Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:36 pm  

As a Liverpool fan I was, and still am deeply embarrassed by Suarez's actions at the weekend and believe that taking that one incident in isolation a 10 game ban is about right. He could count himself lucky it's only 10, and lucky that he hasn't been shown the door at Anfield (but then again would that be so bad for Suarez - they wouldn't sack him, they'd sell him so a nice signing on fee elsewhere and probably better wages too).

BUT, you have to look at the gross inconsistency from the FA and the british media. Defoe bites someone, gets away with a booking and nothing more, and even the commentator at the time suggested Mascherano was milking it rather than condemning Defoe. Was biting acceptable 7 years ago?

Even the racism stuff from last season. Which is the worse offence, calling someone black in your native tongue (something which is deemed acceptable in your home country), or calling someone a Black C***?

On both occasions I believe Suarez has been treated reasonably by the FA, but when put into context with other similar offences committed by other (English!) players who received a fraction of the punishment from the FA or reaction from the media, I can understand why some people are so outraged.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:06 pm  

they take people taking an opposing view so well - Lawton was getting hammered in the Independent by rabid followers of the cult of the kop

Hamman had the temerity to speak sense

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:54 pm  

As a mate of mine said, you say nice things about LFC, you're 'sound' and their fans' best mate, however if you say something they don't like... this is what you get.

Can't believe (well, i suppose i can) that Brenton is turning Suarez into the victim

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:16 pm  

I wouldn't hold that Eddie Skeggs guy up as being a typical example of a Liverpool fan. I'd say he's more on the anti-social side... http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Panicking ... 0187454200

I wouldn't hold that Eddie Skeggs guy up as being a typical example of a Liverpool fan. I'd say he's more on the anti-social side... http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Panicking ... 0187454200

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:54 pm  

McClennan wrote:

I wouldn't hold that Eddie Skeggs guy up as being a typical example of a Liverpool fan.

I would.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:17 am  

Thelonius wrote:

As a Liverpool fan I was, and still am deeply embarrassed by Suarez's actions at the weekend and believe that taking that one incident in isolation a 10 game ban is about right. He could count himself lucky it's only 10, and lucky that he hasn't been shown the door at Anfield (but then again would that be so bad for Suarez - they wouldn't sack him, they'd sell him so a nice signing on fee elsewhere and probably better wages too).

BUT, you have to look at the gross inconsistency from the FA and the british media. Defoe bites someone, gets away with a booking and nothing more, and even the commentator at the time suggested Mascherano was milking it rather than condemning Defoe. Was biting acceptable 7 years ago?

Even the racism stuff from last season. Which is the worse offence, calling someone black in your native tongue (something which is deemed acceptable in your home country), or calling someone a Black C***?

On both occasions I believe Suarez has been treated reasonably by the FA, but when put into context with other similar offences committed by other (English!) players who received a fraction of the punishment from the FA or reaction from the media, I can understand why some people are so outraged.

The basic problem is that the FA's disciplinary process varies from being too rigid, in the case of automatic bans, to too loose and ill defined, in the case of offenses falling outside of the norm. The disciplinary bodies that make decisions such as in the Suarez/Evra, Terry/ Ferdinand, Barton etc cases seem to have considerable discretion and do not appear to be working to any specific guidelines.

Plus the FA keep moving the goalposts without telling those outside the inner sanctum. So MacManaman and Aguero eascaped punishment because its now been decided that retrospective action cannot be taken if the officials see any part of an incident, a new interpretation that has been introduced without any debate or even an official announcement.

Its not that the FA have anything against Suarez, Liverpool, foreigners. Its just that the entire process is random.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:04 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I would.

So how many Liverpool fans do you actually personally know or are you just generalising ?

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:06 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Liverpool bought him when he was serving a ban for biting someone. He's now bit someone on the field for a second time, but because it happened under a different FA everyone should pretend it never existed??? WTFever. Scouse divs.
He does it clearly, stupidly and he's unrepentant after doing it.
The use of the racial slur against Evra at a corner against Man United. The punch in the face of the Chile player in a recent international. And now the biting of an opponent in the box during a Liverpool attack. Don't these show a ridiculous and stupid pattern of behavior to cheat to win?
The FA made themselves look ridiculous by claiming that the reason that John Terry could be charged over the Ferdinand incident was because of his later denial to a TV reporter that he didn't knee the Barca player in the back. That was their "essential new evidence". You're alright with them using that BS argument, but you're completely against looking at what Suarez does on the field because it's against your player.
Unique for most players, the second time for him.
They haven't said it's worthy of a 10 match ban in itself.
They will pretty much say that they recently warned him of his future behaviour after they found him guilty of racially abusing Evra. They will say that the warning to him has been completely ignored. They will note his failure to accept guilt, and his subsequent refusal to shake Evra's hand which caused further negative publicity and animosity between LFC and MUFC.
They will say that biting an opponent is not a normal or understandable behaviour from a grown adult and one that merits special consideration.

Who said it didn't exist? I said I don't think the current FA can use 'previous' as an excuse when it wasn't them that charged him. What happened in Holland has nothing to do with anything he's done over here, or anything he's done for Liverpool or under this FA, so, IMO, it seems weird to use that as an excuse for a further ban. The thing that happened against Chile, again, shouldn't have any influence on this decision. They probably know very little of the incident as they haven't investigated it. The only things he's been banned for since he's been here are Evragate and raising the digit to the Fulham fans. IMO, I'd find it pretty odd if the FA went digging deeper into his past as an excuse to ban him further, surely they should only look into the 'issues' he's had with them?

Don't know anything about the Terry ban and what evidence they used about it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the FA f*cked that up as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think Suarez should be banned and ten games isn't unbelievably bad, I just think it could have been less and their lack of action in the past over incidents only makes it harder to accept.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:28 am  

Roddy B wrote:

Who said it didn't exist? I said I don't think the current FA can use 'previous' as an excuse when it wasn't them that charged him. What happened in Holland has nothing to do with anything he's done over here, or anything he's done for Liverpool or under this FA, so, IMO, it seems weird to use that as an excuse for a further ban. The thing that happened against Chile, again, shouldn't have any influence on this decision. They probably know very little of the incident as they haven't investigated it. The only things he's been banned for since he's been here are Evragate and raising the digit to the Fulham fans. IMO, I'd find it pretty odd if the FA went digging deeper into his past as an excuse to ban him further, surely they should only look into the 'issues' he's had with them?

Don't know anything about the Terry ban and what evidence they used about it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the FA f*cked that up as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think Suarez should be banned and ten games isn't unbelievably bad, I just think it could have been less and their lack of action in the past over incidents only makes it harder to accept.

The panel will deny that the ban in Holland had any baring on this ban. I don't believe them, you don't believe them, we all know that everyone knew that he'd done this before but because of weak, badly written laws they couldn't admit that fact.

But the FA do have previous dealings with Suarez over Evra and they will say that there is enough there over that whole incident to throw the book at him this time.

We still don't know if Suarez will appeal. He's got a couple of hours to let the FA know. IMO he's going to accept the ban, but LFC are going to do the exact same thing as they did with Evra and whine about how badly done to they've been. They're going to bitch about discrimination, say the FA are bent and pretty much paint Suarez as the victim yet again.

I think the FA are a joke. I think they lurch from one media sensation to another. I think the laws are a mess and the FA are too gutless to admit that and sort them out.

But LFC are 10 times worse than the FA over this and Evra.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:43 pm  

No appeal from Suarez over the ban,

So that's twice he's got huge bans from them. Twice him and LFC have bitched and moaned about how it's all so unfair and it's all a vendetta against them. And then then they accepted the ban anyway.

Typical scouse "class". They only time they are said to have class is when they tell everyone how classy they are. Hate that club.