Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,920
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Poll: Suarez has to be banned for a year at least
- Thread starter Frankiemac
- Start date
.Nothing wrong?
So the video shows what exactly?
you've been had my son. go and read Pigeon_Killer's previous posts in the thread.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
His first statement talked about alienation of the player not being able to be with his team mates for four months, the second statement suggested reducing the ban, he hasn't specified reduction in time. From his first statement it would imply that reducing the severity of the ban, IE, being allowed into training or at least into the stadium for game days.
It's presumptuous to assume he wants the length of the ban reduced seeing as the only implicit part of the ban he's spoken of is him saying banning him from training is very harsh.
I know you're being sarcastic(hope you still are), just irks me that people take every statement and twist it for whatever use they want.
Apparently Robben may have only said he "went down easy" effectively, for the first penalty yet everyone reported it as saying sorry for diving. I'm still confused on that as everyone is talking about 3 penalties/dives, yet I can only remember two, the first half one with two players who afaik both made contact while missing the ball. Then the one that was given as a penalty. Game really should have been one pen for Mexico and two for Holland.
Last edited:
.@luis16suarez It's all forgotten. I hope FIFA will reduce your suspension
I think that's quite obvious that Chiellini would like to see the ban reduced, rather than just the training aspect.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You can reduce the length of a ban, you can also reduce the severity of a ban, you can reduce an aspect of a ban, you can reduce a sauce into a syrup. No, as I said it's presumptuous to assume reduce means to reduce the length. The ONLY actual aspect of the ban he has specifically talked about is the harshness of not seeing his team mates, of being alienated. He has not mentioned length and you are presuming he means length. The only implication you can make based on what he has said is that he thinks the severity(train exclusion) should be reduced, nothing else.
If he wanted the length specifically reduced he could and should have said so, he didn't. He may have meant that, he may not have.
Utter nonsense.
Well, that's one way of looking at it.
So, the opinions of the outraged (or those that are simply enjoying the schadenfreude) are as valid as the supposed "victim" of the transgression. Isn't that called having your cake AND eating it?
I don't want to to live on this forum any more.
One or two bites should get you sorted.
It certainly is!... When it isn't being used as a catch-all to dismiss people who disagree with you.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
No it means, the ban is what it is, but he'd at least want him to see his team mates. That is how it works, at least is referring to the thing he is saying "at least" about. You don't say "I hope Arsenal sign a striker at least"... and imply I also hope we sign a midfielder, the at least refers to the striker.
He's precisely saying, I hope they let him see his team mates at least... that is the part he thinks is unfair and he hopes that is reduced. He's not mentioned length of the ban once, he's mentioned only the unfairness of not being able to see the team mates. He may have meant ANYTHING, but from what he's actually said there is only one possible implication from the words used. Adding in length, or at least meaning he hopes for something else is simple not in the statements he made.
AS for if what Chiellini wants matters, no basically. For one thing Chiellini is one of the more aggressive and generally arsey footballers around. It's a bit like Bush getting in trouble for invading Iraq then Blair standing up to say it's a bit unfair....
There are rules and if 5 footballers ignore them, one of the other 4 standing up for him is pretty meaningless. As much as I think people are retarded for letting kids idolise famous people, they do. one of the reasons the ban was so serious was because this was in the world cup, in one of the most watched sporting events in history. His actions have consequences, whether he or Chiellini believe so(even though nothing he has said suggests he wants the ban reduced
). There is also the fact that Chiellini isn't THE victim, he is ONE OF the victims. The ban was as large as it was also because this was in particular his third bite, which they took into account officially, unofficially they probably took into account the multiple stamps, the broken leg, and the attempted double leg break in his history. There are dozens of victims they have to think about protecting. Chiellini might be thinking the bite itself isn't that bad, but that doesn't mean he's considering the next victim, or the previous victims.
It's also actually pretty normal for a victim to feel bad about a particularly long sentence. Guy murders someone, victims family want life jail term, he gets that but after a while they feel guilt over someone being locked up(not always of course, but it's not uncommon either), that doesn't mean the person didn't deserve the jail term.
Last edited: