Different FAs though so they're not allowed to take it in to consideration. Even Samuel Martin and Ollie Holt think it's ridiculous, which is really saying something. He should be banned, but 10 games is just off the wall, and there's no justification for it. I reckon we'll appeal, and it will get reduced to 7/8. Hope we fight it, cos we're just weak if we don't and means everyone can take the piss out of us. The second time in 18 months the FA have shafted Liverpool. It's just a populist decision, so they're not seen as weak. Wouldn't mind if they did this all the time, but they don't.

No, it's the second time since he's been at the club that Suarez has let Liverpool down.

No, it's the second time since he's been at the club that Suarez has let Liverpool down.

 

And in both cases Liverpool have been well and truly shafted by the FA because they have no idea what to do. He's let us down, but both times he's been made an example of. I'm not getting in to the racism debate again.

 

Even John Cross is speaking sense, infact, most of the tabloid journalists are for once. Ridiculous doesn't cut it.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/new...striker-1852083

And in both cases Liverpool have been well and truly shafted by the FA because they have no idea what to do. He's let us down, but both times he's been made an example of. I'm not getting in to the racism debate again.

 

Even John Cross is speaking sense, infact, most of the tabloid journalists are for once. Ridiculous doesn't cut it.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/new...striker-1852083

If anyone in a normal job bit somebody from a rival company, they would expect to be sacked.

If anyone in a normal job bit somebody from a rival company, they would expect to be sacked.

 

Same for when you elbow/headbut/stamp/ etc. - works both ways. Not saying he shouldn't be punished, but it's ridiculous for there to be 10 games. It says something when the media that were baying for blood 2/3 days ago, are now looking at the situation logically and questioning the FA's methods. Biting someone is clearly more serious than racism or GHB! Like I said earlier, I expect us to appeal and for it to be reduced/a few of the games to be suspended.

Personally, I thought Aguero's attack was worse!

Different FAs though so they're not allowed to take it in to consideration.

Officially, no. But quite rightly they've clearly looked at it, it's insane that there's no greater coordination between FAs on things like this.

Officially, no. But quite rightly they've clearly looked at it, it's insane that there's no greater coordination between FAs on things like this.

 

Yeah they've banned the perpetrator and not the offence. Fellani only got a 3 game ban for repeatedly headbutting someone for violent conduct. Wasn't the first time he'd been banned for that either. I'd have no complaints if the FA were consistent, but journalists and Liverpool are quite rightly questioning the FA on this one because there is no way this was an independent trial, not with the most senior politician in the country wading in. The documents are apparently released to the public tomorrow, so they will be interesting reading.

Suarez deserves the ban he got. It may not be particularly consistant with previous FA bans but much like the UK's legal system and different judge's rulings these cases are all subjective and if you ask me some players have got off lightly recently so I'm pleased to see a punishment that befits the crime for once.

 

Suarez is as bad as Barton. In fact he's worse as he has so much more talent and needed resort to this kind of behaviour. He may even have psychological issues. I suggest he uses his time off wisely

 

He's also currently under investigation for punching another player during an international game for Uruguay

Suarez deserves the ban he got. It may not be particularly consistant with previous FA bans but much like the UK's legal system and different judge's rulings these cases are all subjective and if you ask me some players have got off lightly recently so I'm pleased to see a punishment that befits the crime for once.

 

Suarez is as bad as Barton. In fact he's worse as he has so much more talent and needed resort to this kind of behaviour. He may even have psychological issues. I suggest he uses his time off wisely

 

He's also currently under investigation for punching another player during an international game for Uruguay

 

You've just proved my point exactly. The FA have been (rightly) slaughtered for not acting, so Suarez comes along, who everyone bar Liverpool fans dislikes and whack him a 10 game ban. Everyone's already forgotten about Sergio Aguero, the West Brom player who spat at another player/fan (can't remember), and Callum McManaman. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, was anyone's career ended? Was anyone hurt? He bit him, which was unacceptable. 4/5 games suffices, not 10. He's never been sent off and doesn't have a history in England of violent conduct. It's why there's been so many articles in the press today actually sticking up for Suarez, because they realise he's just been made an example of.

 

Does anyone really think this ban will stop him from doing something else? I don't. Having a suspended sentence (even 10 games) and having a 4/5 ban would be much more appropriate.

You've just proved my point exactly. The FA have been (rightly) slaughtered for not acting, so Suarez comes along, who everyone bar Liverpool fans dislikes and whack him a 10 game ban. Everyone's already forgotten about Sergio Aguero, the West Brom player who spat at another player/fan (can't remember), and Callum McManaman. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, was anyone's career ended? Was anyone hurt? He bit him, which was unacceptable. 4/5 games suffices, not 10. He's never been sent off and doesn't have a history in England of violent conduct. It's why there's been so many articles in the press today actually sticking up for Suarez, because they realise he's just been made an example of.

 

Does anyone really think this ban will stop him from doing something else? I don't. Having a suspended sentence (even 10 games) and having a 4/5 ban would be much more appropriate.

I both agree and disagree with you.

 

The FA got the punishment right this time. Just because previous bans and fines were too weak it doesn't stop this one being right. I've always felt 3 games was too lenient for violent conduct. Bad tackles and red cards are fine a 1 game. Mistakes happen. Intentional violent conduct doesn't belong on a football field and I believe previous transgressions (violent or otherwise) should be considered when handing out punishment (although I'm not specifically referring to the Evra incident here). Receive a ban and you should be on a 'good behaviour' bond for a set duration

I both agree and disagree with you.

 

The FA got the punishment right this time. Just because previous bans and fines were too weak it doesn't stop this one being right. I've always felt 3 games was too lenient for violent conduct. Bad tackles and red cards are fine a 1 game. Mistakes happen. Intentional violent conduct doesn't belong on a football field and I believe previous transgressions (violent or otherwise) should be considered when handing out punishment (although I'm not specifically referring to the Evra incident here). Receive a ban and you should be on a 'good behaviour' bond for a set duration

 

For the severity of the crime, there is no justice. 10 games is absurd. It should be half of that, 6 at absolute most. I wouldn't have any complaints if this was in line with previous punishments, but it's not. It's judged to be worse than Ben Thatcher, and one of the worst incidents to happen in English football. Worse than racism Quite rightly the Chairman of the Kick It Out campaign has had his say too.

 

Everyone can agree it was absurd, but 10 games really. I'm sure Aaron Ramsey sleeps well and night knowing Ryan Shawcross got a 3 game ban and ruined his career, yet Suarez gets 10 games for biting somebody. There's not even a rehabilitation programme set out by the FA here. Everyone's waded in with their opinion and they've given him 10 games. I can't wait to see how they justify it. Right now they just look like idiots. The mass are appeased of course, because of the populist decision.

 

It's no win though really. We'll look silly if we don't appeal after the comments made today, but I have this gut feeling now that we won't appeal.

 

For the severity of the crime, there is no justice. 10 games is absurd. It should be half of that, 6 at absolute most. I wouldn't have any complaints if this was in line with previous punishments, but it's not. It's judged to be worse than Ben Thatcher, and one of the worst incidents to happen in English football. Worse than racism Quite rightly the Chairman of the Kick It Out campaign has had his say too.

 

Everyone can agree it was absurd, but 10 games really. I'm sure Aaron Ramsey sleeps well and night knowing Ryan Shawcross got a 3 game ban and ruined his career, yet Suarez gets 10 games for biting somebody. There's not even a rehabilitation programme set out by the FA here. Everyone's waded in with their opinion and they've given him 10 games. I can't wait to see how they justify it. Right now they just look like idiots. The mass are appeased of course, because of the populist decision.

 

It's no win though really. We'll look silly if we don't appeal after the comments made today, but I have this gut feeling now that we won't appeal.

I don't see why you bothered quoting that post when you completely ignored everything he said.

I don't see why you bothered quoting that post when you completely ignored everything he said.

 

Because the FA also completely ignored it. Earlier in the thread you said how can you compare racism, and biting someone? Well the FA did that. That's the only logical conclusion. If the points Severin made were actually used by the FA, we wouldn't be in this situation we're in.

 

Just because the FA messed up previously, it does not make it alright to hand out a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. Suarez was charged for violent conduct. 3 games is the usual. I'll accept an extra 1/2 for the exceptional circumstances. But Suarez doesn't have a history of violent conduct in England.

The Suarez punishment is fully deserved. He's been banned for the same thing before so you'd expect it to be longer this time (albeit that under a different FA) and he's committed a serious offence in the not too distant past, again you'd expect it to be a more lengthy ban this time around.

 

Exactly right. Anyway it isn't even violent conduct, it is much more serious than that - he's lucky that no charge of Common Assault or ABH was brought against him and it is ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED that he gets a 10-game ban for it. Anyone other than overly-biased Liverpool supporters can clearly see that.

Exactly right. Anyway it isn't even violent conduct, it is much more serious than that - he's lucky that no charge of Common Assault or ABH was brought against him and it is ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED that he gets a 10-game ban for it. Anyone other than overly-biased Liverpool supporters can clearly see that.

 

It would have been common assault. Not ABH. But it was violent conduct he was charged with, nothing more, nothing less. What's stamping on someone? Spitting at a player? Headbutting, elbowing and punching someone in one game? Why are people not clambering for ABH charges here?

 

Sorry, I admit I'm biased but I'm also looking at this logically. Most Premier League managers and journalists also share the same view I have. The punishment does not it the crime. The 10 games is just to make an example of him, for their past endeavors. If John Terry bit someone on Saturday do you think he'd also get a 10 game ban. I know what my answer is.

You're under the illusion that another player is likely to. It's been six and a half years since a similar incident in the PL and in that time Suarez has done it twice. He's not driven, he's a lunatic.

You're under the illusion that another player is likely to. It's been six and a half years since a similar incident in the PL and in that time Suarez has done it twice. He's not driven, he's a lunatic.

 

He's done it once in the Premier League. Might I remind everyone that Jermaine Defoe got away with no punishment. The only difference is one is Defoe and one is Suarez. Okay so what is John Terry stamped on someone. Would he get a 10 game ban also? No of course not. This is the same organisation that gives the big front for racism, but when our own fans are accused of singing racist songs they turn a blind eye.

 

A moron yes, but one with a driven mentality. I wish the rest of the Liverpool squad had the same mentality, albeit without the biting!

 

He's a moron, but

It would have been common assault. Not ABH. But it was violent conduct he was charged with, nothing more, nothing less. What's stamping on someone? Spitting at a player? Headbutting, elbowing and punching someone in one game? Why are people not clambering for ABH charges here?

 

Sorry, I admit I'm biased but I'm also looking at this logically. Most Premier League managers and journalists also share the same view I have. The punishment does not it the crime. The 10 games is just to make an example of him, for their past endeavors. If John Terry bit someone on Saturday do you think he'd also get a 10 game ban. I know what my answer is.

 

Terry wouldn't get a 10 game ban because he hasn't bit someone in the past, though he is a racist so has something in common with Suarez.

 

Spitting at a player is not common assault - it's disgusting but it isn't really assault. Stamping and head-butting are unacceptable and should receive bans, the length of which is dependent upon how violent their behaviour has been in the past. Ok, Zidane only got a 3 match ban, but he had retired anyway so it wasn't like it was going to make any difference how long the ban was and he was unduly provoked quite badly.

Suarez deserves the ban he got. It may not be particularly consistant with previous FA bans but much like the UK's legal system and different judge's rulings these cases are all subjective and if you ask me some players have got off lightly recently so I'm pleased to see a punishment that befits the crime for once.

 

Suarez is as bad as Barton. In fact he's worse as he has so much more talent and needed resort to this kind of behaviour. He may even have psychological issues. I suggest he uses his time off wisely

 

He's also currently under investigation for punching another player during an international game for Uruguay

That would be the Joey Barton who was given a 12 game ban with very few complaints.

Terry wouldn't get a 10 game ban because he hasn't bit someone in the past, though he is a racist so has something in common with Suarez.

 

Spitting at a player is not common assault - it's disgusting but it isn't really assault. Stamping and head-butting are unacceptable and should receive bans, the length of which is dependent upon how violent their behaviour has been in the past. Ok, Zidane only got a 3 match ban, but he had retired anyway so it wasn't like it was going to make any difference how long the ban was and he was unduly provoked quite badly.

 

The Dutch FA is out of the English FA's jurisdiction. They can't use that incident against him. Also if we're getting technical, despite what you may read, Suarez was never officially charged with being racist. At least not to the same degree John Terry was. You're also suggesting Suarez has a history of violent behaviour in the Premier League, which he doesn't might I add.

 

I would have no problem with what you are saying but this isn't the case. Let's use a recent example first. Fellaini has been sent off multiple times in his Everton career and was charged by the FA earlier in the season for several incidents with Ryan Shawcross (I suggest you Google if you don't already know the case). All violent conduct charge might I add. The end result? 3 games. No Tom, Dick or Harry was getting involved in that case, even though it was a far more serious offence.

 

Going back later let's use the Roy Keane example shall we. He admitted ENDING a player's career. He got 3 games when he actually did the tackle, and then got 5 more when he gloated about it in his autobiography. Keane had a history of violent conduct, yet this wasn't used against him.