Suarez is scum

[ADL9798]

Not really a new thing in football though, this problem has been around for years now since FIFA stuck their beak in.

And it really has nothing to do with Suarez, because someone gets off on a speeding charge on a technicality doesn't give everyone else free reign to speed.

Absolutely, but if people are continually getting off lightly for blatantly speeding because of a loophole then the process clearly needs to be looked at. Otherwise the inconsistencies that result will lead to the sort of confusion we're seeing here. What if Suarez had walked up to the referee and said yes look I bit Ivanovic, and the referee responded by only yellow carding him? We could very well be looking at a situation where he would be immune from further punishment from the FA if the Defoe incident is anything to go by, and that would be in no way the right result.

 

[moomba]

Half an hour to go I believe. If he does appeal I'll start a thread on the main board where it should be discussed.

 

[ADL9798]

An hour past the deadline and still no sign of an appeal.

There was this from Mancini though: "Sometimes the FA takes a strange decision. If you want my opinion, this is strange. Ten games I think is too much"

 

[moomba]

Not heard of an appeal or confirmation there will be no appeal yet.

 

[ADL9798]

Confirmed no appeal, 10 game suspension effective immediately.

http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/luis-suarez-suspension-to-begin-260413.aspx

 

[moomba]

Now confirmed that he won't appeal it, so Rogers' rant was just for show really.

In the long run, accepting the ban was the sensible thing to do.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Not really a new thing in football though, this problem has been around for years now since FIFA stuck their beak in.

And it really has nothing to do with Suarez, because someone gets off on a speeding charge on a technicality doesn't give everyone else free reign to speed.

But if there is a technicality, what's to stop other people from getting off in future? As the club told the FA, the current system is not fit for purpose and I think even Liverpool fans would agree with that due to the inconsistency with the Defoe incident as well as the severity of the punishment in comparison to someone getting off for what could have been a horrific tackle. I'm no fan of Suarez but if he gets 10 games for a bite that Ivanovic probably couldn't feel a few hours later and a guy who renders another player needing oxygen and could have face 8-12 months recovering (with no guarantee he might ever reach his best ever again) basically scratch free, then that shows the system needs to be reviewed or overhauled.

It will happen again and the FA need to make sure punishments fit the crime regardless of any technicality or ruling.

 

[moomba]

But if there is a technicality, what's to stop other people from getting off in future? As the club told the FA, the current system is not fit for purpose and I think even Liverpool fans would agree with that due to the inconsistency with the Defoe incident as well as the severity of the punishment in comparison to someone getting off for what could have been a horrific tackle. I'm no fan of Suarez but if he gets 10 games for a bite that Ivanovic probably couldn't feel a few hours later and a guy who renders another player needing oxygen and could have face 8-12 months recovering (with no guarantee he might ever reach his best ever again) basically scratch free, then that shows the system needs to be reviewed or overhauled.

It will happen again and the FA need to make sure punishments fit the crime regardless of any technicality or ruling.

Sure they do. They are hamstrung to an extent by FIFA laws but I started a thread a while back about the need to overhaul the system (and have commented many other times).

But say you're going to compare cases I don't think you can have any complaints about one of your players getting what's deserved. The fact that another player didn't is irrelevant. Be pissed off that McManaman or Aguero (or Gerrard and even Suarez in the past) have escaped punishment but the solution to that isn't to get another player get away with it.

And comparing say Defoe seven years ago to Suarez now when the rules are totally different has to be one if the most pointless cases of deflection I've seen from a senior official at a club.

Defoe did wrong, the FA rules at the time didn't allow them to punish him further, they changed the rules.

 

[ADL9798]

 

[Hawthorn United]

From the BBC article posted earlier.

Liverpool, and it is understandable they make this point, recall Jermain Defoe biting Javier Mascherano and escaping a heavy ban. He was booked at the time but the rulebook has moved along since then and today it is certain he would be charged under "exceptional circumstances".

So these leg breaks and other biting incidents that get carded may fall under this category.

 

[moomba]

From the BBC article posted earlier.

Liverpool, and it is understandable they make this point, recall Jermain Defoe biting Javier Mascherano and escaping a heavy ban. He was booked at the time but the rulebook has moved along since then and today it is certain he would be charged under "exceptional circumstances".

So these leg breaks and other biting incidents that get carded may fall under this category.

Even if Suarez was seen by the ref he still would have been charged and punished.

The leg breakers are much more difficult (as McManaman showed). I think the FA would have to prove it was intentional or particularly outrageous. That's pretty difficult to do with a tackle, not so hard when you chase a defender with fangs showing.

The rules need to change no doubt, but the required rule changes would have no effect on the Suarez punishment.

 

[Sanders]

Suarez is a worm, a disgusting human being hiding behind his talents as a player.

He knew was he was doing when he bit Ivanovic, but he didn't care because that he is just who/what he is.

Absolute dog of a bloke

 

[Sanders]

Actually a suspended sentence would also have worked. 12 games, 6 and 6.

Worked for who?

7 games was not enough last time, so why would a lesser penalty convince him to change his ways?

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Sure they do. They are hamstrung to an extent by FIFA laws but I started a thread a while back about the need to overhaul the system (and have commented many other times).

But say you're going to compare cases I don't think you can have any complaints about one of your players getting what's deserved. The fact that another player didn't is irrelevant. Be pissed off that McManaman or Aguero (or Gerrard and even Suarez in the past) have escaped punishment but the solution to that isn't to get another player get away with it.

And comparing say Defoe seven years ago to Suarez now when the rules are totally different has to be one if the most pointless cases of deflection I've seen from a senior official at a club.

Defoe did wrong, the FA rules at the time didn't allow them to punish him further, they changed the rules.

I get that there is FIFA rules that maybe limit what can be done but I still think punishments should fit the crime. The French FA recently banned a player for 11 games for a leg breaking tackle where the player was given a straight red during the game. Just because the ref has punished the player in the game - doesn't mean they should escape further sanctions if their offence deems it fair. Retrospective punishments should be allowed in these kinds of cases because a simple card or free kick in the game doesn't cut the mustard.

I think for me, it's just annoying - this is the second time we've been on the receiving end of a lack of justice (there was also Hatem Ben Arfa's foot break caused by De Jong's challenge a few years back where De Jong didn't even get a yellow and HBA was out for close to ten months after 6 mins into this third appearance for the club). On that occasion, the FA didn't investigate it further. I would have hoped something could have been done following that but it seems nothing has which is the disappointment.

 

[Super Hans]

 

[moomba]

Not going to bother discussing De Jong, was a perfectly good tackle for me with bad consequences. The FA did investigate it and it sash found not to be a red card offence. Whether you agree with that or not that's an issue with judgements not with the rules (although if he was found guilty I'm sure Geordies would have wanted a longer penalty than the FA could have given at the time).

I think the rules do need to change, but that's more to do with the likes of McManaman than the likes of Suarez. The rules are perfectly adequate to deal with what he did.

 

[ADL9798]

http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/~/media/164A568A93784FE391CC1FDAB4D7313F.ashx

Point 22 is interesting:

"...under the Schedule A of Standard Directions and we did not take into consideration any previous Disciplinary Records of Mr Suarez and considered the offence in isolation."

Suarez and Liverpool apparently cited Thatcher's elbow on Pedro Mendes as evidence of the sort of act that should constitute a ban of such significant magnitude but the panel chose not to take it into consideration, choosing instead only to use Eden Hazard's kicking the ballboy incident (3 games) and Ashley Barnes tripping a ref (6 games) as reference points from which to determine how long Suarez's ban should be.

I think at the end of the day Suarez definitely deserved a significant ban and the FA were obviously going to be determined to throw the heaviest book they could find at him so it didn't really matter what points Suarez asked the panel to consider. Whether 10 matches was fair or whether it should have been a few less when compared with other incidents of extreme violent conduct is obviously up for debate, it's still difficult to see where the figure of 10 matches comes from. From the quick look through I've given it, that rationale is not really discussed at all in the report which I find odd. I'd echo Rory Smith's (The Times) thoughts on the overall content of that report when he said that:

Hard to argue with general thrust of FA report. Only problem: they don't actually explain why it's seven extra games and not, say, 5 or 14. Without that explanation, hard to find any logic behind 10 other than it being a nice round number. Not sure that's the best system. I'm also baffled why Thatcher's "violent conduct" was deemed less relevant than Barnes+Hazard. Seems a better parallel, if anything.

 

[Latro]

Is it really true that the FA took into account how much it trended on twitter.

Also the FA do not have the balls to look into the bad tackles. The guy who ruined Diaby's career got a yellow card.

 

[ADL9798]

Is it really true that the FA took into account how much it trended on twitter.

Also the FA do not have the balls to look into the bad tackles. The guy who ruined Diaby's career got a yellow card.

What next, he gets an extra week for every time someone likes his facebook page!? 1 of many bizarre statements made in that at times incoherent report. They came to the right conclusion (though in my opinion with too severe a reprimand), but the logic they and the FA have used and how they got to that conclusion is just ridiculous. How they can expect anyone to respect this process when they come out with rubbish like this is beyond me. Here's a few more:

Mr Suarez submitted that he accepted his bite to Mr Ivanovic’s arm did involve the application of some pressure by his teeth into Mr Ivanovic’s arm, which clearly resulted in Mr Ivanovic being aware that he had been bitten.

Meanwhile, the FA thought the following points would be relevant to their argument that the act was so serious as to warrant several additional matches:

The FA added that Mr Suarez is an international and one of the best known and lauded players in the country. He plays for Liverpool, one of the most successful clubs in English football history. A player at this level of the game has a duty to uphold the highest standards of conduct and to set an example to minors. Mr Suarez’s conduct on this occasion fell far below the standards expected of him.

Does this mean that if he was a Championship player they wouldn't ask for such a severe reprimand?

The FA had submitted that subsequent to the incident, in the 96th minute of the game, Mr Suarez scored a goal to equalise the score at 2–2. The game ended in a draw. Had this incident been seen by the Match Officials during the match, Mr Suarez would have not been on the pitch to score the crucial equalising goal.

I can only assume this means they feel that the incident would have been less serious had he not scored that goal!

Laughable, but what can you do. I only hope that this gets enough publicity to shame the FA into reviewing this whole process. The fact that they have not only refused to consider the punishment handed to Ben Thatcher for his violent conduct charge as reference for the severity of Suarez's punishment, but that they also would not give a detailed reason as to why that was the case is the one that really stumps me. They were happy to consider the punishments given to significantly less serious acts like the Eden Hazard and Ashley Barnes incidents which all seems a bit arbitrary to me, like they're picking and choosing which evidence is going to make their desired conclusion easier to attain. As I said, the report has the right intentions and reaches a conclusion that is almost satisfactory, but for a team of professional and experienced lawyers this really is a very unprofessional report which opens itself to serious questions about how that conclusion was reached.

 

[moomba]

Is it really true that the FA took into account how much it trended on twitter.

I don't think they would have determined anything from it, but would have noted that the incident got widespread publicity and coverage (as evidenced by twitter and other things) and therefore was damaging to the game. Just a bit of spiel really, I doubt anything significant happened as a result of that.

Also the FA do not have the balls to look into the bad tackles. The guy who ruined Diaby's career got a yellow card.

Agreed.

 

[pantskyle]

It's not worth 10 on its own though. They may not admit it but they took his record into account .

 

[Redalert]

It's not worth 10 on its own though. They may not admit it but they took his record into account .

I'd say on the balance of things it is worth 10 , there may not be a precedent for the penalty but it was an exceptional act. I can accept a penalty like that because his actions aren't legitimately part of the nature of the game, whereas bad tackles and dives are.

 

[moomba]

I think it was worth 10. Can't have people run around trying to bite other people.

 

[Zidane98]

From what I understand and read of "violent conduct" suspensions is that they can only be based on the severity of the outcome or multiple charges (eg someone headbutts 3 different opponents in one game will be charged 3 times and suspended accordingly). Had Suarez bitten Ivanovics ear off then the FA could justify the suspension but I cannot possibly see how a ten game ban could possibly be justified when considering the outcome and severity of the bite. Especially when you consider Roy Keane went out on to the park with the pre-meditated intent of ending an opponents career and did just that. Only got an eight game ban.

 

[Sanders]

From what I understand and read of "violent conduct" suspensions is that they can only be based on the severity of the outcome or multiple charges (eg someone headbutts 3 different opponents in one game will be charged 3 times and suspended accordingly). Had Suarez bitten Ivanovics ear off then the FA could justify the suspension but I cannot possibly see how a ten game ban could possibly be justified when considering the outcome and severity of the bite. Especially when you consider Roy Keane went out on to the park with the pre-meditated intent of ending an opponents career and did just that. Only got an eight game ban.

10 games is hopefully enough to drive the scum into another league