Shame on you Liverpool FC

24 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
If this was a court of law Toots what do you think the courts would have imposed for a second offense, where the first offense was under three years old?

It isn't a court of law, so not relevant

Quote by starlightcouple
The vast majority of people within the game think after his record of a first bite and then the Evra affair, should have been banned for longer.

Really? Could you point to where this 'vast majority' can be seen/viewed/read?
Some poll results so far, please note: The 'vast majority' in any of the polls below are not of those wanting a longer ban.

Quote by starlightcouple
Without football he would be a nothing person and he should well remember that.

How do you know that?

24 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
I do not know the "ins and outs" of what happened and cannot find any details of where MU are accused or proven guilty of paying "bungs" to Sir Alex's son" whilst I am not saying that this may not of happened I would like to see the details, can you please direct me to some.
I as an MU supporter also believe that the worst thing MU have ever done is not to field a team in the FA Cup and would like to have seen them forced to do so or punished in some way for not doing so, I myself would have said to them that if they didn't field a team they would be eliminated from future participation in the competition, I don't care if they fielded the 4th reserves they should have participated.

no mids the BBC named Ferguson's son when he managed a lower league side the result was for 3 years Ferguson refused to do any pre or post match interviews for the BBC
this of course was a huge embarrassment to man utd directors as such like but you being a man utd fan then surely you would know this rolleyes

in edit:
sorry mids it was seven years

24 Apr 2013

back to subject, be interesting when they get the written judgement if they'll appeal

24 Apr 2013

Quote by Lizaleanrob

I do not know the "ins and outs" of what happened and cannot find any details of where MU are accused or proven guilty of paying "bungs" to Sir Alex's son" whilst I am not saying that this may not of happened I would like to see the details, can you please direct me to some.
I as an MU supporter also believe that the worst thing MU have ever done is not to field a team in the FA Cup and would like to have seen them forced to do so or punished in some way for not doing so, I myself would have said to them that if they didn't field a team they would be eliminated from future participation in the competition, I don't care if they fielded the 4th reserves they should have participated.

no mids the BBC named Ferguson's son when he managed a lower league side the result was for 3 years Ferguson refused to do any pre or post match interviews for the BBC
this of course was a huge embarrassment to man utd directors as such like but you being a man utd fan then surely you would know this rolleyes

in edit:
sorry mids it was seven years

Yes I know about the refusal to do post match interviews but this was his personal choice and for that reason I have no thoughts on the matter, my personal opinion is that this would be because a post match interview should be about the game just played not what his son did or didn't do and therefore I can see why he would boycott the BBC but that is just my view and speculation the man (Sir Alex) is innocent until proved guilty, what his son has to do with MU policy on the behaviour of their players or indeed the rest of the staff I don't know.

25 Apr 2013

Quote by HnS
back to subject, be interesting when they get the written judgement if they'll appeal

I think they would be unwise to appeal seeing as the ban could be an even longer one. The Liverpool supporters comments on Talk Sport radio yesterday were laughable. They seem to think that Suarez has done nothing wrong, and that the FA are on a witch hunt against their club.
For me I think they will accept the ban but issue a statement as they will want the last word.

25 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
back to subject, be interesting when they get the written judgement if they'll appeal

I think they would be unwise to appeal seeing as the ban could be an even longer one. The Liverpool supporters comments on Talk Sport radio yesterday were laughable. They seem to think that Suarez has done nothing wrong, and that the FA are on a witch hunt against their club.
For me I think they will accept the ban but issue a statement as they will want the last word.
Agreed. Liverpool FC will have to be seen to be victimised - anything else would be just so out of character.
As for Suarez - He got a 7 game ban for biting in Holland, clearly did not learn his lesson, so the FA slapped him with a 10 game ban this time. Sounds fair and proportionate in my book. Next time he needs a season long ban.

25 Apr 2013

Quote by Too Hot
As for Suarez - He got a 7 game ban for biting in Holland, clearly did not learn his lesson, so the FA slapped him with a 10 game ban this time. Sounds fair and proportionate in my book. Next time he needs a season long ban.

As you have rightly said TH, the last time he got a seven game ban so why would people naturally presume he would get the same or less for a second biting offense?
He is now apparently according to some reports looking at possibly leaving Liverpool. The last time he did this he also left that club and then funnily enough went to the very same club that he has now repeated that offense at. I wonder sometimes by signing players with a bad history that they sometimes deserve the bad press and the crap that comes with employing someone like Suarez? Liverpool remember stood by and allowed their players ( the ones that represent Liverpool FC ) to parade on the pitch with shirts supporting Suarez in his case against Evra. Also Suarez made the great Kenny Dalglish look like a right idiot by saying he would shake Evra's hand and then ignoring the clubs wishes to do it, and then Dalglish was sacked not long after.
Really Liverpool have got in some people's eyes, exactly what they deserved and even now are coming to the defense of their poor little player by saying the ban is way out of proportion. loon

25 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
He is now apparently according to some reports looking at possibly leaving Liverpool. The last time he did this he also left that club and then funnily enough went to the very same club that he has now repeated that offense at. I wonder sometimes by signing players with a bad history that they sometimes deserve the bad press and the crap that comes with employing someone like Suarez? Liverpool remember stood by and allowed their players (the ones that represent Liverpool FC) to parade on the pitch with shirts supporting Suarez in his case against Evra. Also Suarez made the great Kenny Dalglish look like a right idiot by saying he would shake Evra's hand and then ignoring the clubs wishes to do it, and then Dalglish was sacked not long after.
Really Liverpool have got in some people's eyes, exactly what they deserved and even now are coming to the defense of their poor little player by saying the ban is way out of proportion.

Star,
Well Liverpool bought him within a few months of his ban from Ajax, so they knew some of what they might be getting themselves in for as well as the last ban and also a FIFA investigation for throwing a punch when on international 'duty'.
Having just signed a 4 year deal not that long ago even if he was to leave during the summer, his ban would go with him if he remained within English football, although Juventus continue to sniff around so Europe remains an option. It would depend if they can afford to buy out his contract and he could pay any compensation that may be due to LUFC as well.
Thing is, would EUFA then be interested and could they make the ban 'transferable' ?
Also, being a non-European, given this latest incident would he actually get a new non-EU work permit from another European country ?
(Indeed has he breached any of the terms of his existing permit for the UK ? - though possibly not as no criminal charges)

25 Apr 2013

At the risk of repeating myself ......... snipers

25 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

As for Suarez - He got a 7 game ban for biting in Holland, clearly did not learn his lesson, so the FA slapped him with a 10 game ban this time. Sounds fair and proportionate in my book. Next time he needs a season long ban.

As you have rightly said TH, the last time he got a seven game ban so why would people naturally presume he would get the same or less for a second biting offense?
He is now apparently according to some reports looking at possibly leaving Liverpool. The last time he did this he also left that club and then funnily enough went to the very same club that he has now repeated that offense at. I wonder sometimes by signing players with a bad history that they sometimes deserve the bad press and the crap that comes with employing someone like Suarez? Liverpool remember stood by and allowed their players ( the ones that represent Liverpool FC ) to parade on the pitch with shirts supporting Suarez in his case against Evra. Also Suarez made the great Kenny Dalglish look like a right idiot by saying he would shake Evra's hand and then ignoring the clubs wishes to do it, and then Dalglish was sacked not long after.
Really Liverpool have got in some people's eyes, exactly what they deserved and even now are coming to the defense of their poor little player by saying the ban is way out of proportion. loon

To be honest nothing that Suarez has done even comes close to the tackle that shortened Alf-Inge Haaland's career... a premeditated act of violence towards another professional.
The man should have been banned for life
after his autobiography admitting his intent is a disgrace that this man is even considered as a TV pundit
Suarez deserved a ban for what he did but was it in the context for other or more horrific crimes that have been committed on a football pitch ..........not really
that's the problem with the FA no consistency in my opinion evra for crying wolf after the Chelsea game, regards the racist comments he claimed the groundsman made towards him.
should have faced the same ban as someone who was found guilty of racist very same as when he accused Jamie carrigher of the same crime.
just for the record i don't care one way or the other that Suarez is banned or for how long, but i do think whats good for one should apply to all the others.

25 Apr 2013

Quote by Lizaleanrob

As for Suarez - He got a 7 game ban for biting in Holland, clearly did not learn his lesson, so the FA slapped him with a 10 game ban this time. Sounds fair and proportionate in my book. Next time he needs a season long ban.

As you have rightly said TH, the last time he got a seven game ban so why would people naturally presume he would get the same or less for a second biting offense?
He is now apparently according to some reports looking at possibly leaving Liverpool. The last time he did this he also left that club and then funnily enough went to the very same club that he has now repeated that offense at. I wonder sometimes by signing players with a bad history that they sometimes deserve the bad press and the crap that comes with employing someone like Suarez? Liverpool remember stood by and allowed their players ( the ones that represent Liverpool FC ) to parade on the pitch with shirts supporting Suarez in his case against Evra. Also Suarez made the great Kenny Dalglish look like a right idiot by saying he would shake Evra's hand and then ignoring the clubs wishes to do it, and then Dalglish was sacked not long after.
Really Liverpool have got in some people's eyes, exactly what they deserved and even now are coming to the defense of their poor little player by saying the ban is way out of proportion. loon

To be honest nothing that Suarez has done even comes close to the tackle that shortened Alf-Inge Haaland's career... a premeditated act of violence towards another professional.
The man should have been banned for life
after his autobiography admitting his intent is a disgrace that this man is even considered as a TV pundit
Suarez deserved a ban for what he did but was it in the context for other or more horrific crimes that have been committed on a football pitch ..........not really
that's the problem with the FA no consistency in my opinion evra for crying wolf after the Chelsea game, regards the racist comments he claimed the groundsman made towards him.
should have faced the same ban as someone who was found guilty of racist very same as when he accused Jamie carrigher of the same crime.
just for the record i don't care one way or the other that Suarez is banned or for how long, but i do think whats good for one should apply to all the others.
There is no logic to what you are saying. He got a 7 match ban previously for biting an opponent. Doing the same thing again can only mean that he has not learned his lesson and so the ban could be nothing less than 7 games.
In fact, I reckon the FA decision making process was very straightforward. 7 games for the previous and an FA 3 match ban = 10.
As for Evra you need to check your facts about what happened - it is all over the public domain.

25 Apr 2013

I don't care who did what to who and what punishment they got, two wrongs don't make a right, you cannot be lenient with such an act just because others before have been lenient against intended violence.
You have to take each case on the evidence, he has a previous track record for violence against another player in the form of biting, he did not learn by the punishment of a 7 match ban, to give him less would send the wrong message, a 10 match ban is fair regardless of what others have been given in the past.

25 Apr 2013

Quote by Too Hot

As for Suarez - He got a 7 game ban for biting in Holland, clearly did not learn his lesson, so the FA slapped him with a 10 game ban this time. Sounds fair and proportionate in my book. Next time he needs a season long ban.

As you have rightly said TH, the last time he got a seven game ban so why would people naturally presume he would get the same or less for a second biting offense?
He is now apparently according to some reports looking at possibly leaving Liverpool. The last time he did this he also left that club and then funnily enough went to the very same club that he has now repeated that offense at. I wonder sometimes by signing players with a bad history that they sometimes deserve the bad press and the crap that comes with employing someone like Suarez? Liverpool remember stood by and allowed their players ( the ones that represent Liverpool FC ) to parade on the pitch with shirts supporting Suarez in his case against Evra. Also Suarez made the great Kenny Dalglish look like a right idiot by saying he would shake Evra's hand and then ignoring the clubs wishes to do it, and then Dalglish was sacked not long after.
Really Liverpool have got in some people's eyes, exactly what they deserved and even now are coming to the defense of their poor little player by saying the ban is way out of proportion. loon

To be honest nothing that Suarez has done even comes close to the tackle that shortened Alf-Inge Haaland's career... a premeditated act of violence towards another professional.
The man should have been banned for life
after his autobiography admitting his intent is a disgrace that this man is even considered as a TV pundit
Suarez deserved a ban for what he did but was it in the context for other or more horrific crimes that have been committed on a football pitch ..........not really
that's the problem with the FA no consistency in my opinion evra for crying wolf after the Chelsea game, regards the racist comments he claimed the groundsman made towards him.
should have faced the same ban as someone who was found guilty of racist very same as when he accused Jamie carrigher of the same crime.
just for the record i don't care one way or the other that Suarez is banned or for how long, but i do think whats good for one should apply to all the others.
There is no logic to what you are saying. He got a 7 match ban previously for biting an opponent. Doing the same thing again can only mean that he has not learned his lesson and so the ban could be nothing less than 7 games.
In fact, I reckon the FA decision making process was very straightforward. 7 games for the previous and an FA 3 match ban = 10.
As for Evra you need to check your facts about what happened - it is all over the public domain.
There's really no logic to what you're saying. The previous ban for biting was under the jurisdiction of a different football association and therefor has no bearing on the punishment handed out by the FA.

25 Apr 2013

Quote by flower411

There's really no logic to what you're saying. The previous ban for biting was under the jurisdiction of a different football association and therefor has no bearing on the punishment handed out by the FA.

In what way does the jurisdiction make any difference ?
He bit somebody once and was punished ....the punishment didn't work because he bit someone again. It is absolutely irrelevent who punished him !
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.

25 Apr 2013

Quote by Too Hot
There is no logic to what you are saying. He got a 7 match ban previously for biting an opponent. Doing the same thing again can only mean that he has not learned his lesson and so the ban could be nothing less than 7 games.
In fact, I reckon the FA decision making process was very straightforward. 7 games for the previous and an FA 3 match ban = 10.
As for Evra you need to check your facts about what happened - it is all over the public domain.

im not saying he shouldnt get a longer ban
im saying others get less for far worse crimes in football
Roy Keene was a serial hate tackler as i said far worse than the Suarez episode even if he has done it before, my own opinion is it was out of frustration, and a hundred grand a week should buy some anger/frustration management one would think?
as for evra you only need to read his statement to the FA over the Suarez incident to realise that the whole alleged conversation would have taken a good three minutes, and not the 20 seconds or so they was together
john terry said two words which was captured on 3 different sky cameras, Suarez was said to have had a whole conversation which was captured on .................nothing dunno

as for which is in the public domain there is plenty, it just depends how much of it you wade through to obtain a reasonable account of what's truth and what's shit
i accept Suarez called him something i don't for one minute believe evra's full version as there wasn't enough time together for evra's side of the events its not rocket science

25 Apr 2013

Quote by flower411

There's really no logic to what you're saying. The previous ban for biting was under the jurisdiction of a different football association and therefor has no bearing on the punishment handed out by the FA.

In what way does the jurisdiction make any difference ?
He bit somebody once and was punished ....the punishment didn't work because he bit someone again. It is absolutely irrelevent who punished him !
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.
Max ... you are having a laugh aren`t you lol

Aren't you ?
OMG !
Not at all. If it was UEFA that was meeting out the punishment it may have some relevance but as its the English FA, it has absolutely none. Give me an example of when a player's indiscretions in another country has had a baring on a punishment subsequently handed out by by the English FA.

25 Apr 2013

Quote by flower411

There's really no logic to what you're saying. The previous ban for biting was under the jurisdiction of a different football association and therefor has no bearing on the punishment handed out by the FA.

In what way does the jurisdiction make any difference ?
He bit somebody once and was punished ....the punishment didn't work because he bit someone again. It is absolutely irrelevent who punished him !
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.
Max ... you are having a laugh aren`t you lol

Aren't you ?
OMG !
Not at all. If it was UEFA that was meeting out the punishment it may have some relevance but as its the English FA, it has absolutely none. Give me an example of when a player's indiscretions in another country has had a baring on a punishment subsequently handed out by by the English FA.
Max ....The man bites people .
The punchers and kickers are pathetic .
I previously thought that the biting had taken place in some kind of mellee but having now seen it ! It was an action one would expect to see from a five year old and even then it would be worrying. From a grown man it suggests a serious mental disorder .
It does not matter one iota where or when this man committed the offences . He is obviously a danger to other players due to his mental instability .
You may well be correct but it still has no relevance on the punishment handed out by the FA.

25 Apr 2013

why is biting someone that different from intentionally braking someones leg dunno

25 Apr 2013

Quote by flower411

There's really no logic to what you're saying. The previous ban for biting was under the jurisdiction of a different football association and therefor has no bearing on the punishment handed out by the FA.

In what way does the jurisdiction make any difference ?
He bit somebody once and was punished ....the punishment didn't work because he bit someone again. It is absolutely irrelevent who punished him !
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.
Max ... you are having a laugh aren`t you lol

Aren't you ?
OMG !
Not at all. If it was UEFA that was meeting out the punishment it may have some relevance but as its the English FA, it has absolutely none. Give me an example of when a player's indiscretions in another country has had a baring on a punishment subsequently handed out by by the English FA.
Max ....The man bites people .
The punchers and kickers are pathetic .
I previously thought that the biting had taken place in some kind of mellee but having now seen it ! It was an action one would expect to see from a five year old and even then it would be worrying. From a grown man it suggests a serious mental disorder .
It does not matter one iota where or when this man committed the offences . He is obviously a danger to other players due to his mental instability .
You may well be correct but it still has no relevance on the punishment handed out by the FA.
Whatever I think of you max it does surprise me that your dislike of me goes so deep that you are prepared to look silly just to disagree with me !
Flower, whatever I think of you has absolutely no baring on my argument. Don't flatter yourself.
The only person looking silly is yourself. It's actually you disagreeing with me but your argument has no substance so you have resorted to playing
pathetic games yet again. Some things never change!

26 Apr 2013

Are people seriously suggesting that what someone does in another country has no bearing on what they may or may not do here in the UK ?
Rules, Laws there is no difference, should we allow someone to migrate to the UK who has a history of being a serial killer or serial ? I thought most people here were in support of some measure of migration laws like other nations such as keeping out those who have convictions for serious crime.
You cannot say that what someone does in another country has no bearing on what happens in the UK, if someone is found guilty of taking drugs to enhance performance the ban applies in the UK, at the very least it would be taken into consideration here if that person performed here, you can be sure the drug enforcement officials would test that person.
When handing out a punishment to anyone, anywhere, prior history should be taken into account, be that a previously impecable record or previous offences, especially when those offences are for bizzare behaviour and of the same nature as that which they are being questioned upon here.

26 Apr 2013

I thought football was supposed to be a civilised game played by civilised people. I haven't watched the game for years now as it changed into breeding fame and fortune. While money is the driving factor behind football the players in the eyes it seems of supporters and clubs are gods to them, it seem anything is tolerated if a player is part of your team.
I would have to ask them, don't they have a individual conscious and basic thought on our treatment of other humans. Would they react the same way if their children bit another?
For me I would apply the same principles but we can make allowances on age of child as they have to learn what is right and wrong.
As a parent I am pleased my children are old enough to be disgusted when they saw the actions of this player. They said he should never be allowed to play the game again. Young children watch the game and look up to these players.
For anyone to try and make allowances for such behaviour for me raises a question, would you be or are you allowing your young children to watch and admire these types of players?
I thought part of being a civilised human was our conduct towards others.
We teach our children not to bit others, how can anyone have seen what happened and try and defend a grown man from doing it?
I only saw it on the news and I thought he didn't even look human doing what he did.
If I had my way I would never want him to play for any club in my country.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Are people seriously suggesting that what someone does in another country has no bearing on what they may or may not do here in the UK ?
Rules, Laws there is no difference, should we allow someone to migrate to the UK who has a history of being a serial killer or serial ? I thought most people here were in support of some measure of migration laws like other nations such as keeping out those who have convictions for serious crime.
You cannot say that what someone does in another country has no bearing on what happens in the UK, if someone is found guilty of taking drugs to enhance performance the ban applies in the UK, at the very least it would be taken into consideration here if that person performed here, you can be sure the drug enforcement officials would test that person.
When handing out a punishment to anyone, anywhere, prior history should be taken into account, be that a previously impecable record or previous offences, especially when those offences are for bizzare behaviour and of the same nature as that which they are being questioned upon here.

Yet again you fail to either read properly or understand what others have written.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by Theladyisaminx
I thought football was supposed to be a civilised game played by civilised people. I haven't watched the game for years now as it changed into breeding fame and fortune. While money is the driving factor behind football the players in the eyes it seems of supporters and clubs are gods to them, it seem anything is tolerated if a player is part of your team.
I would have to ask them, don't they have a individual conscious and basic thought on our treatment of other humans. Would they react the same way if their children bit another?
For me I would apply the same principles but we can make allowances on age of child as they have to learn what is right and wrong.
As a parent I am pleased my children are old enough to be disgusted when they saw the actions of this player. They said he should never be allowed to play the game again. Young children watch the game and look up to these players.
For anyone to try and make allowances for such behaviour for me raises a question, would you be or are you allowing your young children to watch and admire these types of players?
I thought part of being a civilised human was our conduct towards others.
We teach our children not to bit others, how can anyone have seen what happened and try and defend a grown man from doing it?
I only saw it on the news and I thought he didn't even look human doing what he did.
If I had my way I would never want him to play for any club in my country.

I'm not sure who you refer to as making allowances for and trying to defend Suarez , as I'm certainly not.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Are people seriously suggesting that what someone does in another country has no bearing on what they may or may not do here in the UK ?

Yep.

Max is obviously a Liverpool supporter, as there is no other reason for his views that make one jot of common sense.
He is now crying like the child he is ( Suarez that is ) by threatening to quit Liverpool, and now the Liverpool manager of wait for it..........a YEAR is now acting like someone who really cares. My advice TO Brendan Rodgers is to shut the fuck up. This guy is singing the tune to the people paying his wages, he has no history with Liverpool FC and am sure if he was still at Swansea he would be singing a completely different tune.
I hate it when people pay lip service.
I think the animal that is Suarez is no different to a dog that bites someone who has taken his bone away. The dog is acting on instinct where as Suarez is acting on a temper tantrum......pathetic and he should have been banned for six months.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Are people seriously suggesting that what someone does in another country has no bearing on what they may or may not do here in the UK ?

Yep.

Max is obviously a Liverpool supporter, as there is no other reason for his views that make one jot of common sense.
He is now crying like the child he is ( Suarez that is ) by threatening to quit Liverpool, and now the Liverpool manager of wait for it..........a YEAR is now acting like someone who really cares. My advice TO Brendan Rodgers is to shut the fuck up. This guy is singing the tune to the people paying his wages, he has no history with Liverpool FC and am sure if he was still at Swansea he would be singing a completely different tune.
I hate it when people pay lip service.
I think the animal that is Suarez is no different to a dog that bites someone who has taken his bone away. The dog is acting on instinct where as Suarez is acting on a temper tantrum......pathetic and he should have been banned for six months.
Wrong on every level Star. The team I follow is well documented it this forum. So which of my views make 'one jot of common sense'
( I think you missed a negative somewhere in that sentence) .
As for your comments regarding Rodgers only being manager for a year, that makes him longer serving than most recent Chelsea managers. And as for paying lip service........isn't that what most Chelsea managers do?
Your vitriol towards Suarez might be laudable if it wasn't for your complete hypocrisy when it comes to the Chelsea thug.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by Max777
I thought football was supposed to be a civilised game played by civilised people. I haven't watched the game for years now as it changed into breeding fame and fortune. While money is the driving factor behind football the players in the eyes it seems of supporters and clubs are gods to them, it seem anything is tolerated if a player is part of your team.
I would have to ask them, don't they have a individual conscious and basic thought on our treatment of other humans. Would they react the same way if their children bit another?
For me I would apply the same principles but we can make allowances on age of child as they have to learn what is right and wrong.
As a parent I am pleased my children are old enough to be disgusted when they saw the actions of this player. They said he should never be allowed to play the game again. Young children watch the game and look up to these players.
For anyone to try and make allowances for such behaviour for me raises a question, would you be or are you allowing your young children to watch and admire these types of players?
I thought part of being a civilised human was our conduct towards others.
We teach our children not to bit others, how can anyone have seen what happened and try and defend a grown man from doing it?
I only saw it on the news and I thought he didn't even look human doing what he did.
If I had my way I would never want him to play for any club in my country.

I'm not sure who you refer to as making allowances for and trying to defend Suarez , as I'm certainly not.
I was not pointing a finger at any one person, my comments were general as these forums appear away from just sh. So anyone reading my comments and feel the punishment of a Man biting another is unacceptable. I believe a ban isn't even enough. He definitely shouldn't be playing football where contact with other humans is part of the game.
After all football is a game, which should never result to biting.
Nobody deserves to earn that type of money but to earn it and then feel you can bite someone and then moan you are unfairly treated with a ban and others back his claim, he should be stripped from playing the game completely is my view.
Football puts people on a high pedal stall where they think they can get away with anything. It is about time attitudes changed and such behaviour should never be tolerated is my view.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by flower411
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.

OK Max, it appears that I'm not the only one who misunderstood what you meant when you wrote this. It looks pretty clear to me that you have stated that an offence committed in another country has no relevance to offences committed in this country. But now you say that it doesn't mean that.
So what does it mean ?
OK Flower, I'm talking purely in footballing terms when talking about 'offences' committed and I have not changed my stance one iota. Are you another who only reads what he wants to read? Interesting to see that you bracket yourself with Mids and Star in that respect. Thought you would have held yourself in much higher regard!
I'm saying that an offence committed under the jurisdiction of the Dutch FA has no bearing on the punishment being handed out by the English FA. Whilst it may well have influenced the thinking of the English FAs disciplinary panel when they made their decision they would not be able to take the previous incident into account when deciding the length of Suarez's ban. It will be interesting to see their reasoning when the report is published.
Look at the position regarding Joey Barton. He received a 12 match ban but was able to play for Marseille in the French league as the English FA has no authority over the French FA. As far as Im aware, offences, bans, disciplinary actions etc are not transferable between different football association
unless they are made at UEFA or FIFA level.

26 Apr 2013

I do not know much about world governing bodies when it comes down to all the different sports or indeed football.
I do think that there is a need for all nations to have an ability to take offences into account wherever they are committed.
If someone is proven guilty of taking perfomrance enhancing drugs any ban should be worldwide, I believe that is the case.
The same thing should be applied on all offences as indeed impecable behaviour abroad should be considered here when deciding on what punishment is to be given.
As for when and where a ban is valid that is a different matter, as I understand it a ban only applies to the competition in which it was awarded, ie a ban in the Premier League does not affect FA Cup games etc, this would explain why someone could play for their Nation after being banned in the FA Cup or Italian League or Premier League and that seems reasonable.

26 Apr 2013

Under the FIFA Charter all contraventions, irrespective of game/country/match type, will stand and cross all borders. Therefore an infringement in a Dutch game can be used as previous evidence in determining the penalty in an English game.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Under the FIFA Charter all contraventions, irrespective of game/country/match type, will stand and cross all borders. Therefore an infringement in a Dutch game can be used as previous evidence in determining the penalty in an English game.

Could you please provide a link to substantiate your claim?