Suarez
- Thread starter KIO
- Start date
sounds about right
like the idea of us playing 'pool next season in those first 6 games, maybe they could get both the home and away game in too
like the idea of us playing 'pool next season in those first 6 games, maybe they could get both the home and away game in too
Seen some comments claiming this makes a joke of the FA's stance on racism because he's got a longer ban than he did for racially abusing Evra and it's longer than Terry got for abusing Ferdinand. While they have a point, every single one of them has failed to acknowledge that this is the second time Suarez has been banned for the same offence and as Bath said, the punishment needs to be more for the second offence than it was for the first offence.
Sorry DH, I can guarantee that we'll be playing Liverpool in the seventh game of the season so that Mr Suarez will be ready and raring to go. I'd have money on us having Bassong, Ruddy or van Wolfswinkel sent off the match before as well.
Sorry DH, I can guarantee that we'll be playing Liverpool in the seventh game of the season so that Mr Suarez will be ready and raring to go. I'd have money on us having Bassong, Ruddy or van Wolfswinkel sent off the match before as well.
The Club's possible treatment of Suarez was discussed on Talksh**e on Monday. Someone suggested that Bob Paisley would have shown him the door and Bill Shankly would have put his head through the door.
Would have been a job getting his teeth through though, not to mention his ego.
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.
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.
Last time he was guilty of the same offence he was given a 7 match ban! Considering his previous, he has got off lightly!
I've been thinking this too. In a criminal Court, jumping in the air and smashing your feet into a victim's leg to smash two shins would (I imagine) lead to a GBH s20 charge and prison. Biting someone's arm, but not drawing blood would lead to a Common Assault charge, and probably a Caution.
True but I don't know what or how the bite happened last time. I just think there is a bit of double standards among those wanting something just short of stoning to death for a bite. How was that ever going to end Ivanovic's career? Holt has been guilty of worse recently on more than one occasion. Two footed on a goalkeeper and then that awful tackle over the top. And he got away with both.
Couldn't agree more. Over reaction for me. Had it been gazza back in the day it would have been laughed off.
Who's in the Teeth XI then? We'd clearly want Suarez and Ronaldinho up front, but who'd fill the rest of the spots?
Because the bite was entirely in related to the game. He wasn't chasing the ball he didn't go in for a back tackle. He literally just assaulted another player on the field of play, it was unrelated to football be just decided he was going to hurt someone.
Yeah, I agree with this. Going in hard and late into tackles is dangerous, but at least still within the normal bounds of the game. Sinking you teeth into someone's arm is different.
Have to agree with Redruth on this one, don't condone it but how can they let say Felleni's headbutt go for less than a bite?
Also. If he would have admitted to when asked by the Ref, would the FA's hand been tied because they can't overturn the official?
One final question, Why wasn't Vinnie Jones done for squeezing the hell out of Gazza's bollocks? (Can i say bollocks on here?)
Also. If he would have admitted to when asked by the Ref, would the FA's hand been tied because they can't overturn the official?
One final question, Why wasn't Vinnie Jones done for squeezing the hell out of Gazza's bollocks? (Can i say bollocks on here?)
I've checked... Bollocks, Happy sacks and Gonads are absolutely fine Guru.
whos wumming Dave? I'm serious with what im saying on this incident.
Why is a bite, worse than some deliberately trying to break a leg?
Its like say somebody who has got caught for burglary twice should get longer than somebody who has murdered someone!
Biting is an attack completely unrelated to football, a poor tackle is a result of bad timing in a part of an actual game!
Ok, so what about a headbutt or a punch?
Are you saying that its ok for people to go around doing 2 footed reckless tackles potential ending careers and to get away scot free?