The Official Suarez "our ****" Thread (closing this thread at noon so get commenting)

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Nah Tobes, he has issues obviously, ones he hasn't resolved, it has nothing to do with us supporting him, Suarez knows what he is doing is wrong, do you think supporting him changes that, 3 times. 3 bans.

Given the obvious outcome from biting at the WC, it would be entirely logical to assume it was a compulsive action and the root cause of the compulsion needs to be addressed.

Does this mean I am apologising for him? I don't think it is tbh

Compulsive behaviour does not need to be in the heat of the moment. I am sure you understand that

Just 1 more ban for biting and he'll equal the number of suspensions Ramires got last season. That was "conventional" violence though, which is fine.

Compulsive behavour can manifest it's self in many ways, Ramirez also suffers the exact same flaw as Suarez, but he prefers to either two footed or elbow out his compulsion. What boggles the mind is deeming Suarez to be far far worse, and it's just unbelievably stupid that he is actually better off breaking someone's leg with a horror tackle in terms of rules, pretty sad really.

it sends the message out, you better not bite but you can punch and kick your anger away for little or no punishment.
All violent non football attacks should be treated equally because of what they are, violent attacks on an opponent.

 

[Red Hadron Collider]

Ok, a serious post then I'm off to me pit- it's getting late here in the Olde Worlde.

No-one should attempt to condone what Suarez did.
None of us on here did. Many of us got pissed off with the hysterical over-reaction and self-serving sanctimony of the wums who tried to make out he's Satan. A lot of us are also aggrieved that the club, that has done so much to help him achieve some measure of self-control has to bear the brunt of his indiscretions whilst playing elsewhere.
Many players get away with far greater levels of aggression and dangerous, violent behaviour than he shows, but it's the bizarre nature of his transgression that brings so much opprobrium.
Uruguayans are not being heroic or helpful for supporting their player- helping him entails accepting his wrongdoing and trying to ensure it doesn't happen again.
By lauding his actions or trying to wave them away as unimportant, they are reinforcing the belief that he's done nothing wrong and that only increases the likelihood that he will do it again in the future.
It doesn't help Suarez, Uruguay or Liverpool Football Club.

I particularly agree with this

 

[Red Hadron Collider]

So you don't count punching each other as fighting but you do class biting as fighting.

You are deffo on the wind up Livtor.

You reckon>

 

[Red Hadron Collider]

Egg-Sackly

He got us CL with his goals, that's what we bought him for. If he misses 9 games and gets 25+ goals I'll still see it as worth it.

His actions in the World Cup have nothing to do with our club anyways. That's Uruguay's problem, we just have to pick up as many points in those 9 games as possible. We did well last season without him.

No Sisu. It's quite patently our problem as well.

 

[CCC]

So you don't count punching each other as fighting but you do class biting as fighting.

You are deffo on the wind up Livtor.

He might have no arms.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Ni Sisu. It's quite patently our problem as well.

FIFA have made it our problem, what can we do to manage him while he's at Uruguay's WC Red?

not a lot. He bit no one while under Rodgers and the club's management last season. A few weeks away from the club and he does it and the club get punished.

 

[Tobes]

Nah Tobes, he has issues obviously, ones he hasn't resolved, it has nothing to do with us supporting him, Suarez knows what he is doing is wrong, do you think supporting him changes that, 3 times. 3 bans.

Given the obvious outcome from biting at the WC, it would be entirely logical to assume it was a compulsive action and the root cause of the compulsion needs to be addressed.

Does this mean I am apologising for him? I don't think it is tbh

Compulsive behaviour does not need to be in the heat of the moment. I am sure you understand that

The PFA offered specialist counselling the last time he did it, you declined it and said you'd deal with it "in house".

Did he ever get that 'help'? If the answer's no then your standing by him and refusing to force him to confront his issues makes you partly culpable.

Talk of compulsive behaviour is bollocks anyway imo, as he didn't do it while being held and reacting, he did that as an 'attack' not a defence mechanism.

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

He might have no arms.

Is it RHC...?

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

The PFA offered specialist counselling the last time he did it, you declined it and said you'd deal with it "in house".

Did he ever get that 'help'? If the answer's no then your standing by him and refusing to force him to confront his issues makes you partly culpable.

Talk of compulsive behaviour is bollocks anyway imo, as he didn't do it while being held and reacting, he did that as an 'attack' not a defence mechanism.

He may get help, does that mean "****" it is resolved? No, it's an ongoing thing. You can't use such an uncertain situation to state facts, people can have the best psychiatric support and still do the things they do.

Unless you are a complete cretin you will realise compulsive disorders take a lot of effort and help to overcome. Especially one that is with someone all of their life without being addressed.

I am not making excuses here for Suarez just so you know

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

The PFA offered specialist counselling the last time he did it, you declined it and said you'd deal with it "in house".

Did he ever get that 'help'? If the answer's no then your standing by him and refusing to force him to confront his issues makes you partly culpable.

Talk of compulsive behaviour is bollocks anyway imo, as he didn't do it while being held and reacting, he did that as an 'attack' not a defence mechanism.

Do you think the answer is no considering his behaviour throughout the season compared to previous seasons? We can't manage the player when he's with Uruguay.

 

[Tobes]

FIFA have made it our problem, what can we do to manage him while he's at Uruguay's WC Red?

not a lot. He bit no one while under Rodgers and the club's management last season. A few weeks away from the club and he does it and the club get punished.

It became your problem when you signed a player who was serving a ban for biting someone. He repeated it whilst on your payroll, you stood by him and in fact then rewarded him by doubling his salary. He's now done it again and he needs to learn once and for all that the game just won't have it. so HE'S been dealt a 4 month ban, not Liverpool. The fact that you're going to lose him for that period as he's on your books, is the downside of having a player like him, but you knew what he was capable of when you bought him.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

The PFA offered specialist counselling the last time he did it, you declined it and said you'd deal with it "in house".

Did he ever get that 'help'? If the answer's no then your standing by him and refusing to force him to confront his issues makes you partly culpable.

Talk of compulsive behaviour is bollocks anyway imo, as he didn't do it while being held and reacting, he did that as an 'attack' not a defence mechanism.

Now you are talking bollocks, seriously, really mate, that last line is utter nonsense, not that you could bring yourself to admit it, you have no idea what compulsion mean then never mind compulsive disorder. Compulsive actions have nothing to do with heat of the moment

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

It became your problem when you signed a player who was serving a ban for biting someone. He repeated it whilst on your payroll, you stood by him and in fact then rewarded him by doubling his salary. He's now done it again and he needs to learn once and for all that the game just won't have it. so HE'S been dealt a 4 month ban, not Liverpool. The fact that you're going to lose him for that period as he's on your books, is the downside of having a player like him, but you knew what he was capable of when you bought him.

You are linking a lot of events in your mind, in reality they are not linked. Just because they are in chronological order does not link them, unless it is in Tobes' world. You are back to your old talking complete bollocks self I see

For example you are giving the impression we knew he would bite again when we signed him from Ajax or that we knew he would do it again after Ivanovic. nonsense mate, really.

Did Duncan Ferguson get a contract based on his punching and getting locked up after he got out? Did everton factor that in? No, **** off

 

[Bodinki]

So you don't count punching each other as fighting but you do class biting as fighting.

You are deffo on the wind up Livtor.

Thats kinda the problem, people DO count punching as fighting, and fighting, although against the rules, and this may sound laddish, kinda comes with the territory when you get 22 guys rough housing each other on a pitch.

Biting, however, doesnt count as fighting. Biting counts as eating, or something a child does. Its counted as primal and animalistic, hence the outrage, though no one can deny that most of the outrage is faux outrage and isnt without ulterior motive.

I can really see Liverpool's point here. It didnt cause a big injury and it wasnt committed in their colours, so its being blown out of proportion.
Do I think Suarez is a gimp who should seek help? Yes.
Do I think he should have been banned from club games? Hard to say, on one hand Liverpool shouldnt really be punished, but there isnt any other way to offer a proper punishment, an International ban alone would have had people up in arms.
And as much as anyone wants to deny, FIFA have pandered to the masses somewhat in all of this.

 

[jenners04]

It became your problem when you signed a player who was serving a ban for biting someone. He repeated it whilst on your payroll, you stood by him and in fact then rewarded him by doubling his salary. He's now done it again and he needs to learn once and for all that the game just won't have it. so HE'S been dealt a 4 month ban, not Liverpool. The fact that you're going to lose him for that period as he's on your books, is the downside of having a player like him, but you knew what he was capable of when you bought him.

would you say it was fair for Uruguay to be punished for something he done in a liverpool shirt? if not, why is it ok the other way round?

this bollocks doesn't really give us the opportunity to get rid of him fairly, well makes it harder any way.

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

Thats kinda the problem, people DO count punching as fighting, and fighting, although against the rules, and this may sound laddish, kinda comes with the territory when you get 22 guys rough housing each other on a pitch.

Biting, however, doesnt count as fighting. Biting counts as eating, or something a child does. Its counted as primal and animalistic, hence the outrage, though no one can deny that most of the outrage is faux outrage and isnt without ulterior motive.

I can really see Liverpool's point here. It didnt cause a big injury and it wasnt committed in their colours, so its being blown out of proportion.
Do I think Suarez is a gimp who should seek help? Yes.
Do I think he should have been banned from club games? Hard to say, on one hand Liverpool shouldnt really be punished, but there isnt any other way to offer a proper punishment, an International ban alone would have had people up in arms.
And as much as anyone wants to deny, FIFA have pandered to the masses somewhat in all of this.

So what about hair pulling then...?

 

[chelsea - over 100 years of history]

It became your problem when you signed a player who was serving a ban for biting someone. He repeated it whilst on your payroll, you stood by him and in fact then rewarded him by doubling his salary. He's now done it again and he needs to learn once and for all that the game just won't have it. so HE'S been dealt a 4 month ban, not Liverpool. The fact that you're going to lose him for that period as he's on your books, is the downside of having a player like him, but you knew what he was capable of when you bought him.

Spot on.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Spot on.

Actually it's not, even remotely, only seeing what you want to see mate

 

[Bodinki]

would you say it was fair for Uruguay to be punished for something he done in a liverpool shirt? if not, why is it ok the other way round?

this bollocks doesn't really give us the opportunity to get rid of him fairly, well makes it harder any way.

Its not a question of fairness Jenner, its a question of jurisdiction.
An offence committed whilst playing in the PL comes under the FA's jurisdiction, and they dont have the authority to ban a player from Internationals.
FIFA however, being the world governing body, can ban a player from playing under any association that comes under their jurisdiction.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Its not a question of fairness Jenner, its a question of jurisdiction.
An offence committed whilst playing in the PL comes under the FA's jurisdiction, and they dont have the authority to ban a player from Internationals.
FIFA however, being the world governing body, can ban a player from playing under any association that comes under their jurisdiction.

True, if the FA could have given him a total ban, they sure as hell would have so there would have been at least a consistency there