Home
Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban.
+10
Natasha Whittam
Reebok Trotter
WhiteBic
bwfc71
gloswhite
aaron_bwfc
mark leach
Bernard Dennis Park
Keegan
Hipster_Nebula
14 posters
Go to page : 1, 2 
Message [Page 1 of 2]
2 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 15:15
Keegan
Admin
Time to change my fantasy football team then...
3 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 15:16
Bernard Dennis Park
El Hadji Diouf
Should've been 20 games imo.
4 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 15:20
mark leach
Andy Walker
The toothy twat got his just desserts.
5 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 15:22
aaron_bwfc
Moderator
Very harsh, he was obviously very hungry at the time.
6 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 18:24
gloswhite
Guðni Bergsson
Should have removed his bloody teeth ! hardly get sent off for a nast suck would ya?
7 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 18:29
bwfc71
Ivan Campo
I think all this depends what country you are from and what team you play. Biting in itself is only a yellow card offence as long as you are English. That's what Defoe got!!!
8 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 18:33
gloswhite
Guðni Bergsson
Good point !. I'd forgotten about that
9 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 18:34
gloswhite
Guðni Bergsson
Mind you, it was his second offence , was it not?
10 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 18:36
bwfc71
Ivan Campo
gloswhite wrote:Mind you, it was his second offence , was it not?
In this country, nope it is his first under the English FA, therefore any misdemeanor whilst under any other FA cannot be taken into account!
11 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 18:37
Hipster_Nebula
Nat Lofthouse
But obviously as the ref had seen the incident (Defoe) and deemed it a yellow, the FA were unable to take action.
I think I'm right in saying.
I think I'm right in saying.
12 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 18:39
bwfc71
Ivan Campo
So in fairness, biting someone is much worse than racism which John Terry only got a 6 match ban for, retrospectively!
13 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 18:41
Bernard Dennis Park
El Hadji Diouf
I'd rather be racially abused than bitten tbh.
I've been the victim of both btw.
I've been the victim of both btw.
14 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 18:46
WhiteBic
Tony Kelly
I bet he is absolutely teething
15 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 18:47
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
WhiteBic wrote:I bet he is absolutely teething
16 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 19:34
Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
bwfc71 wrote:So in fairness, biting someone is much worse than racism which John Terry only got a 6 match ban for, retrospectively!
Racism is only words, it may be offensive but it's not going to hurt you. I'd rather be racially abused than bitten by a stranger. You don't know what you might catch.
17 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 19:39
Mr Magoo
Youri Djorkaeff
Natasha Whittam wrote:bwfc71 wrote:So in fairness, biting someone is much worse than racism which John Terry only got a 6 match ban for, retrospectively!
Racism is only words, it may be offensive but it's not going to hurt you. I'd rather be racially abused than bitten by a stranger. You don't know what you might catch.
Ok then you ugly tited bloke.
18 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Wed 24 Apr - 19:39
scottjames30
Nat Lofthouse
Natasha Whittam wrote:bwfc71 wrote:So in fairness, biting someone is much worse than racism which John Terry only got a 6 match ban for, retrospectively!
Racism is only words, it may be offensive but it's not going to hurt you. I'd rather be racially abused than bitten by a stranger. You don't know what you might catch.
I don't think footballers have nasty stuff, they're like prostitutes they get checked regular .
I'd rather get bitten than get racially abused.
19 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Thu 25 Apr - 15:40
Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers believes the FA has "punished the man not the incident" by giving striker Luis Suarez a 10-match ban for biting Branislav Ivanovic.
Uruguay's Suarez, 26, admitted a charge of violent conduct after the 2-2 draw at Anfield on Sunday.
Rodgers told LFC TV: "The punishment is against the man, rather than the incident.
"We have a punishment with no intention of helping [his] rehabilitation."
Liverpool have until 12:00 BST on Friday to appeal, but will be without Suarez until late September if the FA upholds its verdict.
"We are shocked and bitterly disappointed," said Rodgers. "It is the severity of the ban which has hurt most. That is something we are bitterly disappointed with.
"I can only compare [it] with similar incidents we have had. We have had two incidents of this type of scenario, both in 2006."
Appearing to refer to the FA's decision not to charge Tottenham's Jermain Defoe for allegedly biting Javier Mascherano, then of West Ham, Rodgers said: "One player received no ban and continued to be chosen by the FA as part of the England squad.
"The second player received a five-game ban. As you can imagine whenever Luis Suarez receives a 10-match ban it is very very difficult for us to understand and even more so for him.
"If I had more players of a similar mentality we would be in a different position. He has not let me down one bit.
"The standard set by the club - he fell way below that at the weekend. But it does not mean he should be thrown to the garbage, which is what has happened over the last couple of days."
Embarrassing. Brendan Rodgers hang your head in shame.
20 Re: Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban. Thu 25 Apr - 16:30
wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
I think Rodgers makes a fair point about inconsistency in punishment dished out by the FA. The FA are very media sensitive and as Suarez is a media villain (typecast as an outstanding but flawed talent) they responded to that - whereas Defoe is a media darling and got away with it.
Another aspect is that we Brits are squeamish about biting (and spitting) neither of which is likely to be as dangerous or career-threatening as a multiple leg fracture - and so again the FA are responding to public perception rather than the true "seriousness" of the incident.
The overriding concern of the FA appears to be their reputation - and they seem to make decisions based on judgement values around the spurious concept of "bringing the game into disrepute" - when in fact it's the media that decide what is bad and what is acceptable by choosing the slant they put on a story.
Obviously Rodgers has an axe to grind as he will lose his best striker, but that doesn't mean there isn't any substance behind what he says.
Another aspect is that we Brits are squeamish about biting (and spitting) neither of which is likely to be as dangerous or career-threatening as a multiple leg fracture - and so again the FA are responding to public perception rather than the true "seriousness" of the incident.
The overriding concern of the FA appears to be their reputation - and they seem to make decisions based on judgement values around the spurious concept of "bringing the game into disrepute" - when in fact it's the media that decide what is bad and what is acceptable by choosing the slant they put on a story.
Obviously Rodgers has an axe to grind as he will lose his best striker, but that doesn't mean there isn't any substance behind what he says.
Message [Page 1 of 2]
Go to page : 1, 2
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|
|