Poll: Suarez has to be banned for a year at least

[deanolfc]

Why didn't he just do a zidane Headbutt! 3 games is nothing OR why not just end someones career snap they're leg, 5 games.

 

[drunkenmaster]

can't escape the feeling that a lot of the sentiment here is directed against Liverpool FC, using what is basically misdemeanor as an excuse

lots of people have said that, considering it's highly likely he isn't going to be at Liverpool next year that is utterly retarded though.

Considering he got a ban it would if anything decrease his chances of leaving thereby increasing the quality of the Liverpool team... thus such arguments are embarrassingly short sighted.

 

[jonneymendoza]

No it's Suarez's responsibility what he does and Suarez got a ban. You not only bought a player currently suspended for a bite, after another bite you gave him a new contract(actually I'm not 100% sure, I think it was after the bite right?) after he had served another ban for racism inbetween.

Liverpool knew with absolute clarity that this was a possibility and Liverpool chose to take that risk. They did not have to, in fact considering you gave him a huge pay bump and longer contract after everything he did... there was little reason to believe he would change his behaviour. What punishment was he given, bites someone misses a bunch of games so paid the same for doing less work and you gave him a pay rise for this?

When you reward terrible behaviour you don't change it you almost encourage it. At every stage, after every horrendous thing he's done someone has gone and given him more money and a move to a better/bigger club. It's insane to think he'd change his behaviour.

Headbutts ref, people go out of their way to play it down, moves on to be professional footballer. Fights in dressing room at Ajax, nothing, bites player, gets bit move to Liverpool, uses racial slurs, ban but no actual bad outcome for him. Bites another player, another contract bump and potentially rewarded with another big move and even more money. Bites another player..... gets said bigger contract and move to Barca? Where is the incentive to do better?

Well said but i bet Purdy and co will ignore this .Simply no arguing over your points at all

 

[wildman]

Liverpool fans should be mad at Suarez not FIFA. It's him who has done the crime, and he has punished Liverpool as well as himself.

Even though the ban should have been longer but hey ho.

He hasn't rally punished himself unless LFC don't pay him. SO effectively he is getting paid to do **** all for the next 4 months.

 

[Murray]

where did you get the 32 games figure from?

7 Friendlies, 9 League matches, 1 or 2 league cup games and 3 CL games for Liverpool.

9 games for Uruguay.

So actually 30 when I looked at it properly but still around 32

 

[Steedie]

I get that Liverpool fans are annoyed, but if you have someone like that playing for you, you must know and accept the risks.

If you signed a player that had a reputation for breaking peoples legs and then he went away on international duty and broke someones leg and got banned for it, you can't really then go and complain. It's just the risk you take, and with a player as good as he is that's a risk Liverpool were willing to take, and quite rightly so. But their fans can't then get all up in arms about it

 

[Kelt]

Nowhere near harsh enough IMO, should've been 6 months minimum. He shouldn't have been allowed to kick a ball until January 2015.

Agree, and he should have lost any wages for the same period.

I've always thought football suspensions without losing pay is a joke anyway.

Imagine getting banned from your job, on full pay, for a couple of months, oh the horror!

 

[wildman]

No it's Suarez's responsibility what he does and Suarez got a ban. You not only bought a player currently suspended for a bite, after another bite you gave him a new contract(actually I'm not 100% sure, I think it was after the bite right?) after he had served another ban for racism inbetween.

Liverpool knew with absolute clarity that this was a possibility and Liverpool chose to take that risk. They did not have to, in fact considering you gave him a huge pay bump and longer contract after everything he did... there was little reason to believe he would change his behaviour. What punishment was he given, bites someone misses a bunch of games so paid the same for doing less work and you gave him a pay rise for this?

When you reward terrible behaviour you don't change it you almost encourage it. At every stage, after every horrendous thing he's done someone has gone and given him more money and a move to a better/bigger club. It's insane to think he'd change his behaviour.

Headbutts ref, people go out of their way to play it down, moves on to be professional footballer. Fights in dressing room at Ajax, nothing, bites player, gets bit move to Liverpool, uses racial slurs, ban but no actual bad outcome for him. Bites another player, another contract bump and potentially rewarded with another big move and even more money. Bites another player..... gets said bigger contract and move to Barca? Where is the incentive to do better?

Alternatively he might actually just be a nut case, which taking his previous bans into consideration may well be the case. Therefore the only real solution is psychiatric help or expulsion from football altogether. I don't think fines, bans or derision in the media or amongst his peers will make any difference. Some people are just born mental......................

LFC took a punt I think knowing that he was a volatile genius cum nutcase. Technically they have been paid off for their risk as they finished 2nd in the EPL and will enjoy CL football next season which on its own will net them a crap ton of money.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Absolutely crap. Effective 2 month ban as 2 months is off season and he can presumably play in the WC because of appeal.

It's highly likely they thought a 10 game league ban(give or take) + missing preseason is effectively the right ban, coupled with missing the WC that is pretty impressive. Thus they picked a time frame in which to apply that specific number of games to miss. I said this yesterday, they will basically pick X number of games and pick a time that including summer, will end up with that result.

I think it's relatively fair, he got 7 games for the first ban, 10 for the second, now will miss 9 league games and potentially(hard to quantify upfront) 4 WC games potentially. So it's a progression that you'd expect.

As I've stated before, at some stage you get to the point where safety of opposition comes into account. I believe if he does it again they'll give him 2 years. What I would have liked to see is 4months + say a 6month suspended ban. Then if he does something major again(more than just a normal red, a violent conduct charge maybe) then he gets say a year ban + the 6 month suspended added on. Then if he ever does it again after that, out of football for life.


I've asked the "unfair" brigade on here multiple times and I've missed any responses if there have been any, how many times is it okay to bite or break legs or whatever else before you get a lifetime ban. I genuinely don't know the number I think, but what ballpark area do other people think.

Next bite and out for good, next bite gets huge ban and one more after that out for good? Unlimited number of bites + a 6 month ban each time?

 

[wildman]

Agree, and he should have lost any wages for the same period.

I've always thought football suspensions without losing pay is a joke anyway.

Imagine getting banned from your job, on full pay, for a couple of months, oh the horror!

FIFA can't enforce withdrawal of wages, only his employer can do that, and then there is a raft of EU law that would likely make this not possible anyway. The only way for him to not get paid is for him to be fired, and that is not going to happen either.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Alternatively he might actually just be a nut case, which taking his previous bans into consideration may well be the case. Therefore the only real solution is psychiatric help or expulsion from football altogether. I don't think fines, bans or derision in the media or amongst his peers will make any difference. Some people are just born mental......................

LFC took a punt I think knowing that he was a volatile genius cum nutcase. Technically they have been paid off for their risk as they finished 2nd in the EPL and will enjoy CL football next season which on its own will net them a crap ton of money.

Except in the early season he came back with great form, before he was allowed to play they lost dropped 4 points, Swansea away and Southampton at home... they lost the league by 2 points. Maybe it didn't pay off at all and had they bought Falcao instead they may have won the league.

Suarez may well be a nut case, which again brings me back to, at what stage do you prioritise non psycho players safety over his ability to make more millions. For me there has to, absolutely has to be a line drawn which says, it's unfair to force other players to face you and risk being attacked, you're done. I don't know where it is, but it's inconceivable we can't at some stage decide other players shouldn't have to play him.

 

[Purdy]

Except in the early season he came back with great form, before he was allowed to play they lost dropped 4 points, Swansea away and Southampton at home... they lost the league by 2 points. Maybe it didn't pay off at all and had they bought Falcao instead they may have won the league.

Yep should've bought the guy who got 9 goals last year and ****ed his leg, would've walked the league.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Yep should've bought the guy who got 9 goals last year and ****ed his leg, would've walked the league.

It was an example, which would be really hard to tell if you're blind, replace Falcao with Ronaldo, Messi, Sanchez, a potato, I don't care, on top of that, would he have done his knee in(I forget what he did tbh) had he not been at Monaco, probably not so... your point doesn't really stand.

Those 4 points dropped could have lost you the league, or the multiple other games you lost in which Suarez couldn't finish one of literally dozens of chances. IF Suarez had scored in like 2 games against the top 4 you'd have won the league. THere is a very strong argument to make that both Suarez's ban and Suarez's inability to find the target against the top teams cost LIverpool the title.

 

[Purdy]

It was an example, which would be really hard to tell, on top of that, would he have broken his leg had he not been at Monaco, probably not so... your point doesn't really stand.

Those 4 points dropped could have lost you the league, or the multiple other games you lost in which Suarez couldn't finish one of literally dozens of chances. IF Suarez had scored in like 2 games against the top 4 you'd have won the league. THere is a very strong argument to make that both Suarez's ban and Suarez's inability to find the target against the top teams cost LIverpool the title.

True, Suarez was without a doubt the weak link in our title challenge.

 

[Westyfield2]

Only in football could someone have done all the biting & racist history that he has, and they still not get a lifetime ban.

 

[Purdy]

Only in football could someone have done all the biting & racist history that he has, and they still not get a lifetime ban.

He'd be the GOAT heel in wrestling

 

[blues_r_best]

That Liverpool media statement in full:


We at Anfield (TM) deplore the FA/UEFA/FIFA's latest ban on Luis Suarez. In this unfortunate episode Luis Suarez is, like all scousers, the victim. He has been unfairly singled out for biting/diving/racially abusing/cheating/insert other. The punishment does not fit the crime (fortunately for us). Luis is a proud Uruguayan and was only trying to honour the 1972 rugby team whose plane crashed in the Andes. He is not a doctor and it is therefore unreasonable to expect him to realise Chiellini was still alive at the time of the alleged incident.

We will be holding a minute's silence in memory of our title hopes and invite you to join with us, whether you are in Bangkok or Boston.

T-shirts in support of Mr Lectur will be available from all good retailers.

 

[el_dazza]

Agree, and he should have lost any wages for the same period.

I've always thought football suspensions without losing pay is a joke anyway.

Imagine getting banned from your job, on full pay, for a couple of months, oh the horror!

Someone I work with was suspended for 7 weeks on full pay while an investigation took place into an incident. He came back a mental wreck. It's not as simple as sitting at home picking up money for nothing.

 

[Judgeneo]

4 months.. Just enough time to have a holiday, let his leg recover fully, yet stay match fit.

What a joke.

 

[drunkenmaster]

FIFA can't enforce withdrawal of wages, only his employer can do that, and then there is a raft of EU law that would likely make this not possible anyway. The only way for him to not get paid is for him to be fired, and that is not going to happen either.

They can do a two week fine no problem, they can do longer but PFA tend to get involved and can judge a fine unfair. Tevez was fined a couple months or something and the PFA reduced this to maybe just the two weeks, largely because City's internal investigation proved Tevez didn't do what he was accused of and that Mancini was a complete ****.

Liverpool will have a hard time fining him without upsetting the player and if a transfer falls through with this upsetting him isn't going to help them so I'm not sure they would fine him at all. You never know, Suarez might hold up his hands admit he was wrong and refuse to be paid while he couldn't play............



hahahahahah, sure.