Why should the FA apologise for not overuling a referee's decision in an incident 7 years ago? They've taken this issue at face value today - in 2013 & they've set the benchmark for anyone who bites an opponent in the future & sent a message out across English football that this sort of behaviour has no place in the game. The player has somehow been turned into a victim by some here, which I just can't get my head around tbh.
Cant do this, would cause too much controversy as it would be be based subjectively rather than objectively and would cause too much calls of bias. Thats why Suarez ban is too long, hes a twat so I dont feel sorry for him but the ban has no foundation on aything and the FA havent explained it. Theyve just been swayed by the media. Bans should be built around rules and facts and taken act by act. Not based on the individual. They've served their previous ban, its irrelevant
Well I would suggest the FA are talking **** no surprise their. I do however believe previous offences should be considered for repeat offenders.
It wouldnt do any harm them admitting they got it wrong 7 years ago. Because they did.. Would make it easier for Liverpool fans to swallow and have less calls of bias.
Why at work if you keep breaking a rule you may get a warning then a suspension then you would get sacked. Seems pretty fair to me.
Repeat offenders are showing that they've not learnt their lesson & therefore deserve harsher sentences. The FA often tag their judgements with the line "warned about their future conduct", which means that they do not expect to see a repeat nor the player transgressing other rules of the game. The FA also have larger bans for 2nd sendings off in a season etc. Whilst I agree that they need to remove the ambiguity from the process & have more transparent rulings on off the ball issues, like racism & off the ball violence, they currently can only go with what they have, & they've given a stiff penalty here, but I don't see how people can be surprised by it.
I wasn't saying they should or shouldn't BB, just asked the question. I agree with EF2014 though, it wouldn't hurt.
YOu'd need strict guidelines in, e.g. for every previous offence it adds on a game ban to what it would have been if first offence. Suarez has just been punished this much because its Suarez. Theres no basis to his ban and if Liverpool fans complain about it, they are just accused of sticking up for Suarez no matter what and belittled (partly their fault due to their ludicrous reaction with the Evra affair)
To a point he has, as they've obviously taken a view on his previous, the fact that he's done this ridiculous act before (& the ban handed down for it) even though they'd not admit to it. So yes the punishment does have a relevance to the man it's handed down to, I don't see the issue. He's merely reaping what he's sown here, as if his past actions have had a bearing on this ruling, then who's fault is that? As his previous actions were also carried out by him........
You're still trying to turn this into a "Liverpool fans defending poor Suarez" issue. It isn't. It's a complaint about FA inconsistency. Who knows- one day your lot might be on the receiving end of the FA's on-the-fly rule making? it'll be interesting to see your reaction then.
They haven't set the benchmark though. We heard the same after Suarez was banned for 8 games for allegedly racially abusing Patrice Evra. Then Terry abused Ferdinand, with evidence this time, and only gets 4 matches. If you really think this is a bright new dawn for English football where people will be getting punished properly and severely for stepping out of line then you're deluded. The FA's punishments have always been inconsistent and unfair, and they will continue to be until they get put in their place by someone.
yeah they dont seem to get it, no one said he doesnt deserve a ban and BB defending the FA is just laughable. How can they defend one player for kicking another player and say 3 games is too much of a ban and get it reduced to 2 games and then go and give Suarez a 10 game ban, typical ****ing FA
TBF, the FA justified the difference. Suarez's ban was doubled because it was a multiple offence. Whether that is the right or wrong approach is different. I just don't see how biting is two and a half times worse than racial abuse, something that that has been campaigned for for over twenty years!
Some real nonsense written from people who clerely cannot take their dislike for Liverpool & Suarez to actually look at the decision in a logical, non-emotional way.
