It's just the two faced part of this. I am am quite willing to put my hands up and say on another subject I might well be be the same. But we have people going on about Suarez actions based upon the fact that they don't like him. The call him a racist, fair enough but then take the mick out of him because of his teeth! What's the difference? Colour of skin or size of teeth? They say he cheats because he dives. Come on fellas, Holt has got a few decisions in his time when we all know he "went to ground very easy" to be polite. We all laughed like hell when Delaney got sent off against us and didn't we plead innocence when Holt had earlier floored Colbeck. It doesn't really matter what any of us think and I doubt any of us will change our minds but to me it does show the FA and match officials have no consitency and constantly give in or bow to pressure. And to think they are going to spend millions on goal line technology for something that happens about 3 times a season! Give me strength.
Okay, both were off the ball incidents and assaults. I think we can actually agree on that, yes? My understanding of this is, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the referee saw the Defoe incident?, so it was dealt with in a certain way, as all reported incidents by referees are. If that is true then of course this is where the FA leave themselves wide open for criticism in such cases because the retrospective action invariable is much harsher than it would have been had the referee seen it. To that point I can understand why people are not happy about a 10 game ban BUT That is how it works, as unjust as it appears to be. Now taking the other point in to consideration, i.e. the previous 7 match ban for biting a player, how could the FA possibly give a 3 match ban for the same offence? Let me go back to the Cantona incident, it was reported by the referee, that is to say he gave a red card to Cantona for the kick at the spectator but the FA also increased the ban to 8 months which suggests they do have the authority to do so if the incident is serious enough and as this was a repeat offence then my assumption would have top be that the FA have used the same discretion to use their power to provide a more substantial ban as anything less than 7 weeks would send out the wrong message.
Thai I understand and have some sympathy for what you are saying but how can the FA defend an 11 match ban for a gentle push on a referee and only give a 5 match ban for career ending tackle? Is the FA seriously trying to say that pushing a referee deserves a far harsher punishment than for racist abuse? The whole situation is a complete bloody mess! As RR points out the FA is investing millions in goal line technology when what it should be doing is sorting out its own disciplinary proceedures before it loses what little credibility is has left in the game!
Not going to disagree with this comment as the FA are not transparent, as with lots of other institutions, but the damned well should be. The least that football fans (I am assuming the clubs are told why a ban is a certain length) should be told is why the length of any ban is appropriate, case by case I would not normally stick up for the FA because like you I find it hard to understand what they do and how they come to most of their decisions. Just happens in this case I can see why they have done what they have done, to be honest I was half expecting a longer ban.
I think it is about setting a precedent, they need to send out a message so other players do not consider pushing a referee. For a career ending challenge there may be many factors involved as it is and action that has taken place in play and is related to football. Pushing a ref, biting an opponent or spitting on them are a little different as they are acts committed when the ball is not in play and these actions amount to common assault. Not all career ending tackles are done through malice, the speed the game is played at these days I am not surprised that tackles get miss-timed and really bad injuries occur. Just think back though to Roy Keane and Kevin Muscat, tackles like the sort they used to do are few and far between these days. This is because they get punished for it now.
Just for information (just checked on Google), DiCannio got an 11 game ban for pushing a referee - remember that incident? I do, was hysterical at the time as well as unbelievable When you mentioned it above JWM I didn't realise he got that long a ban for it
This was just about what I was going to say. The incidents that are getting the longer bans all have one thing in common - they are off the ball incidents and effectively assaults, it appears that these automatically set the bar that bit higher for a handing out a punishment
It is well documented that Keane deliberatley intended to do serious damage to Inge Haarland during that game! What can be possibly worse that? For the first time in my life I will admit to being ashamed and embarassed that we took him as our manager! The Cobbold's would have been spinning in their graves!
To me it's obvious that the ban should be larger if the incident amounts to common assault. Something that you could get arrested for in normal civilian life. Whats the worse scenario: 1) You miss time a tackle and you break someones leg. 2) You walk up to someone on the street and break their leg with a baseball bat. Both scenarios end up with the same result but how they got there are very different. What Suarez did was common assault and not a football related incident, he bit someone. What would you do if you were walking along and some rat faced arsehole decided to start biting your arm? You would ether call the police or beat the **** out of him. That's where I was a little disappointed I would of loved to see Ivanovic get up and knock his oversize teeth out.
I agree with the point about inconstancies in general and think Fellani should have gotten a longer ban not suarez a shorter one, I also think racism should be a straight 10 match ban for the first offence and then at least a season ban for the next. However with Suarez in isolation they have been very consistent he would never have been banned for less than the 7 games he got previously and they added a few on for a repeat offence, this is what they would do with any player convinced of the same offence twice, and rightly so, with things like this once is an isolated incident but twice shows a pattern. Suarez probably does need help but that shouldn't mean that he gets away with a lighter punishment.
Until the FA release their official reason behind the ban, there's no real way of telling why the ban is so long. They'll be a number of questions people will want answering and hopefully they'll be explained. Did they take into account that this is the second time he's committed the same offence in three years? If so, did they decide the second ban had to be longer? Did they decide that the fines and warnings he's received aren't enough of a deterrent? Are they deciding to take a tougher stance on bad tackles and off the ball incidents? Are they bowing to media/public pressure? Why is a ban for racial abuse less than on for biting an opponent? It would also be interesting to see who was on the panel that decided on the length of the ban. I doubt the FA would be stupid enough to allow an Everton or Man Utd supporter on the panel, but you never know.
Why don't some of you lot write to the FA and ask for him to be let off??? I just can't believe some of the comparisions you're making. How can you criticise the FA for sending out a very very strong message, Is'nt it what we've all been asking for for years?
Now David Cameron has got in on the act... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22304322 Says that Suarez set the most appalling example...much like his mate Chris Huhne then?
