Poll: Suarez has to be banned for a year at least
- Thread starter Frankiemac
- Start date
Maybe wenger can smoke some more of that stuff and take him for 80m+1
Still wont be as bad as the stuff your owners were smoking when you lot signed Carrol for £50mill
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 3,053
- Location
- ireland
Still wont be as bad as the stuff your owners were smoking when you lot signed Carrol for £50mill
Wasn't it £35 million? They got £17.5 back which is probably what he was worth in the first place, Kenny was mad to sign for him that amount.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,445
- Location
- West Sussex
Disgusting, a dog gets put down when it bites and no 2nd chances, so should he.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,675
- Location
- The KOP
I think we should sell him on now, bargain with Barcelona and try include sanchez and maybe Pedro.
.Fascinating reading the thread.
Suarez is brilliant, no doubt, but comes with negative points (racism, biting), however to even suggest sacking him is hilarious, Suarez represents (at least to Liverpool) a huge financial investment and I imagine that is how he will be seen at board level so sacking him makes little to no sense. Even if Liverpool want to get rid of him, sacking him as opposed to selling him for ~money~ makes no sense.
I think the decision was light, I was half expecting all football for 6 months and then after that missing 10 international games but on the other hand it's FIFA so I was half expecting a fine (well, it's how they deal with racism
).I think what this has done though, for me at least, is highlight a bigger problem with football (specifically in response to bans). Don't get me wrong, Suarez biting someone is really ****, but it's not worse than Alan **** (that word begins with c) Shearer who kicked Lennon in the head and then held the FA to ransom over it. It's not as bad as going out and intentionally making a bad tackle / to hurt someone, it's not as bad as elbowing someone or whatever. These aren't punished in the same way, which is frustrating. I'm not drawing any comparisons to what other players have done (like many people have mentioned Terry, Ferdinand missing his drugs appointment, Cantona hitting a racist, whatever) but just in general, if a player elbows someone, ban the idiot for longer. If a player makes a properly horrible tackle, ban the idiot for longer. Like, Suarez gets 4 months for biting someone (totally fine) but then whomever comes along and breaks someone's leg and gets a 3 match ban. Meh, just tipsy ramblings.
I think the ban for Suarez is meh, whatever, but I think it actually just highlights for me the failing to address other dangerous situations on the pitch.
Also; might have been G|mp talking about Wilshire's being a crack ***** ages ago
I got my freaking comments deleted though 
.I think non football fans often forget how tribal football is sometimes, quite a lot of things end up becoming arguments and dragging up 'well whomever did X, Y and Z' just for some fans (quite a lot, hate to generalise usually) come out of a deep rooted tribal sense of belonging to one club and disliking certain clubs, rather than actually just discussing about what happened, with a sense of perspective.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You do realise two previous players in the world cup have been done for serious elbows and received around 8 game bans, but for a first offence. if they had done it again it's likely they would have gotten significantly worse bans.
Can you name a player who broke someones leg intentionally and didn't get a ban?
Some of the worst/most significant situations in which players got away from something was due to a loophole(since somewhat fixed) in the rules. A ref seeing something and not giving a red card and FA not able to by the rules change it.
People keep banging on and on and on and on about all these terrible awful things that happen and don't get punished. Like Suarez's horrendous tackle, his multiple stamps and his leg breaking tackle.
The trouble with most of them is intent can't be determined and anyone who can't comprehend that intent changes the punishment is frankly ignorant. The bite's intention can't be excused or fobbed off as an over zealous tackle.
Ramsey had his leg broken, Shawcross made a bad tackle, he did not intend to break his leg and so didn't get a severe ban, if he did it on a yearly basis then he WOULD get an increasing ban each time it happened.
We've seen post after post, Baz saying paraphrased "players who have punched players 3 times get away with it"... who, which player can you name who has punched people three times, which player can you, Tummy, name who has broken multiple legs intentionally, unmistakeably intentionally like a bite in which you can with 100% certainty assign intention to the player?
LIterally dozens of posts saying why hasn't this and that player who have done so much not been punished, yet can not list these supposed players at all.
Shearer, yes did one terrible tackle, and wasn't a particularly pleasant footballer, he likely should have had a long ban. But it's also not, what 98 IIRC, rules change, punishments change but logic states that if a player didn't get a ban in 98, then we also shouldn't ban people for kicking players in the head in 2014... does that make sense to anyone? Should we base all bans today on a incorrectly punished kick in 98, or should we move on and start punishing things appropriately now. Rules have changed so the FA can more easily impose bans on players that deserve them. In what way is a third, completely unmistakeable in intention, bite not be punished severely, regardless of if you factor in the leg he broke, the double leg breaker/career ender he attempted, the multiple players he has quite clearly intentionally tried to injure(but can all be passed off as non intentional), three bites is utterly unacceptable.
Can you name a player who broke someones leg intentionally and didn't get a ban?
Some of the worst/most significant situations in which players got away from something was due to a loophole(since somewhat fixed) in the rules. A ref seeing something and not giving a red card and FA not able to by the rules change it.
People keep banging on and on and on and on about all these terrible awful things that happen and don't get punished. Like Suarez's horrendous tackle, his multiple stamps and his leg breaking tackle.
The trouble with most of them is intent can't be determined and anyone who can't comprehend that intent changes the punishment is frankly ignorant. The bite's intention can't be excused or fobbed off as an over zealous tackle.
Ramsey had his leg broken, Shawcross made a bad tackle, he did not intend to break his leg and so didn't get a severe ban, if he did it on a yearly basis then he WOULD get an increasing ban each time it happened.
We've seen post after post, Baz saying paraphrased "players who have punched players 3 times get away with it"... who, which player can you name who has punched people three times, which player can you, Tummy, name who has broken multiple legs intentionally, unmistakeably intentionally like a bite in which you can with 100% certainty assign intention to the player?
LIterally dozens of posts saying why hasn't this and that player who have done so much not been punished, yet can not list these supposed players at all.
Shearer, yes did one terrible tackle, and wasn't a particularly pleasant footballer, he likely should have had a long ban. But it's also not, what 98 IIRC, rules change, punishments change but logic states that if a player didn't get a ban in 98, then we also shouldn't ban people for kicking players in the head in 2014... does that make sense to anyone? Should we base all bans today on a incorrectly punished kick in 98, or should we move on and start punishing things appropriately now. Rules have changed so the FA can more easily impose bans on players that deserve them. In what way is a third, completely unmistakeable in intention, bite not be punished severely, regardless of if you factor in the leg he broke, the double leg breaker/career ender he attempted, the multiple players he has quite clearly intentionally tried to injure(but can all be passed off as non intentional), three bites is utterly unacceptable.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,178
- Location
- Tyne & Wear
It's time to sell him, even though he's a genius there is quite often a fine line between genius and madness and he's crossed that line too many times and we have to think of the clubs reputation.
Sell him for a big wad of cash and let him be someone else's problem
Sell him for a big wad of cash and let him be someone else's problem
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
What I don't understand is why Liverpool are trying to sue fifa and not Suarez? It's Suarez's fault that he's banned. Liverpool should sue him to get the wages back for the next 4 months for unprofessional conduct.
Suing FIFA is a lot easier than suing Suarez for his wages. The other reason would be that if they win against FIFA, Suarez gets to play for them / has a higher value vs getting a bit of money back. They would rather he were not banned over not having to pay him for 4 months.
I'd assume that Liverpool's grievance is due to the world-wide ban as opposed to international ban, basically taking the stance why should 'we' be punished for what he did for Uruguay. Saying that... I think they should go after Suarez, however they prob aren't fussed about getting money... they want their star player.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
So youre saying if Suarez had been sent to prison for abh then they'd sue the MOJ ?
How have we got from Ian Ayre saying "Liverpool Football Club will wait until we have seen and had time to review the Fifa disciplinary committee report before making any further comment.", to Liverpool are going to sue FIFA?
Man Utd Fan
Sentence is what I expected and I think is about right. Yes of course LFC are going to fight it and I think they are within their rights. Indirectly they are being punished for his actions on international duty.
I am disappointed that FIFA have not offered any kind of rehabilitation. There is obvious issues he needs to work through. I dunno, maybe it's a cultural thing as there seems to be a lot of blinkers on in Monivideo if they think it's just one of them things that happens on a football field. Quite clearly these things dont just happen.
Also interested to understand what kind of rehabilitation Liverpool offered, nay demanded Suarez undertook when he bit Ivanovic. If it was little or nothing, then I don't really have a lot of sympathy.
Sentence is what I expected and I think is about right. Yes of course LFC are going to fight it and I think they are within their rights. Indirectly they are being punished for his actions on international duty.
I am disappointed that FIFA have not offered any kind of rehabilitation. There is obvious issues he needs to work through. I dunno, maybe it's a cultural thing as there seems to be a lot of blinkers on in Monivideo if they think it's just one of them things that happens on a football field. Quite clearly these things dont just happen.
Also interested to understand what kind of rehabilitation Liverpool offered, nay demanded Suarez undertook when he bit Ivanovic. If it was little or nothing, then I don't really have a lot of sympathy.