10 games for suarez

[God The Mechanic]

Some Liverpool fans are suggesting they loan him out o a club that plays during the summer so he serves the ban over there.  Would be hilarious if they could, but I can't imagine it would really be worth all the hassle and reputation damage that would come with it.

[Cravenawin]

Some Liverpool fans are suggesting they loan him out o a club that plays during the summer so he serves the ban over there.  Would be hilarious if they could, but I can't imagine it would really be worth all the hassle and reputation damage that would come with it.
Would be worth it if he suffered a serious injury (cruciate maybe, a broken leg is a bit harsh!) and missed the whole of next season. Now that would really get under the scouters skin.

[Northern Cottager]

Liverpool have gone even further down the credibility list in my eyes after this. He bit someone, not even for the first time AND after he received 8 games for another offence amongst other stupid things he's done over here. YET they believe he is hard done too. They never are the ones at fault, always the victims.

Essentially I'ts is assault and if I walked down the road with a previous conviction and bit someone I'd expect a lengthier sentence than the first time I did it or another offense. Can't stand that ridiculous club.

[licker]

Patrice Evra


Patrice Evra Mocks Luis Suarez By Biting Fake Arm 22/04/2013 [HD]

[LordNelson]

I'm really missing ole Finnster right now.  I know he would be enjoying this to no end!!   9739.gif

[YankeeJim]

I'm really missing ole Finnster right now.  I know he would be enjoying this to no end!!   9739.gif

Amen to that. I'm not sure if he hated scousers before the Falkland's but there certainly was no love lost since. I just miss the guy.

Not to many have been over to the "not good enough to be over here board" to note their respects of late.  063.gif

[HatterDon]

I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.

You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..

Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.

I hope this is tongue in cheek.

It's not

Wow.

Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.

[Travers Barney]

Sturridges shocking cowardly challenge on Bertrand should provoke similar anger in my opinion...I like Jamie Carragher but had he condemned that incident in his recent comments on the suarez issue they would be viewed in a more positive way.

coyw

[Jimpav]

Cringeworthy comments from Brendan Rogers.

For any of you who are not native to the UK then I would like to assure you that Suarez behaviour is not typical of this country - people do bite each other, racially abuse their colleagues and insult their paying customers.

This somehow makes me doubt that he has "worked tirelessly to fit in".

From the BBC...

"The boy has worked tirelessly to fit in to the life in this country," said Rodgers. "He has made a mistake and has got a sanction we don't believe fits what he did.
"He loves this country and loves being here. It's arguable he won't have a better season but he has still had that scrutiny and criticism.
"It was too severe for what he's done and that will make you think. At the moment there's shock and anger but when he is a bit more reflective, a sense of reality will set in. He knows the support he will get here, from the management, from the players and the fans, and that will always make him think differently. At this moment he will feel low because of the sanction that's been put on his action.
"Having spoken a lot to him, he is visibly very disappointed. I look in his face and for the first time I can see a genuine guy who is disappointed. It will take time for him to reflect and understand why others have never been punished.
"For us it is a case of supporting him. He is still very much part of our family and very much part of our future. He is very important for us going forward in order to succeed."
When asked what length of ban he was hoping for, Rodgers replied: "I knew it was maybe going to be three games.
"It could have been 12 with six suspended. That shows and tells the player it's unacceptable what he did and everyone knows that but you have to put the carrot in front of the player to help him improve his behaviour and help with the rehabilitation and this has only been punishment.
"There's been no thought of rehabilitation unless something dramatic comes up in the report that tells me otherwise. It's a straight 10 games."

[The Bronsons]

Cringeworthy comments from Brendan Rogers.

"I look in his face and for the first time I can see a genuine guy who is disappointed."

Brendan Rodgers having trouble with his adjectives. Only a Martian could describe a player who is constantly cheating, fouling, faking, diving, niggling, nipping and biting as "genuine".

[licker]

 I assume he will still be getting paid by the club while he is banned, so off you go to Uruquay and enjoy yourself lad, see you next season.

Games missed at this stage of the season are a welcome rest,  and the players just want to pack their suitcases and fly off to the sunshine and sand.

Should have been sentenced to remain in his football kit and paraded around Stamford Bridge in a dog collar and doglead for the next ten games, custard pies and bad tomatoes issued free at the turnstiles for the 40,000 supporters.
Anything else is just a holiday for him.

He's a wonderful footballer, but a nasty little human being.

[FFC1987]

I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.

You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..

Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.

I hope this is tongue in cheek.

It's not

Wow.

Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.

It's a pedantic argument. Period.

[Logicalman]

I assume he will still be getting paid by the club while he is banned, so off you go to Uruquay and enjoy yourself lad, see you next season.

Games missed at this stage of the season are a welcome rest,  and the players just want to pack their suitcases and fly off to the sunshine and sand.

Should have been sentenced to remain in his football kit and paraded around Stamford Bridge in a dog collar and doglead for the next ten games, custard pies and bad tomatoes issued free at the turnstiles for the 40,000 supporters.
Anything else is just a holiday for him.

He's a wonderful footballer, but a nasty little human being.

Totally agree mate, and good to see you back here.

How are things and how is life treating you? Expecting 3 points this weekend, eh? LOL 

Don't be a stranger, eh.

[BarryP]

I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.

You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..

Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.

I hope this is tongue in cheek.

It's not

Wow.

Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.

It's a pedantic argument. Period.

I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.

[FFC1987]

I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.

You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..

Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.

I hope this is tongue in cheek.

It's not

Wow.

Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.

It's a pedantic argument. Period.

I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.

Good for you. I don't. I think it takes away the whole perspective of the argument over the inconsistency of the FA. To say bites are worse than racism because we apply 'perspective' because one can spread diseases is very pedantic in my eyes. I might rephrase 'worse than' by saying is in comparsion but what's the point, I might get a scratch at my next game and get a blood transferable disease to pass away. Kick scratches out of football immediately!!! We can all be pedantic.

[BarryP]

I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.

You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..

Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.

I hope this is tongue in cheek.

It's not

Wow.

Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.

It's a pedantic argument. Period.

I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.

Good for you. I don't. I think it takes away the whole perspective of the argument over the inconsistency of the FA. To say bites are worse than racism because we apply 'perspective' because one can spread diseases is very pedantic in my eyes. I might rephrase 'worse than' by saying is in comparsion but what's the point, I might get a scratch at my next game and get a blood transferable disease to pass away. Kick scratches out of football immediately!!! We can all be pedantic.

If you tell me the scratch was premeditated and intentiontal I will tell you it deserves a longer ban than something that happened accidently in the flow of the match. This is not pedantic in my eyes and elevates a physical assault above the level of a verbal assault.  I will draw that distinction every time.

[FFC1987]

I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.

You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..

Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.

I hope this is tongue in cheek.

It's not

Wow.

Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.

It's a pedantic argument. Period.

I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.

Good for you. I don't. I think it takes away the whole perspective of the argument over the inconsistency of the FA. To say bites are worse than racism because we apply 'perspective' because one can spread diseases is very pedantic in my eyes. I might rephrase 'worse than' by saying is in comparsion but what's the point, I might get a scratch at my next game and get a blood transferable disease to pass away. Kick scratches out of football immediately!!! We can all be pedantic.

If you tell me the scratch was premeditated and intentiontal I will tell you it deserves a longer ban than something that happened accidently in the flow of the match. This is not pedantic in my eyes and elevates a physical assault above the level of a verbal assault.  I will draw that distinction every time.

Thankfully the only people who tend to agree with you are the FA. I think it's generally accepted that Racism is rife and needs immediate attention over biting/scratching/intentionally hurting someone bearing in mind its a physical game and the sporatic nature in which these events occur (like biting, headbutting and punching.)

[DJinNJ]

Anyone who thinks this is about the transmission of diseases is living on a different planet. The issue is that unprovoked biting is, for whatever reasons, seen as socially unacceptable more than dangerous (does this really need to be pointed out?). The bite itself posed very little threat to Ivanovic, the issue is what does it say about the person who bit him, and what other things that person might do with or without provocation. Yes, precautions should be taken as a matter of course, but as FFC1987 says, it's just pedantic to suggest that that is the issue here. If anything, suggesting disease is the issue lessens the offense because a) he apparently didn't break the skin and b) he probably doesn't have any serious disease and therefore knew he wouldn't pass anything on to the person he was biting. So from the point of view that Suarez should be punished for risking Ivanovic's health, there really seems little reason to punish him at all.

[EJL]

Brendan Rodgers has been brainwashed.

[HatterDon]

I think it's an unjustifed ban personally. Far too lengthy considering what pitiful bans given for racism and serious bodily injury bans (punches, head butts and career threatening two footed challenges). Yes it shows what a horrible human being Suarez is and the ban might reflect his reputation but I can't get over the fact you get 10 matches for banning someone and barely anything for racially abusing someone. I'd like some consistency, if it means the next ban for racism/head butts etc are given far greater bans than so be it. However I'm very happy he won't be playing against us.

You beat me to it FFC1987. I completely agree. I can't believe that this has got a longer ban than his racism. The only way the FA could defend it is by saying that they considered his past misdemeanours in this ban and that is why it is longer. I'm not saying 10 games isn't right for this incident but the ban for racism should have been much worse. In fact, if he had any other job i'm sure he would have been instantly sacked..

Well, let's have a little perspective here. Blood-borne diseases can't be transmitted via racism.

I hope this is tongue in cheek.

It's not

Wow.

Go back to page three of this thread and look at the first couple of sentences of Forever Fulham's post.
I can't believe there are people who don't know this.

It's a pedantic argument. Period.

I find the explanation to be right on point and not the least bit pedantic.

Good for you. I don't. I think it takes away the whole perspective of the argument over the inconsistency of the FA. To say bites are worse than racism because we apply 'perspective' because one can spread diseases is very pedantic in my eyes. I might rephrase 'worse than' by saying is in comparsion but what's the point, I might get a scratch at my next game and get a blood transferable disease to pass away. Kick scratches out of football immediately!!! We can all be pedantic.

If you tell me the scratch was premeditated and intentiontal I will tell you it deserves a longer ban than something that happened accidently in the flow of the match. This is not pedantic in my eyes and elevates a physical assault above the level of a verbal assault.  I will draw that distinction every time.

Thankfully the only people who tend to agree with you are the FA. I think it's generally accepted that Racism is rife and needs immediate attention over biting/scratching/intentionally hurting someone bearing in mind its a physical game and the sporatic nature in which these events occur (like biting, headbutting and punching.)

I'm sure that there are other grown ups around who think so as well.