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

 

Yes the same Joey Barton who has been sent off countless times, and already had three violent conduct charges to his name prior to what happened against Manchester City, where he charged with two more charges of violent conduct. That's five charges. By most people's logic in this thread he wouldn't ever be playing again.

This "out of the English FA's jurisdiction" thing is complete bollocks, so what? The incident happened and only a fool or a pedant would ignore it.

This "out of the English FA's jurisdiction" thing is complete bollocks, so what? The incident happened and only a fool or a pedant would ignore it.

 

Yeah of course they wil measured it, but they shouldn't have. Like I've said all along.. a populist measure. When you're being tried in courts, the jury are not allowed to hear past crimes about the defendant before they make their verdict

 

Might I also add what he did against PSV was far more severe yet he only got a 7 game ban.

Personally I'm not fond on the idea of previous incidents influencing a decision. An incident should be judged alone and not be based on the name of the player. I'm quite confident that if it had been Gerrard biting Ivanovic, the FA wouldn't have taken any action (or possibly 3 games at most) and there wouldn't have been as much uproar. Why is that fair?

 

I just don't see how the FA's punishment system can be seen as credible

 

Also, David Cameron commentating on Suarez setting a bad example to young children is laughable. "Oh look at these foreigners coming into our country and ruining our young children". I have a younger brother and I'm quite certain that he's not going to go around biting his friends due to the way he's been brought up. It's the responsibility of parents and not footballers to act as role models

Personally I'm not fond on the idea of previous incidents influencing a decision. An incident should be judged alone and not be based on the name of the player. I'm quite confident that if it had been Gerrard biting Ivanovic, the FA wouldn't have taken any action (or possibly 3 games at most) and there wouldn't have been as much uproar. Why is that fair?

 

I just don't see how the FA's punishment system can be seen as credible

 

Also, David Cameron commentating on Suarez setting a bad example to young children is laughable. "Oh look at these foreigners coming into our country and ruining our young children". I have a younger brother and I'm quite certain that he's not going to go around biting his friends due to the way he's been brought up. It's the responsibility of parents and not footballers to act as role models

 

Exactly, they use that excuse for everything. It's really annoying, when the main problem is bad parenting rather than other "influences".

Edited April 26, 201312 yr by Oliver

Yeah of course they wil measured it, but they shouldn't have. Like I've said all along.. a populist measure. When you're being tried in courts, the jury are not allowed to hear past crimes about the defendant before they make their verdict

 

Might I also add what he did against PSV was far more severe yet he only got a 7 game ban.

Juries do sometimes hear about past crimes - and even, on occasion, previous allegations which did not result in a conviction - after the law was changed (wrongly in my opinion but that's another matter) a few years ago. The FA did not consider his past behaviour in determining his guilt. They used it to determine the length of the ban. Courts have always been able to do the same when determining the sentence.

havent been on here for ages. sad to see bristol city go down, but we will bounce back stronger with sods team :w00t:

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.

I have nothing further to add to my opinion on Suarez. You and I simply disagree. Although I respect your opinion I can't share it.

 

However this statement about Keane is incorrect. He did admit to trying to hurt Haaland (and therefore deserved a large ban if you ask me) but he never ended his career. Haaland finished the game, played the next and several others including internationals before retiring due to longstanding problem with his other knee not the one Keane hurt.

I realise this is mere pedantry but this ongoing myth annoys me.

The FA confirmed in their report that Suarez's past behaviour was not taken into consideration, so that clears that up. 10 match ban for the biting incident alone

 

I couldn't quite take the report seriously though

 

They seem to imply that the game suspension was increased because the match was on tv and Suarez was trending worldwide on twitter at the time. Seemed to be more concerned about the brand of English football being tarnished rather than preventing the incident from occurring

I think I'm going to be sick. We aren't going to win tomorrow at all.

 

I'm going to be sitting there next Saturday stressing for 90 minutes when I should have been relaxing watching two promoted teams have a kick about.

I have nothing further to add to my opinion on Suarez. You and I simply disagree. Although I respect your opinion I can't share it.

 

However this statement about Keane is incorrect. He did admit to trying to hurt Haaland (and therefore deserved a large ban if you ask me) but he never ended his career. Haaland finished the game, played the next and several others including internationals before retiring due to longstanding problem with his other knee not the one Keane hurt.

I realise this is mere pedantry but this ongoing myth annoys me.

 

Fair enough, I respect your opinion. You make some good points I agree with, but they're never going to be taking on board until the FA has an independent watchdog, which let's face it will never happen.

 

 

The FA confirmed in their report that Suarez's past behaviour was not taken into consideration, so that clears that up. 10 match ban for the biting incident alone

 

I couldn't quite take the report seriously though

 

They seem to imply that the game suspension was increased because the match was on tv and Suarez was trending worldwide on twitter at the time. Seemed to be more concerned about the brand of English football being tarnished rather than preventing the incident from occurring

 

Well it's what I've been saying all along isn't it? They've banned the player and not the incident. Ridiculous really that Suarez has been scapegoated. What's the difference really between Liverpool vs Chelsea and Sunderland vs West Brom? They've just picked a random number. It could have been 3 or 30. Pissed off massively still, and I hope everyone that disagreed with me can at least see my logic now that it's a populist decision because it is.

 

Says something when even bloody Fergie is agreeing the ban is too harsh.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion. You make some good points I agree with, but they're never going to be taking on board until the FA has an independent watchdog, which let's face it will never happen.

Well it's what I've been saying all along isn't it? They've banned the player and not the incident. Ridiculous really that Suarez has been scapegoated. What's the difference really between Liverpool vs Chelsea and Sunderland vs West Brom? They've just picked a random number. It could have been 3 or 30. Pissed off massively still, and I hope everyone that disagreed with me can at least see my logic now that it's a populist decision because it is.

Says something when even bloody Fergie is agreeing the ban is too harsh.

I suspect his attitude would be different if it was a Man C player. He doesn't see Liverpool as a serious threat next season so the ban will make little or no difference to Man U.

I suspect his attitude would be different if it was a Man C player. He doesn't see Liverpool as a serious threat next season so the ban will make little or no difference to Man U.

 

Maybe. Or maybe he's also addressing the fact that the FA are a much of morons, which is far more likely.

I think Fergie's playing the media again. To him Liverpool are irrelevant right now. Much like when Arsenal were succesful there was no love lost between him & Wenger. The moment Arsenal faded from powerh praised the man to the hilt.

Fergie, I think actually has a lot of time for his fellow managers but he'd always as a matter of course play down a serious rival. It's basic psychology and it's been shown to work (hello Kevin Keegan).

 

In short I'd never take at face value a word he says

I think Fergie's playing the media again. To him Liverpool are irrelevant right now. Much like when Arsenal were succesful there was no love lost between him & Wenger. The moment Arsenal faded from powerh praised the man to the hilt.

Fergie, I think actually has a lot of time for his fellow managers but he'd always as a matter of course play down a serious rival. It's basic psychology and it's been shown to work (hello Kevin Keegan).

 

In short I'd never take at face value a word he says

 

I'd suspect he's been sincere in this case. We're not rivals to Manchester United domestically at the moment, and haven't been since 2009. That said what he's said is obviously true, that the FA went back on their word on the Cantona ban. But then again that shows the difference, Fergie tells the FA to screw themselves, yet Liverpool don't fight them. We've been well and truly shafted here. Fergie's probably laughing his tits off at this though. Only saving grace is we're not as bad without Suarez as you'd be led to believe.

 

Going to be well and truly hilarious is Suarez wins either the Players' Award or the Writer's Award.

Well it's what I've been saying all along isn't it? They've banned the player and not the incident. Ridiculous really that Suarez has been scapegoated. What's the difference really between Liverpool vs Chelsea and Sunderland vs West Brom? They've just picked a random number. It could have been 3 or 30. Pissed off massively still, and I hope everyone that disagreed with me can at least see my logic now that it's a populist decision because it is.

It's not at all, it's the complete opposite. Them saying they didn't take his previous into account means they didn't ban the player at all.

We're not rivals to Manchester United domestically at the moment, and haven't been since 2009.

 

I'd make that 1990. :P

The partnership of Sturridge & Coutinho worked incredibly well today - thrived off the lack of Suarez. Was great to see such a comfortable win there, and we've absolutely got another star player with Coutinho there.

 

Can't help but wonder if Pardew will be there for next season, because the fans will not take that loss lightly.

Well I was wearing rose tinted glasses there, hopefully we can finish on a good note at home. Hasn't been much to cheer at home overall this season.

And yet again I was wearing rose tinted glasses. :(

 

Suarez in the news for the wrong reasons. Is Sturridge fit enough if Suarez (as appears likely) gets a lengthy ban? Have Liverpool got enough depth in the squad for a situation like this?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22242464

Looks like the answer is yes to my question about the depth of attacking options. :lol:

It's not at all, it's the complete opposite. Them saying they didn't take his previous into account means they didn't ban the player at all.

 

Disagree completely. So in the FA's mind, this is the single worst incident in English football history. They gave him 10 games to make an example of him. The report states as much. Although they don't say why they gave him 10 games. Like I've said all along it's a populist decision to appease the mass. I'm sorry but biting somebody is not worthy of a 10 game ban. What is the difference between Suarez and the other cases in English football? Nothing is the answer.

 

I'd make that 1990. :P

 

In 2009 we'd have won the title if we had a half decent back-up striker.

 

The partnership of Sturridge & Coutinho worked incredibly well today - thrived off the lack of Suarez. Was great to see such a comfortable win there, and we've absolutely got another star player with Coutinho there.

 

Can't help but wonder if Pardew will be there for next season, because the fans will not take that loss lightly.

 

Not seen anything of the game, and as much as I love Suarez, away from home he loses us possession so much. We're not a one man team as everyone would have you believe. We need Suarez when we play like utter shit, and he creates something out of nothing.