I am certainly not defending Suarez or Liverpool (as they clearly don't deserve it) but had Suarez have done any of the above suggestions he would have probably received a lengthy ban as well (and rightly so) because of who he is, not necessarily because of the crime. We can all think of instances were other players have got away with violent conduct (shearer & Defoe spring to mind) But I think the FA have possibly jumped to this decision too quickly and Liverpool will clearly try to pick apart their justification for the length of the ban.. Like I said, not defending and not siding with Suarez or Liverpool, but can see some of the arguments that will be coming from Liverpool (as unjustified as they might be)
I'm not defending Suarez, in the slightest. It was a stupid and cowardly thing to do, but i just can't see how the FA can hand out a 10 game ban for a stupid reaction that basically after it happened didn't cause any harm apart to reputation of the game, but let players off who go 'over the top' in a tackle and could seriously disrupt or end somebodies career get less.
Suarez = feral. Bite from Suarez = rabies. If you bit someone in the street, you'd be imprisoned. Do it on a football pitch and you get 10 weeks off work. If a dog bit someone, it would be destroyed. He should appeal to have the ban reduced on the agreement that he wears a muzzle. If he refuses, he should be paraded around Anfield on a leash.
Ok so.... Roy Keane gets a 5 match ban for deliberately ending a footballers career with an assault on the pitch. Paulo Di Canio gets 11 match ban for pushing referee Paul Adcock over. Suarez gets a 7 match ban for a percieved racist comment made towards Evra. Suarez gets a 10 match ban for biting an opponent. Something a bit screwy going on here?
Shearer stamps on players head = no ban Fellaini head butts a player = 3 match ban I can see the FA's viewpoint from this, but ultimately there needs to be far clearer guidelines as it does come across a little as if they have folded to widespread media and public furor and plucked the number 10 out of the air
Thought the FA were not allowed to take the first bite into consideration, therefore saying its better to racially abuse people than to bite them.
I agree there is a real lack of consistency from the FA but I think Suarez deserves this ban. I can accept the odd bad tackle is going to happen in football even if it's not nice to see, I can accept seeing the odd brawl because it's a contact sport (debatable) but this was just stupid and completely out of order. I hate footballers that cheat and this isn't the first time Suarez has been in trouble and I hate footballers who go out with the intention of hurting someone, god knows why Keane was allowed to play football again after his challenge on Haaland!!
Di Canio got an ELEVEN match ban for this! It is one of the funniest things though! [video=youtube;j37sS1u2FR8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j37sS1u2FR8[/video]
Keane only got FIVE games ban for this! [video=youtube;p_st29mlQwU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_st29mlQwU[/video]
Bit rich coming from the man who recently described the disabled as benefit scroungers. I am sure a selective memory will be the defence here.
It was quite funny watching you squirm last weekend after Dave, quite correctly, banned you. We both know that you are a keyboard warrior old buddy How very quaint and amusing.
