Dokko Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Some of them talking about loaning him to a League of Ireland team over the summer so he can serve his ban there. Hello, I would like to file a racism report with the FA. I feel that the 10 game ban handed out to Luis Suarez is nothing short of racial behaviour on the part of the FA. In its own statement the FA claims: - “The Football Association is committed to tackling all forms of discrimination and harassment and to promoting equality. We have already made considerable progress in tackling racism and have been working hard to ensure race equality at all levels of the game.” http://www.thefa.com/contact-thefa When compared to a simple yellow card handed to Defoe for the same exact if not worse incident with Mascherano and various extremely dangerous tackles that sometimes even ended player careers that were punished by a standard 3 game ban or not punished at all, this 10 game ban is clearly and utterly unequal. A simple bite that didn’t even mark Ivanovic’s hand cannot be worse than racial abuse that resulted in an 8 game ban to the same Suarez. Apart from the fact that, that racial abuse was a fabricated lie as well. Hence by the FA’s own statements the FA is guilty of racial discrimination against Luis Suarez. As a football fan and firm believer in fair play and equality, I am completely and utterly disgusted by the FA’s unjust and unfair treatment of Luis Suarez. Please explain to me how the FA can be taken seriously, when the same FA decided to appeal a 3 game ban handed to Rooney for kicking Miodrag Dzudovic, which incident was classified as assault. I do not expect the FA to come with a reasonable answer, seeing that the FA has a clear and shameless bias against Luis Suarez and LFC in general. Thank you for taking the time to read this or not. Regards, Love the victim complex they've got. When will this nightmare end? Was one post I read Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I don't understand the outrage at all. If he played for Newcastle I would still be keen to see him banned for as long as possible. It beggars belief that anyone could object to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he appeals this there is a chance he will play this weekend if the appeal isn't before the game. I don't know, his appeal is against the length of the ban rather than his guilt. Not sure. Something tells me I'm right. Could be from one of the [many] earlier famous bans. I'll happily be corrected though, if someone can come up with the definitive rule. Its been answered several time in last few pages Thanks. My mother always said never to go backwards in life. I still can't find the answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Thanks. My mother always said never to go backwards in life. He pleaded guilty to the offence but not the 3-match ban pre-hearing. Any further appeal will likely regard the length of the suspension. Anyway, he won't play against us whether he appeals or not. "Suarez has until midday on Friday 26 April to appeal the additional suspension, above the standard three matches." Any appeal is for the additional 7 match ban. Standard 3 match ban remains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 So if Liverpool did decide to sell / Suarez decide he's had enough in the summer.... Who would actually be prepared to spend big on him? Can't see any of the top European teams going for him due to his discipline. Qatar maybe? :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slippery Sam Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Thanks. My mother always said never to go backwards in life. He pleaded guilty to the offence but not the 3-match ban pre-hearing. Any further appeal will likely regard the length of the suspension. Anyway, he won't play against us whether he appeals or not. Cheers. When we lose, Parsnip will probably say our players were upset about Suarez not playing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he appeals this there is a chance he will play this weekend if the appeal isn't before the game. I wouldn't have thought so, he will still be banned for sometime so I'm sure it will be resolved before he reaches the 3 game mark. If he appeals he will be appealing on the length of the ban not the actual ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I don't understand the outrage at all. If he played for Newcastle I would still be keen to see him banned for as long as possible. It beggars belief that anyone could object to it. Liverpool fans are a special breed of supporters. Hard to rationally explain their beliefs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodneyCisse Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Someone posts that its deserved and gets the RTG treatment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I would love to see the argument for a shorter suspension. "I would like the panel to consider that the last time Mr Suarez bit someone he was banned for only 7 games, when he was a massive racist he got a similar amount, when he dives around and handballs he barely ever gets a card. Therefore it's clear that 10 games for this offence is excessive." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 A simple bite that didn’t even mark Ivanovic’s hand He's got a point, should just let him off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 As hilarious as it is, the FA really are a joke. Just plucking random numbers from wherever with no consistency, deciding which incidents to punish and which not to based on technicalities. The fact Defoe got away with just a yellow for an identical incident, whereas another player is given a 10 game ban... it's absurd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 So if Liverpool did decide to sell / Suarez decide he's had enough in the summer.... Who would actually be prepared to spend big on him? Can't see any of the top European teams going for him due to his discipline. Qatar maybe? :-) I would like to believe this, but sadly almost everyone will ignore his hideous behaviour and try to buy him for a pretty massive fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superior Acuña Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Half a season missed in bans over two seasons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 As hilarious as it is, the FA really are a joke. Just plucking random numbers from wherever with no consistency, deciding which incidents to punish and which not to based on technicalities. The fact Defoe got away with just a yellow for an identical incident, whereas another player is given a 10 game ban... it's absurd. Well that's the problem with the rule about the referee having dealt with the incident at the time. It should be changed, but it doesn't make this ban wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 So if Liverpool did decide to sell / Suarez decide he's had enough in the summer.... Who would actually be prepared to spend big on him? Can't see any of the top European teams going for him due to his discipline. Qatar maybe? :-) Don't be daft, they will line up to buy him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 As hilarious as it is, the FA really are a joke. Just plucking random numbers from wherever with no consistency, deciding which incidents to punish and which not to based on technicalities. The fact Defoe got away with just a yellow for an identical incident, whereas another player is given a 10 game ban... it's absurd. Well that's the problem with the rule about the referee having dealt with the incident at the time. It should be changed, but it doesn't make this ban wrong. Do you think biting somebody is 7 games worse than breaking their leg? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 As hilarious as it is, the FA really are a joke. Just plucking random numbers from wherever with no consistency, deciding which incidents to punish and which not to based on technicalities. The fact Defoe got away with just a yellow for an identical incident, whereas another player is given a 10 game ban... it's absurd. This i do agree with the whole disciplinary system needs a major shake up, how ever considering the severity of the act and past acts from the player in question i do think the ban is fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlelunchbox Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 wish we had a player like him, bite or no bite lol minus the rascist rants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 As hilarious as it is, the FA really are a joke. Just plucking random numbers from wherever with no consistency, deciding which incidents to punish and which not to based on technicalities. The fact Defoe got away with just a yellow for an identical incident, whereas another player is given a 10 game ban... it's absurd. Well that's the problem with the rule about the referee having dealt with the incident at the time. It should be changed, but it doesn't make this ban wrong. Do you think biting somebody is 7 games worse than breaking their leg? It depends. Biting for me is a particular kind of disgusting. Deliberately breaking someone's leg is extremely bad, accidentally doing it with a late tackle is part of football. Why do you ask? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 For me, it doesn't make a jot of difference what's happened with other incidents, fact is he bit someone and 10 games is fair do's imo. Fuck, the cunt should be fucked off altogether, imagine a 'normal' person just bit someone they worked with? Sacked, police and involved etc, this cunt gets a 10 game ban and a fine, even though he'll still be picking up a massive wage whilst sitting out of games so the fines pretty much pointless. Balls, hope the cunt get's out of the premier league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stottie Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Whoever buys him is still going to have the ban, so that'll knock a bit off the price as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 As hilarious as it is, the FA really are a joke. Just plucking random numbers from wherever with no consistency, deciding which incidents to punish and which not to based on technicalities. The fact Defoe got away with just a yellow for an identical incident, whereas another player is given a 10 game ban... it's absurd. Well that's the problem with the rule about the referee having dealt with the incident at the time. It should be changed, but it doesn't make this ban wrong. Do you think biting somebody is 7 games worse than breaking their leg? It depends. Biting for me is a particular kind of disgusting. Deliberately breaking someone's leg is extremely bad, accidentally doing it with a late tackle is part of football. Why do you ask? Fair argument. Still think there is little to no consistency, just random numbers plucked from thin air. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Whoever buys him is still going to have the ban, so that'll knock a bit off the price as well. Won't the ban only apply to FA-sanctioned games? Like, in England? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now