Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [19 - 23rd April 2013]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gustov said:
P.S LOL @ the Fergie time x 2 aka they're losing at Anfield and gagging for a goal.
Click to expand...

I'm still struggling to see where the six minutes extra time came from. I guess it's from all those replay moments the ref had in the second half.
 
SSN latest:

Luis Suarez has been fined by Liverpool and offered anger management counselling by the PFA after biting Branislav Ivanovic.
Click to expand...

Waiting for news about training from the Kennel Club.
 
Last edited:
Tummy said:
So... the racist cannibal can do as he wants as long as he plays well? :D.
Click to expand...

Indeed he can....

suarezbite3.jpg


:D
 
Good and a perfectly acceptable ban for behaviour which is not expected from any civilised human being on or off the pitch. These so called “professionals” are expected to lead by example and not show such disgusting behaviour. An example has been set and rightly so.

The FA have got it right for once, Even ten-year-olds should now realise that taking a chunk out of your mate on the pitch isn’t really the done thing.
 
Time to put this into some perspective.... :p

If a dog bit someone the owner would be fined and the dog possibly put down or get a seven game ban. If the dog bit a second time it would be put down.... The FA can't do that so ten games is perfectly in order.
 
Rotty said:
If we appeal am I right in saying that the suspension does not start until after the appeal ? what I am thinking is that if we do and it stays the same we may end up getting him available for a pointless game this season and losing him for 1 more next season
Click to expand...

As I understand it the suspension for three matches begins with immediate effect. The appeal is for the additional seven games so if rejected it will in effect be continuous.
 
82.1. Mr Suarez deliberately and purposefully bit into Mr Ivanovic’s arm in an unprovoked attack in an off the ball incident;

82.2. Mr Suarez intended to cause injury to Mr Ivanovic with his bite – albeit no evidence of injury;

82.3. The nature of biting an opponent is in itself extremely shocking, unexpected and truly exceptional;

82.4. The incidents of biting an opponent in football are very rare at the moment and we need to ensure that it will remain so;

82.5. We have the responsibility for the whole game of football in England, down to the youth football at grassroots level, and it is our duty to discourage any players at any level from acting in such a deplorable manner or attempting to copy what they had seen on the television;

82.6. This truly shocking incident had been seen by millions of viewers both
domestic and overseas, as well as generating a great deal of interest and debate amongst countless numbers of people;

82.7. Whilst we accepted that Mr Suarez’s reputation had been impacted,
these unsavoury pictures would have given a bad image of English football domestically and across the world alike;

82.8. All players in the higher level of the game are seen as role models, have
the duty to act professionally and responsibly, and set the highest example of good conduct to rest of the game – especially to young players. In this regard and on this occasion, Mr Suarez’s conduct had fallen far below the standards expected of him;

82.9. The participants in a game of football do not expect to be bitten by another participant when they come to play football. In this incident, Mr Ivanovic would not, and should not, have been expected to be subject to such a shocking and reprehensible action.
Click to expand...

After having read that you cannot possibly deny that anything less then a ten match ban is acceptable. For once, well done the FA.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom