10 games for suarez

[YankeeJim]

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.

:plus one:
If your coming after me please use words instead of a physical assault. Us old fat guys can't fight as well as we use to but the brain still works. Well, sort of. 

[Logicalman]

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.)

.. Quite obviously you haven't read other posts on this thread that tend to agree with the FA as well, mine included (page 2), whereby I believe that a physical injury to myself that might cause me to miss playing is worse that being hurt by someone calling me a white honky, or other epithet of similar standing.

[Forever Fulham]

No one is disagreeing that biting is socially unacceptable as well as an unnecessary health hazard.  It's despicable.  Biting, spitting, and head butting.  Yuck.   Ivanovic should have punched him, hard.  He clearly showed more restraint than I could have mustered.  
Racism is also deplorable.  And if anyone mistook my hasty earlier entry to suggest otherwise, then I apologize.  It wasn't what I meant in the slightest.  But we are all human, and we all engage in relative ranking or weighting of types of behaviour.  Good, bad, the worst.  Players have brought the prejudices they grew up with to the fields they play on in every sport.  Catholics/Protestants/Jews/Muslims/Blacks/Homosexuals/[fill in the hated group of your choice here].  We hope for a better world, and we make strides every decade, but belief systems learned at an early age are hard to shake, especially when you've just had your ankle turned by someone who doesn't look like you, right after you've come back from three weeks of rehab.  So you say something stupid, anything, lashing out in pain and anger.  Now you've done it.  I excuse that kind of heat-of-the-moment outburst among men on the field of battle.  My God, have you ever heard what American football players say to one another at the scrimmage line before and after the ball is snapped?!  Basketball players talk smack.  Off the field or court, they go have dinner together.  A lot of it is posturing and for effect; little, I think, is heart felt.  But biting?  Not done.  Just not done.  Now we can get into a big discussion about the difficulty between determining types of racial comments on the pitch by and between players.  There will certainly be those who will argue that it is NEVER appropriate under any circumstances to call attention to differences in appearance, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so on.  That it is always presumptively hurtful and demeaning.  There are those who will say, 'nonsense, get a life, real racism (or whatever) is like pornography--you can't always defined it, but you know it when you see it.'  Maybe that takes some hair splitting, but I know it when I see it or hear it.  But biting is always just biting.  Now I stand ready for your collective abuse.

[licker]

Good post FF.

[FFC1987]

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.)

.. Quite obviously you haven't read other posts on this thread that tend to agree with the FA as well, mine included (page 2), whereby I believe that a physical injury to myself that might cause me to miss playing is worse that being hurt by someone calling me a white honky, or other epithet of similar standing.

You'd have a very valid point here which I ha e openly agreed with you on, rash intentional Career threatening challenges but unfortunately we are talking about what can only be described as a nibble with NO effect to Ivanovic. Was it wrong? Yes. Should a fine with this behaviour be this strong? Yes. Should acts of racism be dealt with in a similar fashion? Almost definitely. My argument was, has the FA shown consistently? Answer is No. And to state a health risk on such an occasion is without doubt pedantic. I read your previous post of course however like others in this debate I chose to ignore because it was either clutching at straws (blood transferable) or irrelevant ( in your case stating an action of career threatening behaviour be more concerning than social racism) being non applicable in an instance where really, it will NEVER cause serious injury. Ban a scratches out of football.

[Matt Inglis]

I am very, very worried about the Liverpool game after what they did to Newcastle yesterday.

[Forever Fulham]

I don't even recognize Newcastle any more.  I thought Pardew was the real deal, too.  Maybe I was fooled.  They were awful at all positions.  Liverpool wont' repeat that performance against better teams, and Fulham is playing far better than Newcastle. 

[Zu-Meister]

I am very, very worried about the Liverpool game after what they did to Newcastle yesterday.

they were aided by some incredibly poor newcastle defending.

[Logicalman]

I don't even recognize Newcastle any more.  I thought Pardew was the real deal, too.  Maybe I was fooled.  They were awful at all positions.  Liverpool wont' repeat that performance against better teams, and Fulham is playing far better than Newcastle. 

Well Pardew just needed to be that real deal until the 8 year contract ink was dry. Now it'll cost Ashley a whole bunch of spondoolies to buy his contract out. Smart move by Pardew, unfortunately he will now be stuck with the Toon army as they systematically rip him a new one weekly, unless he improves.

[EJL]

I don't even recognize Newcastle any more.  I thought Pardew was the real deal, too.  Maybe I was fooled.  They were awful at all positions.  Liverpool wont' repeat that performance against better teams, and Fulham is playing far better than Newcastle.  

:yay:Well Pardew just needed to be that real deal until the 8 year contract ink was dry. Now it'll cost Ashley a whole bunch of spondoolies to buy his contract out. Smart move by Pardew, unfortunately he will now be stuck with the Toon army as they systematically rip him a new one weekly, unless he improves.

Apparently Pardew's compensation wouldn't be as extortionate as everyone imagines. Can't remember the payoff fee quoted, but I'll have another look.

[FFC1987]

I don't even recognize Newcastle any more.  I thought Pardew was the real deal, too.  Maybe I was fooled.  They were awful at all positions.  Liverpool wont' repeat that performance against better teams, and Fulham is playing far better than Newcastle. 

:yay:Well Pardew just needed to be that real deal until the 8 year contract ink was dry. Now it'll cost Ashley a whole bunch of spondoolies to buy his contract out. Smart move by Pardew, unfortunately he will now be stuck with the Toon army as they systematically rip him a new one weekly, unless he improves.

Apparently Pardew's compensation wouldn't be as extortionate as everyone imagines. Can't remember the payoff fee quoted, but I'll have another look.

I read that the maximum payout he can receive is two years salary and his salary is low in terms of market price so if anything it was a shrewd business decision by Ashley.

[somerset cockernee]

what's the odds on him going to gnawrich