Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [19 - 23rd April 2013]
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
- Status
Usually we have to wait until the weekend for this Purdy
I'm glad they've made an example of him because biting someone is just, well, ****ing ridiculous.
Stewy don't be stupid.
Don't you want them making examples of an ever more dangerous tackle from Aguero on Ivanovic, or the one on that Newcastle lad?
Or what about making an example of Defoe a few years back?
What he did is absolutely moronic and frankly flat out weird but Gary Neville spoke some sense on it and surprisingly Oliver Holt today, they're just banning him because he is the 'villain' of the premier league, they are a gang of ****ing retards.
5 from Dutch FA, 2 from his club, not anywhere near as bad as tackles that aren't part of the game despite people believing they are that go unpunished and wasn't the other bite post game?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yes, but first time you do something wrong, x amount of ban, second time, X + a bit, 3rd time, x + a bit + a bit more.
THis isn't even remotely close to his first ban, and most importantly two previous 7+ game bans have done nothing to teach Suarez a lesson... why shouldn't he get a bigger ban each and every time he does something new and completely unacceptable until he stops doing unacceptable things.
Now, much as I hate Gerrard, if he got a 10 game ban I'd say it was ridiculous having not had a previous violent conduct charge(from the FA at least
), but Suarez has previously had 7 and 8 game bans for biting and racial abuse... why on earth would it be anything less than those. Everyone else is treated the same, Barton got a longer ban because of previous offences.The Mendes foul, again there City banned him for 6 matches themselves, he WAS booked at the time and the FA decided because it was exceptional circumstances to impose another charge on him, he got an overall 8 game ban(two further than what City did to start with), he ALSO had a 15 game suspended ban.... because do something a second time and punishment gets worse.
Suarez is being punished for the umpteenth time, the fact that he is once again on 10 yellows(though not automatically punished at this stage of the season) weighs in on his general behaviour.
If this was Suarez's first and only offence, he would have gotten a 3 or maybe 5 game ban, everything extra is utterly expected and completely his own fault.
Stop going on about it being worse than a punch, assault is assault, he chose to assault someone. If someone punches a player(or elbows) then do that a second time, punishment gets worse, the third punch you get a ban for will get a bigger ban than the first punch you get a ban for. Comparing the bite to a punch has no relevance here, that is NOT why the ban is so large, its for repeated offences.
According to?
Wasn't expecting 10. But as you say he clearly hasn't learned his lesson - biting is a disgusting thing to do! What human bites another? Reckon they will appeal and it will go down.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,120
- Location
- Burscough
Seems fair enough. James Graham for Canterbury Bulldogs got banned for 12 matches. I don't understand why this is over the top? Plus, he's a repeat offender.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
THe rules and law of every single land in the world, every single culture considers repeated offences worse than single offences, EVERY SINGLE ONE, and the FA do aswell.
Again Thatcher got an 8 game ban, and a suspended 15 game ban if he did it again. Flat out, right there you've got the FA saying, first punch 8 game ban, do it again 15 game ban..... its clear as freaking day.
The FA's across Europe(not sure about intercontinental tbh) work together. Barton served his 12 game ban in france, for something he did in England. They will be taking into account his previous biting in Holland, and the racial abuse, you have to not even be naive, or stupid, but being purposefully ignorant as an excuse for why its unfair to believe Suarez is not being punished more severely because its not close to his first offence.
Wow the FA actually had the balls to do it 
I dont think 10 games is harsh at all, he's done it before and a 7 game ban didn't sort him out then so maybe this time he'll learn?
Liverpool FC could have done better with their statement though, I thought they were just going to take the punishment on the chin but instead they're moaning about the severity of it
I dont think 10 games is harsh at all, he's done it before and a 7 game ban didn't sort him out then so maybe this time he'll learn?
Liverpool FC could have done better with their statement though, I thought they were just going to take the punishment on the chin but instead they're moaning about the severity of it
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
There is no degree to which assaulting someone else is okay, how bad the assault is doesn't change that its assault.
Its liverpool fans trying to say that a bite should be treated less harshly than other forms of assault, it shouldn't, its a pitiful excuse.
Someone could tap me on the head with a cricket bat and cause no damage, or catch me with a haymaker to the back of my head killing me.... I've said previously, the worst thing Liverpool fans do is make excuses for the indefensible, there IS no defence for what he did, none, other people doing bad things doesn't make what he did not bad. He's got a lengthy ban for REPEATED offending, nothing more or less.
Can any Liverpool fan not trying to make excuses honestly say they think players should get the same ban every time?
You get a different ban for a second and third red card of the season than the first one, Thatcher was told his next ban would almost double in length if he did it again. Increased length of ban for repeat offending is a bog standard part of the rules of football, and society across the globe, but Suarez shouldn't get an increased ban because he's special?
So against all evidence of other players getting increasingly severe bans the more they offend, Suarez shouldn't......... yup, the FA are being unreasonable, imposing the same rules on everyone, where by they should have dramatically dropped the length in ban for a repeat offence for Suarez, because that would be totally fair, because a bite isn't as bad as a punch?
Considering how Suarez is, i'd prefer a punch from Suarez than a bite, FAR smaller chance of catching rabies.
Wow the FA actually had the balls to do it
I dont think 10 games is harsh at all, he's done it before and a 7 game ban didn't sort him out then so maybe this time he'll learn?
Liverpool FC could have done better with their statement though, I thought they were just going to take the punishment on the chin but instead they're moaning about the severity of it
Which they have every right to do....
You can only compare this to other instances of violent conduct. i.e Morgan when he fractured Hume's skull and received a 3 match ban....that kind of thing.
What for? We've got 4 games left this season with little to nothing to play for.
Perhaps the FA felt that they had to dish out a significant ban because they knew that Liverpool wouldn't dare to actually impose a club ban on him on top? In fact they're probably factoring in how Liverpool are probably going to cry/make T-shirts/appeal the ban instead of holding their hands up and admitting that he's done something wrong (again) and accept/condone his punishment.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,061
- Location
- Surrey
Van Persie for top scorer then 
- Status