Suarez SLAPPED with TEN game ban.

wanderlust wrote: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.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

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.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote: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.

You utter dick. I bet your kids are criminals if that's how you've brought them up.

You disgust me.

wanderlust wrote:

I guess you're just pretending that you're too thick to understand what I'm saying for effect? Or is the concept of the FA being swayed by public perception a bridge too far for you?
Nope - it must be the first option.

wanderlust wrote: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.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

I guess you're just pretending that you're too thick to understand what I'm saying for effect? Or is the concept of the FA being swayed by public perception a bridge too far for you?
Nope - it must be the first option.

How any sane person can say a 10 game ban for BITING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING is too harsh is beyond me.

If someone came upto you in the street and bit your ear off would you shrug your shoulders?