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

The the ban fair?

  • Scouser: Fair

    Votes: 11 3.0%

  • Other: Fair

    Votes: 64 17.4%

  • Scouser: Too lenient

    Votes: 7 1.9%

  • Other: Too lenient

    Votes: 228 62.0%

  • Scouser: Too harsh

    Votes: 13 3.5%

  • Other: Too harsh

    Votes: 22 6.0%

  • manyoo fans: derp

    Votes: 23 6.3%
  • Total voters
    368
Purdy said:
Could've banned him for 20 international competitive games :p. (Or forever would've been fine with me :D)
Click to expand...

The most prominent part of his football will be for his club however. Banning him from international football doesn't really impact the player in the same way as a blanket ban does.

The biggest impact on him personally would be potentially from his Sponsors. They need to hit him in the pocket.
 
Craterloads said:
Had a few Liverpool fans today attempt to compare suarez with the like of zidane and cantona!

Zidane head butted some player because he made derogatory remarks about his sister/mother, cantona kicked someone for making ethnic slurs..... Suarez bit someone from behind who was running away from him..... Just a like, sure.
Click to expand...

they didn't do it 3 times either
 
Castiel said:
The most prominent part of his football will be for his club however. Banning him from international football doesn't really impact the player in the same way as a blanket ban does.

The biggest impact on him personally would be potentially from his Sponsors. They need to hit him in the pocket.
Click to expand...

AFAIK when they say he's banned from football, administrative and any other activities, it should include club sponsorship things, which will hit Liverpool in the pocket more than him. I don't know if it would prevent him doing a Subway advert...
 
UgfhENN.jpg


It's this going round on Twitter that they're not supposed to be pleased about.

All those English taking the ****.
 
I'm sure they'll make out they're not pleased and then not really care. I'm sure he'll be gutted if they drop him and some one else is sitting waiting to throw money at him.

Wish I could be paid for being a ****
 
Ayahuasca said:
For what kind of behavior?
Click to expand...

The suspended sentence was someone running to his car to get a screwdriver to stab someone that broke his shin pad in a disgusting challenge. His team mates (us) stopped that happening.

The jail time was someone attacking someone else that had intentionally gone in to hurt two players, got away with it, then broke his son's leg.

Both things could have been avoided but were indefensible.
 
FishFluff said:
He's got away very lightly with this in my opinion.

To anyone saying that Liverpool shouldn't be punished, you're wrong. It's no different than if I bit someone in the street and got sent to prison for 4 months. My employers wouldn't be able to sue the CPS or anything ridiculous like that. It's the clubs own fault for rewarding his last biting incident with an improved contract.
Click to expand...

This argument is fine providing the same punishment is dished out for all acts of violent conduct. I'm sure there are plenty of players that have elbowed, punched or head butted another player 3 times or more and as far as I'm aware they've not received this kind of ban though.

It's unfair on Liverpool in the sense that this suspension is disproportionate to bans others have or will receive for committing multiple acts of violent conduct however Liverpool knew what they were getting into. We signed him on the back of his first biting incident and like you say, have continued to stick by him after several more incidents. The reason why we have is because he's such a good player that you just have to accept that from time to time he'll do something stupid and get suspended. The fact that he's indestructible and doesn't miss games through injury makes the suspensions easier to accept.
 
You can't say on the one hand 'we signed him knowing he was a retarded football genius that we know will blow up on occasion' and then complain about the way others are punished and about it being unfair on your team when everyone knows he is a time bomb.

I doubt anyone else was bet on to bite someone in this tournament. It's the surety that it will happen again after this incident that's the real problem.
 
Gilly said:
You can't say on the one hand 'we signed him knowing he was a retarded football genius that we know will blow up on occasion' and then complain about the way others are punished and about it being unfair on your team when everyone knows he is a time bomb.

I doubt anyone else was bet on to bite someone in this tournament. It's the surety that it will happen again after this incident that's the real problem.
Click to expand...
Let me clarify.

The fact that Liverpool will effectively receive some kind of punishment for the actions of a player on international duty is not unfair in my opinion. We knew he was nuts but signed him and stuck by him knowing the risks.

However the length of the actual ban is unfair imo. Biting is ridiculous but it's not more or less violent than punching or headbutting yet many players have committed these acts 3 times or more and not received the same ban.

And the fact that somebody bet on Suarez to bite another player is no different from the 1000's of people that bet on Balotelli (or similar) getting sent off. That doesn't mean if and when that player does get sent off that they should receive a greater ban than another player that's committed the same offense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom