fair enough then. i'm interested to hear views from fans of other teams who can have a discussion
Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [19 - 23rd April 2013]
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
- Status
fair enough then. i'm interested to hear views from fans of other teams who can have a discussion
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
AH, I see, Liverpool fan logic, attempting to injure someone is entirely fine if the player doesn't get hurt long term. if he misses a few games, because of an assault, its okay, because he was back not long after, so we'll ignore that Suarez purposefully took him out of the game, ignore the stamp on Kompany, the kick on Parker. He consistently shows that in any given game he will try to take out the most influencial player on the other team to gain an advantage.
Because Parker got up and played on, doesn't mean that wasn't a truly disgusting kick from Suarez, nor the fact he tries it almost every game.
I'll phone up Arsenal, the next time we play, each of our players will jump in and attempt to break every LIverpool players ankles, but they'll only deserve bans if what, should we agree on a limit, anything under 4 games missed, no ban, anything over, a ban, and by Liverpool fans, if its a repeat offence, we'll reduce the number of games they get banned for compared to their previous ban?
Liverpool justice... so much logic.
Last edited:
Does your arse get jealous of the **** coming from your mouth?
You make up ****, then when that doesn't work you just exaggerate a lot of the things he has done which are fairly normal just because its dirty old Suarez.
Parker? Going for ball, kicks him in stomach, hardly that bad.
Kompany thing, you keep bleating on about, he definitely acted after but ****ing hell a stamp?
You make up ****, then when that doesn't work you just exaggerate a lot of the things he has done which are fairly normal just because its dirty old Suarez.
Parker? Going for ball, kicks him in stomach, hardly that bad.
Kompany thing, you keep bleating on about, he definitely acted after but ****ing hell a stamp?
With the greatest respect, you're still complaining about Bergkamp being punished retrospectively when other players weren't and still aren't.
The big issue here is the consistency or lack of consistency rather than the ban in isolation. If the FA were consistent in what they done then I suspect that even those that maybe didn't agree with the length of the ban would understand and accept it. It's hard to understand and accept the FA's decisions when they seemingly make things up as they go along.
Hopefully this is the sign of a stronger punitive approach by the FA to unacceptable behaviour. And perhaps at some point a discussion on the validity of being unable to punish retrospectively even if the referee dealt with it (if it's something severe enough, such as Aguero's attack on Luiz).
You joking? Someone will clothesline someone next but it'll be fine because the ref saw it and then extend the ban of someone for pulling the ball away from a ballboy too hard, they are a gang of idiots.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
He wasn't going for the ball when he kicked Parker, its as simple as that, unless the ball was going to travel THROUGH parker to his intestines, then Saurez kicked parker, full stop.
Kompany, watch it again, there was NO reason to step on Kompany's leg, yet he planted his studs on his shin, when the ball was gone, when he could have put his foot anywhere.... what is this except a stamp? He "trod" on him on purpose.
But what I love is, because I'm "bleating on about it" it didn't happen, therefore doesn't matter nor count.
I'm going to presume Willems said something nasty, but I'll ignore that, and say, whether you rate Parker or not is irrelevant, IN THAT GAME, Parker was excellent, I didn't say he was their most influencial or best player NOW, nor normally, but in that game he was blocking everything Suarez was doing, and Suarez decided to kick him to stop him, as he did against Distin when Distin was owning him all game, as he did to Mirallas when he was Everton's BY FAR best player IN THAT GAME.
Fantastic decision by the FA 
absolutely delighted they gave what was deserved
He'll never learn, he's a dirty cheating scumbag. It's a shame that he's wasting a world class talent by getting himself in trouble like this, but when you bite someone and get banned 7 games for it, then don't learn your lesson and do it again, you deserve everything you get
absolutely delighted they gave what was deservedHe'll never learn, he's a dirty cheating scumbag. It's a shame that he's wasting a world class talent by getting himself in trouble like this, but when you bite someone and get banned 7 games for it, then don't learn your lesson and do it again, you deserve everything you get
Following numerous prior offenses.
This can't also be based just on this one incident, his reputation has gone before him on this one and will continue to do so until he curbs his attitude.
The petty little fights he gets himself into every other week must start to grate on the powers that be, at least the Liverpool fans can say he's been driven out of the league now if he does decide to move for some silverware.
The petty little fights he gets himself into every other week must start to grate on the powers that be, at least the Liverpool fans can say he's been driven out of the league now if he does decide to move for some silverware.
I still cant get my head around how anyone can excuse Suarez, or be angry about the punishment he has got?
He has not been given it because he plays for liverpool, or because his name begins with an S.
He has been given it because he has (for the second time that I know of) bitten another player.
The fact that Defoe only got 3 matches doesnt make Suarez ban severe, it makes Defoes too lenient.
He has not been given it because he plays for liverpool, or because his name begins with an S.
He has been given it because he has (for the second time that I know of) bitten another player.
The fact that Defoe only got 3 matches doesnt make Suarez ban severe, it makes Defoes too lenient.
Nail, head.
I agree, if a two footed assault on someones anus was nothing, along with nothing to elbows for the head, obvious and less obvious ones. (Steve and Rooney) Or 0 for a bite by someone else.
It is a lottery, or down to the media opinion of you.
Unless he has eyes on his chin he was looking at the ball until the last second when the leg was already swung.
Kompany disagree, don't know what you mean about the bleating on, it is the fact you bring it up every single time as if it was actually something really bad.
Willems didn't say anything bad iirc before the edit, Parker wasn't owning him, nor Dustbin but Mirallas was really good, he still didn't miss any games so don't make things up
They never have been consistent but the fact remains he should have got a decent ban for it, can you imagine the uproar if he only got a 3 match ban?
They had to make an example of him, the fact that Defoe did it is irrelevant as it was I imagine the first case of it happening over here. Suarez has then done it years later and they have made an example of him. Much like they have done with various other players over the years.
Personally I think the effectiveness of this ban is minimised because its split over two seasons - and therefore will this , as it stands, have much effect on the club or the player? I doubt it somehow
10 games (which may well be reduced to 8 on appeal) would have much more effect if it was suspended until the beginning of next season (even though 1 or possibly two might then involve League Cup games).
While playing under a different FA's rules he has already been found guilty of biting (an unusual issue in itself), so Im not sure - given the video /physical evidence this time, why the ban couldn't be longer (as its split over two seasons). It cant be compared to a "standard" red card offence imo due to the .....barbaric....nature.
Its also a case that Liverpool themselves should have banned him (just as Ajax did originally) for a certain amount of games (maybe 2 - 3, which isn't going to make a jot of difference to their season) - and this may well have lessened the FA's stance. Yet again they are weak and limp wristed and do **** all.
10 games (which may well be reduced to 8 on appeal) would have much more effect if it was suspended until the beginning of next season (even though 1 or possibly two might then involve League Cup games).
While playing under a different FA's rules he has already been found guilty of biting (an unusual issue in itself), so Im not sure - given the video /physical evidence this time, why the ban couldn't be longer (as its split over two seasons). It cant be compared to a "standard" red card offence imo due to the .....barbaric....nature.
Its also a case that Liverpool themselves should have banned him (just as Ajax did originally) for a certain amount of games (maybe 2 - 3, which isn't going to make a jot of difference to their season) - and this may well have lessened the FA's stance. Yet again they are weak and limp wristed and do **** all.
We cant be retrospectively consistent.
The Defoe decision was wrong, the Suarez decision is right.
Just because they ****ed up before doesnt mean they shouldnt get it right now, and for every incident from now on.
- Status