Also added that he would try to understand why he did it...what he really means is 'and deal with it.' Perhaps he knows Nicola is in the process of making a cheeky bid Don't think Liverpool are doing themselves any favours...Suarez got a swingeing ban because he is a repeat offender of serious offences...it would be better if they kept quiet but helped their player throw together a decent appeal for today. Criticising the FA in public hardly helps at all.
I personally wouldn't want him at my club. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when we score from a freekick or penalty resulting in a Lallana dive, Saurez is on a whole other level.
Basically confirms they're making it up as they go along. How they can give a 10 match ban for this but only 4 for clear racist abuse (by Terry) is just beyond me.
I agree, but the perspective is all wrong. The FA report says Suarez intended to seriously injure Ivanovic, but he didn't even have a scratch on him, so I don't see how that can be the case. It was a nibble at best, but I can understand why they want to make an example of that kind of behaviour. But what Terry did is much, much more severe in my eyes. If this is a 10 game ban, he should have got 20.
Suarez did intend to injure the player...more a matter of luck he didn't. It was disgraceful and deserved a 10 match ban. The fact that other incidents may have deserved more is irrelevant. Suarez is a man out of control.
How can you possibly know that? I'd suggest if he had really wanted to injure Ivanovic he would have broken the skin. The fact other incidents may have deserved more is completely relevant to a discussion on the FA's disciplinary system.
I know that this is straying off topic but the Terry incident is more complicated than that. The whole thing was a sorry affair that cast football in a bad light, and John Terry is unquestionably a twat, but any ban given to Terry should have been duplicated in a ban to Anton Ferdinand who was at least equally abhorrent in what occurred that day.
I think the reason he didn't hurt Ivanovic, is because he's as strong as an ox and pushed Suarez off with some force. I concur with Fran. A man that resorts to biting in what is essentially his profession has some issues to sort out.
I'm not disputing that, even a nibble is not the action of someone who is in control of the situation, but if he had been determined to injure Ivanovic, he would have done a lot more damage than he did. Anton Ferdinand may have said some nasty things about Terry, but none of it was racial. If you want to make a case for the FA to ban players for commenting on their opponents' sexual proclivities then be my guest, but racism is a more established issue, and the example involving Terry was clear and forceful. Much more so than the Suarez/Evra affair incidentally, and he got a much longer ban than Terry then. I'm not defending what Suarez has done in either of those cases, but the FA have questions to answer about how they seem to treat other cases, particularly those regarding players who might be required by England it would seem, more leniently.
I don't see why it matters whether something is deemed to be an "established issue". If we are going to persecute players for the abuse they throw at each other during a game you can't deem one insult as being more worthy of punishment than another. I read a full transcript of the goings on that day as part of the court trial and neither of them came out of it with a great deal of credit, but it seemed clear to me that Anton Ferdinand was by far the more guilty party in what occurred that day. Terry shouldn't have said what he said but it was Ferdinand that was in the wrong and I suspect the FA took that account in their judgement, as they should. I don't know the details of the Suarez offence but you can't simply conclude that all offences involving racism are equal, you have to consider the circumstances.
What I mean is there are concerted and high-profile campaigns against racism in football, not against general abuse. Clearly racist abuse is considered worse than non-racist abuse. I never said all racist abuse is the same, quite the opposite, I said Terry's was worse than Suarez's! But the FA didn't see it that way. If I was Luis Suarez, not to excuse his actions, I would be looking at what other players get away with, or at least get lesser penalties for, and feeling rather sorry for myself. And as an outsider I feel that would be somewhat justified.
The latest I have heard is that Suarez wants Chelsea docked points for fielding an inedible player............. I'll get my coat.
So you should Don..... The reality is if he wants to act as a three year old he will be punished as a three year old.....hence the sanction. Personally I think Suarez got off lightly.........It is I believe is second offence........I think he is lucky he is not charged with assault and get a criminal record. I do not understand some of the Liverpool fans saying the FA have been harsh on him.......Their attitude is called into question once again and their reputation takes another knock. I would have thought the majority of fans would at least have acknowledged that.
As I said before, Liverpool's failure to acknowledge the severity of the incident would do them no favours. Suarez came out and said he was sorry but that he thought a 3 match ban was enough...showed no real contrition or understanding of how this would be viewed by the FA. He would have missed fewer games if he'd apologised and both he and Liverpool kept quiet. The FA said as much in their summary.
One thing that's worth commending was Ivanovic's remarkable restraint. Granted I think there was shock involved, but it says a lot for the man that he didn't lay one on Suarez.
And moreover, after it went unpunished in-game, he didn't retaliate. If someone bit me during a game, I'd be eyeing their ankles rather, erm, hungrily for the remainder of the match.
