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

Status
Not open for further replies.
G|mp said:
It's life I'm afraid.

It's like being a petty criminal and getting caught nicking in a shop, if he goes to court and the judge see's that he has been done for kicking in a shop door and that he was cautioned for unsociable behaviour, they all add up and he will be hit with a bigger sentence.
Click to expand...

Not if he's been caught previously and punished accordingly - then the judge isn't allowed to take those past crimes into account ;)

My thoughts are this:

If the FA is laying down a marker - any serious physical off the ball incident will get a significant ban of 5-10 games, then fair enough. Suarez's past actions, coupled with how bizarre and concerning it is that he bit somebody, justifies 10 games. But the FA will have to apply that consistently in future. A stamp like Aguero's should, in future, earn a six or seven game ban, and longer for a consistent offender.

If on the other hand the FA is saying that biting is worth a 10 game ban, and that a punch, stamp or kick is only worth a three game ban (I'm talking about off the ball incidents, not mistimed tackles), they have to justify why they believe biting is worse by such an order of magnitude.
 
No complaints really from me.

Another PR disaster though as we say we can't believe the punishment....seriously why come out with that.....
 
manic111 said:
Not if he's been caught previously and punished accordingly - then the judge isn't allowed to take those past crimes into account ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they have to be taken into account for this particular incident, what I'm saying is, they will be regardless.

IF and I imagine he was warned about his future conduct, to go and do something like that is asking for trouble :)
 
G|mp said:
I'm not saying they have to be taken into account for this particular incident, what I'm saying is, they will be regardless.

IF and I imagine he was warned about his future conduct, to go and do something like that is asking for trouble :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's fair enough. As I've said in the rest of my post, I think that if they consistently punish repeat offenders more harshly, and use the Suarez incident as a precedent for punishment of off the ball incidents (whether or not the ref saw them), then I'm fully on board with 10 games. If they go back to 3 game bans for a kick, stamp, or punch, then they have a lot of justifying to do.
 
Indeed, it's the same with Joey Barton, he never learnt so they hit him harder everytime.

Suarez needs to learn not to do stupid things on the football pitch and Liverpool fans need to learn that when he does, he will punished more severely everytime and so he should.
 
manic111 said:
Not if he's been caught previously and punished accordingly - then the judge isn't allowed to take those past crimes into account ;)
Click to expand...

Not at all true, you can't take previous crimes into account for determining someones guilt, but sentencing is a completely different matter.

People caught drink driving for instance receive 2-3 times the punishment if they are repeat offenders compared to first time offenses. Essentially every society in the world perscribes to increased penalties/punishments for repeat offences.

You can't determine that someone is guilty of a mugging they are accused of because they've been found guilty of mugging 48 times before... but you can punish them worse IF you do find them guilty.
 
Good going FA, about time you showed some balls in handing out a punishment.

Hopefully this will make him really think before he does something as stupid as this next time. Ill be surprised if Liverpool stick by him for much longer, he's a huge liability even though hes a brilliant footballer.

Liverpool will need to find someone to score their goals without Suarez now.
 
My take on it is that the ban is probably right.

Although Liverpool do have a case here as Defoe bit a player so they are right to ask the question why a 10 game ban for Suarez but nothing but a yellow for DeFoe. So not for the first time and probably not for the last the FA make a hash of it.

I for one do not buy into the idea that because Defoe got a yellow then Suarez has been harshly treated in the respect of the length of the ban however.

Won't his first game for Liverpool be in January 2014 or something as they are not in Europe and usually out of the League cup by Sept ??
 
If I was Liverpool I wouldn't bother appealing.

Basically the situation is this, currently he is banned for 10 matches, which if they don't appeal would mean 4 matches this season (largely irrelevant as their season is over) and 6 matches next season. Of those 6 matches, at least 1 is likely to be in the league cup given they are unlikely to qualify for Europe. So in terms of meaningful games, in reality he will only miss five matches.

If they were to appeal on the other hand, that would delay the start date of any ban meaning he would miss more games next season, unless the ban was reduced and even then it would need to be reduced by more than the number of games delay in starting the ban.
 
I don't think they will appeal tbh, too risky.

I also don't think they helped themselves by coming out and saying that any more than 3 matches would be harsh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom