They will have surely used the fact that they'd warned him about his future conduct after the last debacle?
Think its in reference to the consistent fouls/cards that he should have had for his amazing tackling ability.Lets not forget he is english though .
Actually agree with this. I'm not upset he got a ten match ban, I'm surprised others before him didn't for the same thing. Consistency is something a lawmaking group should pride itself in, and this one clearly doesn't. As I pointed out above, though, the FA couldn't look at the Ajax incident as it was under a different (football) governing body. Also, he scored the tying goal, but I catch your drift.
He wasn't talking about the bite or anything, he was referencing the history causing longer bans, where Scholes seems to get the same ban after countless incidents.
Then surely they'd have come out and said that had bearing on the judgement, making the ban longer I would think?
Yeah, if that's the case it'll be in their detailed judgement (donga can't sleep in anticipation of that arriving )
David Cameron is ****ing over the working class people of Britain. He has recently praised a most horrible of woman as if she was a saint and yet it is Suarez and his little nibble that is setting a bad example. Thatchers love child is clearly jumping on the Suarez bandwagon in an attempt to deflect his scummy **** ups
I assume Scholes' incidents are his countless cynical fouls! which would have been seen by the officials, decisions made on the spot, so the fa would not have the power to do anything???? Ideally his constant fouling should have been picked up on it I admit. Goes to show that the laws of the game are crap! I mean, if the referee had seen the incident and given suarez a yellow card, would the fa have been able to ban him???????????
Nope. And that's ridiculous. Plus, with Scholes, I think if he was given a red card, the FA can extend the ban. Otherwise, he'd be happier with a red then the ref missing it and getting a retroactive ban, because then he'd only miss two (three?) games.
Yes they could/would have. They did with Ben thatcher, and it's totally inconceivable that they'd miss any opportunity to give Liverpool in general, and Suarez in particular a good kicking if that was what the mail and the Sun were calling for.
No appeal. Think the stick got to them then. So we did it right, then did it wrong, then did it right again?
Thee is no right as far as the media and FA are concerned when judging Liverpool. Utterly pointless sucking their cock in the first place. Only one who comes out of this with any credit at all from the club is brendan - he's changed my opinion of him completely. Keep Brendan - **** off FSG.
QUOTE=Bluff City Red;4643461]No appeal. Think the stick got to them then. So we did it right, then did it wrong, then did it right again?[/QUOTE] Thee is no right as far as the media and FA are concerned when judging Liverpool. Utterly pointless sucking their cock in the first place. Only one who comes out of this with any credit at all from the club is brendan - he's changed my opinion of him completely. Keep Brendan - **** off FSG.
I dont think he had any choice if he appealed it would of added 2 games on straight away without looking at it again.
I dont think he had any choice if he appealed it would of added 2 games on straight away without looking at it again.
We rolled over. We really need to get a grip of ourselves and not bother commenting on length of bans etc. unless we are going to challenge them. Let the media and opposition fans have their day it seems to be all that keeps some people going and makes them feel good. Then we get Cameron, leaves his daughter in a pub before telling us how Suarez is effecting his son, what a pile!! Anyhow Interesting read below on the Cameron angle http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brian-reade-luis-suarez-needs-1852005
