The Liverpool Thread

[Flip]

I dont understand the people saying that biting isn't worse than racism.

 

If I had to pick between the two I'd rather someone called me names instead of assaulting me.

 

Well you can't say it like that if you haven't experienced, but I might agree that the football is turning to sensitive towards this 'racism campaign'.

 

I don't know, but I always ask myself if insulting someones colour/religion is worse than insulting someones family or so, because that happens all the time on the pitch.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

There is a problem with consistency, but this ban is still absolutely right. Also, his racism ban was too lenient if anything.

 

I don't agree, I don't see how biting someone can be worse than what Aguero did tbf. It's pathetic and that alone maybe deserves 10 games, but you can't tell me that biting someone in the arm is worse than actually trying to deliberately break someone, can you?

 

As I said, there is a problem with consistency. But I can't see anyone can argue that 10 games for biting someone is too harsh.

 

Biting is so far removed from normal football behaviour that IMO it's uniquely disgusting and needs to be dealt with extremely harshly. Same with racism. There are lots of bad tackles but they are not the same.

 

Don't agree and your second sentence is exactly why. The only reason the ban was given this harsh is because it's out of the norm in football. How is biting someone worse than punching somone? (Barton a la Pedersen) How is biting worse than what McCallum (spelling) tackle? How is biting someone worse than gathering force to stamp someone laying down? (Aguero)

 

A bite like that won't make Ivanovic miss 10 games, while a tackle can make someone miss a whole season but is only dealt with a 3 game suspension?

 

This is purely the FA wanting to make headlines and distract from the fact it's a horrible federation.

 

I can't really be bothered with a proper response, there's no getting away from the fact he deserves at least 10 games for this. It's absolutely disgusting FFS.

 

The fact a tackle can make people miss a season is irrelevant, that's not the point. Tackles are a part of football. Biting isn't a part of normal human behaviour, never mind sport.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I dont understand the people saying that biting isn't worse than racism.

 

If I had to pick between the two I'd rather someone called me names instead of assaulting me.

 

Well you can't say it like that if you haven't experienced, but I might agree that the football is turning to sensitive towards this 'racism campaign'.

 

I don't know, but I always ask myself if insulting someones colour/religion is worse than insulting someones family or so, because that happens all the time on the pitch.

 

It is worse, yes.

[Flip]

There is a problem with consistency, but this ban is still absolutely right. Also, his racism ban was too lenient if anything.

 

I don't agree, I don't see how biting someone can be worse than what Aguero did tbf. It's pathetic and that alone maybe deserves 10 games, but you can't tell me that biting someone in the arm is worse than actually trying to deliberately break someone, can you?

 

As I said, there is a problem with consistency. But I can't see anyone can argue that 10 games for biting someone is too harsh.

 

Biting is so far removed from normal football behaviour that IMO it's uniquely disgusting and needs to be dealt with extremely harshly. Same with racism. There are lots of bad tackles but they are not the same.

 

Don't agree and your second sentence is exactly why. The only reason the ban was given this harsh is because it's out of the norm in football. How is biting someone worse than punching somone? (Barton a la Pedersen) How is biting worse than what McCallum (spelling) tackle? How is biting someone worse than gathering force to stamp someone laying down? (Aguero)

 

A bite like that won't make Ivanovic miss 10 games, while a tackle can make someone miss a whole season but is only dealt with a 3 game suspension?

 

This is purely the FA wanting to make headlines and distract from the fact it's a horrible federation.

 

I can't really be bothered with a proper response, there's no getting away from the fact he deserves at least 10 games for this. It's absolutely disgusting FFS.

 

The fact a tackle can make people miss a season is irrelevant, that's not the point. Tackles are a part of football. Biting isn't a part of normal human behaviour, never mind sport.

 

You missed what Aguero did? Because saying that is part of football is absolutely ridiculous. If someone flashed his dick out and pee'd in the middle of the pitch should he be rewarded 10 games for it not being normal? Shouldn't spitting be rewarded 10 games too then as it isn't normal? Purely asking, this is a forum so I'd like to see other than my point of view.

 

I dont understand the people saying that biting isn't worse than racism.

 

If I had to pick between the two I'd rather someone called me names instead of assaulting me.

 

Well you can't say it like that if you haven't experienced, but I might agree that the football is turning to sensitive towards this 'racism campaign'.

 

I don't know, but I always ask myself if insulting someones colour/religion is worse than insulting someones family or so, because that happens all the time on the pitch.

 

It is worse, yes.

 

Not trying to be a smart ass, I'm actually curious, why is it worse? (genuine question)

[Stottie]

Sorry if its Giggs but weren't they in line for Europa League qualification through the Fair Play League?

 

[Flip]

Sorry if its Giggs but weren't they in line for Europa League qualification through the Fair Play League?

 

 

Does bans like this count towards that?

[Dave]

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/fair-play.html

[LRD]

Sorry if its Giggs but weren't they in line for Europa League qualification through the Fair Play League?

 

 

Does bans like this count towards that?

 

Disciplinary issue. I'm sure it does.

[Dave]

England weren't in line for a Fair Play birth anyway. That was at the turn of the year though.

[LRD]

3. Respect towards opponents

 


Maximum score = 7

Minimum score = 1

 

Players should respect the Laws of the Game and abide by the spirit of Fair Play. The Fair Play delegate’s assessment will not double count items already covered in the ‘Red and Yellow cards’ category, but the seriousness of the offences punished by cards may be considered. This category will also include offences overlooked by the referee.

 

Any single major incident between players may have a significant bearing on the final score.

 

Blameless behaviour without any particularly positive attitude or gestures is likely to receive a score of 6 rather than 7.

 

[Flip]

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

10 game ban is one to Parky imo.

[Deuce]

I'm mostly upset about what this ban does to my fantasy team. Have to waste 4 points this week to transfer Suarez.

[Guest Roger Kint]

I'm mostly upset about what this ban does to my fantasy team. Have to waste 4 points this week to transfer Suarez.

 

Same here

[S.S.R.]

10 game ban? http://www.netanimations.net/miscellaneous_160.gifhahahahah

[Mike]

10 game ban is one to Parky imo.

 

Did Parky not get a goal?

[Cajun]

Good, rat faced little cunt. Hope he goes abroad in the summer.

[Sifu]

Well done to the FA (never thought I'd say that). Liverpool can fuck right off if they appeal this.

[hakka]

Good, rat faced little cunt. Hope he goes abroad in the summer.

 

Yup.

 

As much as I actually like watching him doing some crazy good things with the ball, I hate the diving, biting, feigning injury and other petty cheap cheating bullshit. Prefer it happening somewhere else in the world and not here.

[themanupstairs]

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 is the ridiculous thing about it. IMO the 10 game ban is harsh on LFC. As much as I don't like that club, the fans who pay good money to watch the team, as well as the manager and Suarez' teammates will be deprived of their best player for 10 games. The punishment targets LFC far more than Suarez himself.

 

IMO he should get the standard 3 match ban for violent conduct, with a massive financial fine added on top of that. Say 7 weeks' wages to complete the "10". He should be warned on future conduct, with exponentially increasing fines and possible lawsuits for bringing the game into disrepute.

 

The big book should be thrown at Suarez big time, but not the club he plays for, as I'm pretty sure he didn't bite anyone under instruction.

 

My feeling is that the 10 game ban is to exert pressure on Liverpool to sell the cunt in the summer, and even in that case it is unfair on the club who could have to settle for a knockdown fee. Again, they suffer and not the offender himself.

[Interpolic]

Disagree wholeheartedly with that, this is the risk you take when you buy absolute pricks.

[Dokko]

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 is the ridiculous thing about it. IMO the 10 game ban is harsh on LFC. As much as I don't like that club, the fans who pay good money to watch the team, as well as the manager and Suarez' teammates will be deprived of their best player for 10 games. The punishment targets LFC far more than Suarez himself.

 

IMO he should get the standard 3 match ban for violent conduct, with a massive financial fine added on top of that. Say 7 weeks' wages to complete the "10". He should be warned on future conduct, with exponentially increasing fines and possible lawsuits for bringing the game into disrepute.

 

The big book should be thrown at Suarez big time, but not the club he plays for, as I'm pretty sure he didn't bite anyone under instruction.

 

My feeling is that the 10 game ban is to exert pressure on Liverpool to sell the cunt in the summer, and even in that case it is unfair on the club who could have to settle for a knockdown fee. Again, they suffer and not the offender himself.

 

None of this is the FA's fault, only Suarez to blame here. Some level headed Liverpool fans even see this, though not many.

[Parky]

10 game ban!!! Surely a goal to celebrate??!!

 

 

[wormy]

Disagree wholeheartedly with that, this is the risk you take when you buy absolute pricks.

 

It's not like his character was going to be unknown to them. Particularly this incident, which he's done before.

[themanupstairs]

Disagree wholeheartedly with that, this is the risk you take when you buy absolute pricks.

 

I understand that. I'm just playing devil's advocate because the FA really ARE a bunch of fuckwits, and I cannot wrap my head around their random decision making. It's a travesty that Aguero gets away scot-free while Giroud's appeal was turned down and he has to serve a 3 match ban. McManaman gets nothing, and Cabaye gets 3(?) matches for his retaliation on El Abd.

 

It's an absolute joke, and this willy nilly arbitration affects clubs more than they punish the player. By all accounts, Suarez had cleaned up his act relatively of late, so how were his club supposed to know he would do this?

 

Believe me, I hate the cunt with the fire of a thousand suns. Just feel that the FA are dicking around with the rules and there are no standards to adhere to.