Basically people are saying that saurez should have waited 30 seconds, 2 footed Ivanovic, broke his leg and got away with a smaller ban!
Am i correct in that?
Am i correct in that?
I have to the lone dissenting voice here. The FA have bowed to media pressure, anti Liverpool pressure and the need to protest about something pressure.
10 games is way over the top and the reaction to his actions is as well. How the hell is biting someone worse than kicking the crap out of someones shin or smacking the elbow into someone's eye socket. He isn't from Transylvania or a cannibal as far as I know.
Fair dues it was pre-meditated and the most girlie. prattish thing you could do but I doubt there were too many Scousers demanding 10 games for Holt a couple of weeks ago.
He is a knobhead but one that has been singled out unfairly in this case. Outnumbered I will be, stupid I might be but luckily I haven't caught the hysteria bug that seems to have enveloped football in the last few years.
So someone who assaults someone in the street on the second occasion should receive the same punishment again or should it reflect the nature of a repeat offender?
So someone who assaults someone in the street on the second occasion should receive the same punishment again or should it reflect the nature of a repeat offender?
Basic facts are that Suarez has been given a harsher ban than somebody whose has gone over the top in a tackle and broken somebodies leg. I can't remember of a harsher ban of 10 games or more for something like that? agreed?
And most on here thinks its worse than a bad tackle? Agreed?
So i ask the question, 1st game next season Van Dogsdick is lining up for you guys, what would you rather he is a victim of? A Bite which doesn't draw blood or a 2 footed tackle over the top which puts him out for 18 months?


Another clever play on a persons name? Where do you think them all up
To answer the question - well, you can't as it is little more than proposing two scenarios in an endeavor to make a point. I believe it is called a leading or loaded question![]()
Firstly, I think one of your own actually came up with that name before me!
and secondly No it isn't Thai, I'm just asking what they think is the most serious to the player and club?
My guess would that the tackle would be the most serious, thus should be punished harsher than a bite.

but as mentioned earlier, any such tackle would in all probability has resulted from a player going for the ball. In no way can biting be seen as a ball winning skill in any way shape or from. So it's not a simple case of which would you prefer or a simple case of which is worst. It comes down to the manner in which it occurred. In this case a very off the ball situation with nothing in mind other than to harm another person - it's the "off the ball" bit that makes all the difference as far as I can see![]()
A reckless tackle, is a reckless tackle whether going for the ball or not!

The FA have got themselves into a right old mess over this!The FA has bowed to media pressure on this one, Consisitency in these judgements has got to be the key.
The FA has bowed to media pressure on this one, Consisitency in these judgements has got to be the key.
