I'm glad he got a long ban, I cant stand the horrible little man. I do however question the fa on how they come to their judgements... How is racism not as bad as biting? How is deliberately going in over the top on a tackle (and we all know when its deliberate or not) and possibly ending a career not as bad as biting? And if they really do think biting is such a serious offence, why did they let Defoe walk away with a yellow card for the same offence? They have it in their powers to have punished him more but saw fit that a yellow card would suffice. I really don't understand their logic.
The punishment isn't just based on one offence though. His 'previous' has to be taken into consideration. That's how punishments (should) work.
I also think his general attitude towards the FA has contributed to the length of the ban.
He puts out a statement accepting the charge but also gave his opinion that he shouldn't receive more than 3 games. You can just imagine how this must have pissed off the powers that be....and who could blame them. Imagine criminals pleading guilty in a court of law and then giving the judge their pearls of wisdom of how much porridge they should get.
I don't see why the defoe thing is any different? He deliberately bit another player, was seen by the ref and given a yellow. How is that not similar to this? The only difference is the ref see it. Had the ref in the liverpool match seen it and given a yellow, would that have been acceptable?
Imagine criminals pleading guilty in a court of law and then giving the judge their pearls of wisdom of how much porridge they should get.
But that does happen...
In criminal cases a convicted criminal can make a plea for leniency (as can his brief) before the judge delivers a sentence and can appeal a sentence after it's handed down.
They should have given Suarez a 20 match ban and reduced it to 10 matches if he went on some kind of corrective behaviour course , what is he going to learn by having a ban , he's done it before , its built into him , will he still be able to play if he leaves Liverpool and moves abroad?
Imagine criminals pleading guilty in a court of law and then giving the judge their pearls of wisdom of how much porridge they should get.
But that does happen...
In criminal cases a convicted criminal can make a plea for leniency (as can his brief) before the judge delivers a sentence and can appeal a sentence after it's handed down.
Yeah I understand how the law works ( I've had friends who have been in trouble with the courts) But defoe didn't have to go in front beak he was dealt with by the man in the middle on the day... I think 10 games is about right but my point is defoes was worth 7... The same as suarez got for his first offence.
Cheers BFR , the guy has moments of sublime quality , but he is a complete nutter completely lacking in self control , if he wasn't a footballer you could see him in a gang getting banged up inside.
I'm glad he got a long ban, I cant stand the horrible little man. I do however question the fa on how they come to their judgements... How is racism not as bad as biting? How is deliberately going in over the top on a tackle (and we all know when its deliberate or not) and possibly ending a career not as bad as biting? And if they really do think biting is such a serious offence, why did they let Defoe walk away with a yellow card for the same offence? They have it in their powers to have punished him more but saw fit that a yellow card would suffice. I really don't understand their logic.
I agree, although the issue is more that Defoe was not punished severely enough, rather than Suarez getting a harsh punishment.
Personally I'd prefer to see something like a minimum 6 match ban for violent conduct and serious foul play, with the length of ban being increased for repeat offenders or really nasty stuff.
The FA always has been inconsistent on these sorts of things though and often are a bit knee-jerk in their reaction based on media/public opinion.
Not while he was banned - allegedly QPR hit on the idea of loaning him to a club in France who had more games scheduled than they had with the intention that his ban would be used up quickly. In the end he served his ban and then went to Marseille.
I'm glad he got a long ban, I cant stand the horrible little man. I do however question the fa on how they come to their judgements... How is racism not as bad as biting? How is deliberately going in over the top on a tackle (and we all know when its deliberate or not) and possibly ending a career not as bad as biting? And if they really do think biting is such a serious offence, why did they let Defoe walk away with a yellow card for the same offence? They have it in their powers to have punished him more but saw fit that a yellow card would suffice. I really don't understand their logic.
I agree, although the issue is more that Defoe was not punished severely enough, rather than Suarez getting a harsh punishment.
Personally I'd prefer to see something like a minimum 6 match ban for violent conduct and serious foul play, with the length of ban being increased for repeat offenders or really nasty stuff.
The FA always has been inconsistent on these sorts of things though and often are a bit knee-jerk in their reaction based on media/public opinion.
That's been my point! I'm not defending or saying suarez has been hard done by, I just cant see how they can justify giving defoe a yellow card for the same offence. I think he should just accept it and move on. But If I was on their legal team I would say we can get off of this. Even in a court of law you can bring up previous cases where a lesser sentence has been given. The fa would struggle to explain why they thought a yellow was sufficient for defoe but a 10 match ban was needed for suarez.
I take your point - from what I can see the FA have no set punisment for "biting" it is classified as violent conduct and dealt with accordingly.
Perhaps they need to introduce a punlishment specifically for biting with set penalties - say 7 matches first offence, ten for a second etc. That should remove any debate.
Defoes was over 6 years ago. Yes a bite took place but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as what Saurez did. It was a petulant nip after being hacked down from behind. Both players were booked. Whereas the one on Sunday was off the ball and a 10 game ban is the least he deserves.
They were both bites but not nearly to the same degree.
That's been my point! I'm not defending or saying suarez has been hard done by, I just cant see how they can justify giving defoe a yellow card for the same offence..
This is a separate issue regarding the ridiculous way that if a ref has seen something in a match and done something about it then they can't retrospectively change it. As the ref gave Defoe a yellow card, under their own rules, they can't then extend the ban and review the case.
Of course that is a crazy rule and needs to be changed, as this case highlights, but it doesn't highlight inconsistency on the FA's part. Defoe's bite was spotted and awarded a yellow card. Suarez's wasn't and therefore within their rules they can do what they want.
I think 10 matches is appropriate and I've been enjoying the scouser's ringing up and moaning on Talksport tonight. A lot seem to be comparing this to how it would work in a court of law. Firstly - the FA is a private body and the legal system is irrelevant. Secondly, scousers do seem to know a lot about criminal law it appears. If Suarez had got done for nicking car stereos on the field of play then they'd know exactly what the usual punishment is.
They need to just have a panel that looks at all evidence from incidents every weekend or midweek and if the ref hasn't dealt with it punish accordingly
A lot can change in 7 years. Stop using Defoe as the yard stick for Suarez, different leadership in the FA means the punishment was never going to be the same for both.
Defoes was over 6 years ago. Yes a bite took place but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as what Saurez did. It was a petulant nip after being hacked down from behind. Both players were booked. Whereas the one on Sunday was off the ball and a 10 game ban is the least he deserves.
They were both bites but not nearly to the same degree.
We can't have different degrees of biting, that's just stupid. If you bite someone, you bite them! we cant judge it on how far you opened your mouth.
They need to just have a panel that looks at all evidence from incidents every weekend or midweek and if the ref hasn't dealt with it punish accordingly
That's been my point! I'm not defending or saying suarez has been hard done by, I just cant see how they can justify giving defoe a yellow card for the same offence..
This is a separate issue regarding the ridiculous way that if a ref has seen something in a match and done something about it then they can't retrospectively change it. As the ref gave Defoe a yellow card, under their own rules, they can't then extend the ban and review the case.
Of course that is a crazy rule and needs to be changed, as this case highlights, but it doesn't highlight inconsistency on the FA's part. Defoe's bite was spotted and awarded a yellow card. Suarez's wasn't and therefore within their rules they can do what they want.
I think 10 matches is appropriate and I've been enjoying the scouser's ringing up and moaning on Talksport tonight. A lot seem to be comparing this to how it would work in a court of law. Firstly - the FA is a private body and the legal system is irrelevant. Secondly, scousers do seem to know a lot about criminal law it appears. If Suarez had got done for nicking car stereos on the field of play then they'd know exactly what the usual punishment is.
Nothing is irrelevant from the legal system if you want to push it far enough. You can go to the european court of human rights if you think you have been unfairly punished.... I'm not saying that will happen I'm just saying the fa isn't above the law.
If it ever happens that in-game video evidence can be used for anything the ref dont see, then surely no one will ever get more than a 3 match ban? If the ref deals with it on the day then nothing more will be done ala defoe. If on the day suarez owned up to the ref and said "yes I did bite him, and the ref sent him off. Would any more action have been taken?
They should have given Suarez a 20 match ban and reduced it to 10 matches if he went on some kind of corrective behaviour course , what is he going to learn by having a ban , he's done it before , its built into him , will he still be able to play if he leaves Liverpool and moves abroad?
Na, he should be forced to face Ivanisovic in a UFC cage fight.
Now considering his future in English football apparently. See ya.......
ps there is also the 'Bringing the game into disrepute' charge which they (the F.A.) could have used if they really wanted. that just about covers anything and everything they don't like.
Totally over the top. The FA are making fools of themselves. 10 games for a bite (which didn't break the skin) yest players who give carrer threatening challenges such as Macmannaman, nasri and Augero get away scot free. Yes he should have been banned but something more like double the normal 3 ie 6 would have more apprpiate. And then used the blatant video evidence to give a serious ban to the others.
Totally over the top. The FA are making fools of themselves. 10 games for a bite (which didn't break the skin) yest players who give carrer threatening challenges such as Macmannaman, nasri and Augero get away scot free. Yes he should have been banned but something more like double the normal 3 ie 6 would have more apprpiate. And then used the blatant video evidence to give a serious ban to the others.
Unfair comparison. The day a player makes a bad tackle like that one and admits he did it deliberately, publicly, is the day you can make a fair comparison. Suarez owned up, apologised, was fined and gave his fine to a 'charity'........all good stuff from Liverpool and all with the agenda of trying to make the FA go easy. It was a disgusting and deliberate act, to which the player confessed. 10 games is fair. Personally I hope Liverpool sell him.......he has no place in the Liverpool football culture.
They should have given Suarez a 20 match ban and reduced it to 10 matches if he went on some kind of corrective behaviour course , what is he going to learn by having a ban , he's done it before , its built into him , will he still be able to play if he leaves Liverpool and moves abroad?
Na, he should be forced to face Ivanisovic in a UFC cage fight.
I don't see how dragging retired Croatian tennis players into this is gonna take it forward.
Comments
He puts out a statement accepting the charge but also gave his opinion that he shouldn't receive more than 3 games. You can just imagine how this must have pissed off the powers that be....and who could blame them.
Imagine criminals pleading guilty in a court of law and then giving the judge their pearls of wisdom of how much porridge they should get.
It shows that the fa are inconsistant out dated and out of touch
The rules need changing or they should get their story straight
But that does happen...
In criminal cases a convicted criminal can make a plea for leniency (as can his brief) before the judge delivers a sentence and can appeal a sentence after it's handed down.
No...
An FA ban will be upheld wherever he goes.
Personally I'd prefer to see something like a minimum 6 match ban for violent conduct and serious foul play, with the length of ban being increased for repeat offenders or really nasty stuff.
The FA always has been inconsistent on these sorts of things though and often are a bit knee-jerk in their reaction based on media/public opinion.
Defoe
Suarez
Thatcher
Barton etc is to take football away from them for long periods
Didnt barton get a ban but still play in france
Not while he was banned - allegedly QPR hit on the idea of loaning him to a club in France who had more games scheduled than they had with the intention that his ban would be used up quickly. In the end he served his ban and then went to Marseille.
Perhaps they need to introduce a punlishment specifically for biting with set penalties - say 7 matches first offence, ten for a second etc. That should remove any debate.
They were both bites but not nearly to the same degree.
Of course that is a crazy rule and needs to be changed, as this case highlights, but it doesn't highlight inconsistency on the FA's part. Defoe's bite was spotted and awarded a yellow card. Suarez's wasn't and therefore within their rules they can do what they want.
I think 10 matches is appropriate and I've been enjoying the scouser's ringing up and moaning on Talksport tonight. A lot seem to be comparing this to how it would work in a court of law. Firstly - the FA is a private body and the legal system is irrelevant. Secondly, scousers do seem to know a lot about criminal law it appears. If Suarez had got done for nicking car stereos on the field of play then they'd know exactly what the usual punishment is.
Also Rooney got sent off and yet the fa used lawyers to challenge the ban if I remember rightly
They also chose not to punish shearer for kicking Lennon in the head
The fa is not fit for purpose with these issues
Can u tell em this as well. Get then the ref who was actually in charge of the game to bein charge be part of the subsequent review
As long as the discussions in the review are kept partially confidential, i think this would ne a good idea
Because there may have been a valid reason why the ref missed the full severity of the incident at full speed/real time
ps there is also the 'Bringing the game into disrepute' charge which they (the F.A.) could have used if they really wanted. that just about covers anything and everything they don't like.
Yes he should have been banned but something more like double the normal 3 ie 6 would have more apprpiate. And then used the blatant video evidence to give a serious ban to the others.