I've always thought that if a player is deemed to be at fault, he should sit out the length of the injury he causes. It might be the death of tackling, but I hate to see the beating Bale and others receive every week from planned, cynical fouling.
The point, though surely, is that racism from role models (such as football stars) casts wider ripples in the community at large and has the tendency to cause more upset, whereas a horror tackle affects only the player whose career is ended.
Sure, but I don't know of a single banker (fat or otherwise) who makes it his habit to bite those he works with. Perhaps bankers act differently on Merseyside?
It will be interesting to see how many games Sewerez is banned for, I won`t be surprised if his punishment is quite lenient, he does after all play for FA favourites Liverpool.
i've often thought similar during a game. If a player is injured by another player and the ref deems it a foul then the fouler should sit out the time it takes to get the injured player back on or a sub on. Obviously you'd have to have a time limit as otherwise the injured player's team could take the mick with the treatment. I've never understood the logic of being a man disadvantaged because you were fouled.
there are some stupid rules,but that is one of the worse,it penalises the team who's player was injured
So the F.A won't take into account Suarez's seven match ban in Holland in 2010 for biting an opponent when they deal with him today because it was made by an overseas footballing authority. They really should do. Surely the fact that he's done it before should be a consideration- an aggravating factor? And it should offer guidance at least- if not a formal precedent- for the punishment. It should be at least another seven game ban- more realistically, given his previous record, a much longer one.
Where did you hear this? I know its not the bible but The Guardian suggested the opposite and it could be taken in to consideration.
SSN. Their chief reporter Bryan Swanson was making the point. I can understand the Dutch F.A can't set a precedent for our F.A, but surely they can (and should) take notice of a) the nature of the previous offence given its relevance and b) how it was dealt with.
Woman on the radio this morning said her sons school had been in contact because her son bit one of the other children. I wonder where he got that idea from? That's why Suarez should get a 6 month ban at least. He should be setting an example.
Regardless of whether they can or can't they will all know about it so hopefully it will come in to it. If the Dutch gave him 7 games for it then the FA should at the very least be equal to that but as he's been before them before then they need to go higher. If 7 & 8 games taught him nothing then it needs to be more.
...and he's right, for once. Goofy should be helped right out the gates of Klanfield. The man is an utter disgrace, and one of the worst cheats to ever play in our leagues. On a point of principle, would the likes of Fred West or Dr Harold Shipman have received "help"? No, they would have been banged up for life and buggered in the showers every day. Helping Goofy clearly has no effect, as he has proved himself to be a serial cheat and hooligan; the only thing left is to give him the severest penalty available to the FA. I really want them to push the boat out on this. Someone on the Chav board mentioned a 6 month ban, and I believe that should be the starting point for the FA.
I predict an appeal and a 7 game ban, like his previous one. His new club will be really pissed off, otherwise.
Liverpool have already issued a statement saying they are disappointed at the severity of the ban and are considering appeal.
