't think the league can factor in Suarez's past bad acts while playing in a different country's internal league.  That would open the door for all kinds of mischief and controversy.  He has to be judged by how he acts in this league only.  I think his desire to be free of the defender at that moment was so great that his instincts took over; he panicked, and in his panic (or was it desperation), he bit to be free of the perceived  hold.  Thing is: It didn't look like the defender was holding him, was doing anything improper.  It speaks more of the mind of Suarez. 

He has to be punished for this act.  The league should examine the defender's body, photograph the bite mark impressions, review the tape, take some interviews from players, and act on what it finds.  Reminds me of when Tyson bit Holyfield's ear in a title fight.  It was so shocking back then.  Tyson said his fear of losing  and a kind of panic took over.  I think there's a parallel here to Suarez.  And it speaks to a character trait found in some great players in any sport--a panic button that pushes them through barriers/impediments that would stop lesser lights from shining.  He seems to want to score so badly he'll do anything in the moment to make that happen.  A dive, a dirty provocation, even biting.  What makes Sammy run?   Who knows?  A compulsion.  What nourishes him, destroys him.  But if this league is to have credibility with the fans and players, I think he must be punished severely.  Otherwise, the clear unspoken message to everyone is that star players get patently different rules applied to them.  Leniency, forgiveness--the star's drawing power and importance to their respective clubs are so great, the economics of the game as a business requires the implementation of a double standard.  Fans see this double standard all the time, and it drives us crazy.  If Sidwell gets a red for being a split second too slow with a slide tackle, his boot's cleats showing as his foot goes over the ball and catches the dribbler's foot, then how can similar or worse behaviour not be called on bigger names in the game?  Inconsistent standards in application of the rules leads to a lack of respect, and fans disconnect.  We hear this comment all the time.  One set of rules for the sidwells of the league; another set of rules for the star players. 

[aFFCn_Fan]

He got a 7 game ban for biting someone in Holland, so knowing the FA he'll get off scott free or a derisory 1-2 game ban.

I'd ban him for 15-20 games myself

Scumbag

Yeah the FA are all bark and no...errr....  :Get Coat gif:

[Logicalman]

He got a 7 game ban for biting someone in Holland, so knowing the FA he'll get off scott free or a derisory 1-2 game ban.

I'd ban him for 15-20 games myself

Scumbag

Yeah the FA are all bark and no...errr....  :Get Coat gif:

I think the word you were looking for was nutz.

[Kell]

Sell him to boroussia Munchinacentreback

[Forever Fulham]

We are looking at a watershed moment in the modern EPL.  One of the top 5, or at least 10, top strikers in the world has been accused of biting a defender who, from all views of the video, wasn't fouling or assaulting the striker.  The striker scores the vast majority of his storied club's goals.  They are utterly dependent upon his production.  The club prides itself in its traditions, in the "The Liverpool Way", in its notions of honour.  But its breadwinner is an alien to such notions.  What's a club to do?  The refereee did nothing as poor Ivanovic frantically waved to the nearby ref, appealing for a call, playing show and tell to officialdom reluctant to throw Liverpool's most effective player out of a game it was barely losing.  Then, because the ref didn't have the backbone to act properly upon seeing the evidence underneath Ivanovic's pulled-back jersey, Suarez got to stay in the game and score the equalizer.  Shameful.  And then the way the club attempted to slickly get out in front of the controversy with a public relations blitz, promising to act on it if the evidence shows biting, not long after Rodgers refused to comment on the footage shown to him after the game.  Shameful.  The club has no intention of losing its top player.  Who will buy a serial biter, diver, do-anything-to-win cheater?  I think they will buy time, make a dumb show of rehabilitation, and pray he doesn't do it again.  That was the lesson the large American clubs taught their sports fans in the performance enhancing drugs era.  By our inaction and sufferance, we put winning above all else.  Once you go down that path, there's no coming back.  And the game is forever changed.

[aFFCn_Fan]

I dunno about him not getting any other job offers, I hear Disney and George Lucas have signed him up for the next Star Wars, he's going to play Chewbranna    :Get Coat gif: :Get Coat gif: :Get Coat gif:

[aFFCn_Fan]

from a PR point of view he was probably right to come out and apologise on Twitter. We all know the tooth would come out.  :Get Coat gif:

Going for a get my coat record in a thread

[God The Mechanic]

We are looking at a watershed moment in the modern EPL.  One of the top 5, or at least 10, top strikers in the world has been accused of biting a defender who, from all views of the video, wasn't fouling or assaulting the striker.  The striker scores the vast majority of his storied club's goals.  They are utterly dependent upon his production.  The club prides itself in its traditions, in the "The Liverpool Way", in its notions of honour.  But its breadwinner is an alien to such notions.  What's a club to do?  The refereee did nothing as poor Ivanovic frantically waved to the nearby ref, appealing for a call, playing show and tell to officialdom reluctant to throw Liverpool's most effective player out of a game it was barely losing.  Then, because the ref didn't have the backbone to act properly upon seeing the evidence underneath Ivanovic's pulled-back jersey, Suarez got to stay in the game and score the equalizer.  Shameful.  And then the way the club attempted to slickly get out in front of the controversy with a public relations blitz, promising to act on it if the evidence shows biting, not long after Rodgers refused to comment on the footage shown to him after the game.  Shameful.  The club has no intention of losing its top player.  Who will buy a serial biter, diver, do-anything-to-win cheater?  I think they will buy time, make a dumb show of rehabilitation, and pray he doesn't do it again.  That was the lesson the large American clubs taught their sports fans in the performance enhancing drugs era.  By our inaction and sufferance, we put winning above all else.  Once you go down that path, there's no coming back.  And the game is forever changed.

I don't think Liverpool have done anything most clubs wouldn't have done in acting quickly to release statements.  As for Rodgers not commenting on it, he probably hadn't actually seen the incident as it was miles away from him and I don't recall him being shown a video immediately afterwards.

As for their full response, it'd be refreshing to see them act decisively in banning him.  Don't think they can go down the route Chelsea did with Mutu (when he got tested positively for cocaine) and sack him for breach of contract, but it's a nice thought.  Then they can seek damages for loss of earnings and screw him over, like Chelsea did with Mutu :P

[HatterDon]

He should never play in the Prem again. There's a reason why physios wear rubber gloves when examining players. There's a reason why players have to leave the pitch to stop the flow of blood from a cut. There's a reason why shirts that are bloodstained have to be replaced before a player returns to the pitch. All of this came from fear in the 1980s/90s about the transmission of blood-borne diseases through contact. The fact that the spread of these diseases has slowed in major countries is down to these practices and others like it.

Suarez is a two-time offender. He'll do it again. It should be a priority that he never do it again on a Premier League pitch.

[cebu]

He should never play in the Prem again. There's a reason why physios wear rubber gloves when examining players. There's a reason why players have to leave the pitch to stop the flow of blood from a cut. There's a reason why shirts that are bloodstained have to be replaced before a player returns to the pitch. All of this came from fear in the 1980s/90s about the transmission of blood-borne diseases through contact. The fact that the spread of these diseases has slowed in major countries is down to these practices and others like it.

Suarez is a two-time offender. He'll do it again. It should be a priority that he never do it again on a Premier League pitch.

Make him wear a mask like Hannibal the Cannibal?

[Rhys Lightning 63]

Going back to the Sidwell red card, I've just been looking over the QPR home game (which I've got on my TiVo box, under the category of NEVER TO BE DELETED), I can't see the difference between what he did and what Clint Hill did

1 - Late tackle, after the ball had been played
2 - Lunging in
3 - Connecting with the ankle of the opposing player

Hill get's yellow, Sidwell gets red

[sipwell]

Going back to the Sidwell red card, I've just been looking over the QPR home game (which I've got on my TiVo box, under the category of NEVER TO BE DELETED), I can't see the difference between what he did and what Clint Hill did

1 - Late tackle, after the ball had been played
2 - Lunging in
3 - Connecting with the ankle of the opposing player

Hill get's yellow, Sidwell gets red

Going back to the Sidwell red card, I've just been looking over the QPR home game (which I've got on my TiVo box, under the category of NEVER TO BE DELETED), I can't see the difference between what he did and what Clint Hill did

1 - Late tackle, after the ball had been played
2 - Lunging in
3 - Connecting with the ankle of the opposing player

Hill get's yellow, Sidwell gets red

That's football for you. In every game you will have events which would be dealt with differently by another referee. It is something you need to learn to accept. For me the only question that matters is: are the red cards for Sidwell correct? Both were, in my view. And there it ends.