Shame on you Liverpool FC

26 Apr 2013

Quote by Max777
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?

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?

OK I've had a quick look through that. Would you care to point me to the relevant pages or paragraphs?

26 Apr 2013

Quote by Max777
OK I've had a quick look through that. Would you care to point me to the relevant pages or paragraphs?

1.
With regard to matches and competitions not organised by FIFA (cf. art. 2),
associations, confederations and sports organisations that organise matches for
cultural, geographical, historical or other reasons are responsible for enforcing sanctions imposed against infringements committed in their area of jurisdiction.
If requested, the sanctions passed may be extended to have worldwide effect
(cf. ff.)

I read that as sanctions imposed by any FA have worldwide implications, so whatever happens in one country does effect another.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
OK I've had a quick look through that. Would you care to point me to the relevant pages or paragraphs?

1.
With regard to matches and competitions not organised by FIFA (cf. art. 2),
associations, confederations and sports organisations that organise matches for
cultural, geographical, historical or other reasons are responsible for enforcing sanctions imposed against infringements committed in their area of jurisdiction.
If requested, the sanctions passed may be extended to have worldwide effect
(cf. ff.)

I read that as sanctions imposed by any FA have worldwide implications, so whatever happens in one country does effect another.
The key words in that final paragraph are sanctions and may be extended. Sanctions mean penalties handed out by governing bodies, not the infringements that incurred the sanctions. The words 'may be' mean that this is at the whim of FIFA and not mandatory.
If your interpretation was correct, Joey Berton's ban would also have stood in France.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by flower411
OK I've had a quick look through that. Would you care to point me to the relevant pages or paragraphs?

1.
With regard to matches and competitions not organised by FIFA (cf. art. 2),
associations, confederations and sports organisations that organise matches for
cultural, geographical, historical or other reasons are responsible for enforcing sanctions imposed against infringements committed in their area of jurisdiction.
If requested, the sanctions passed may be extended to have worldwide effect
(cf. ff.)

I read that as sanctions imposed by any FA have worldwide implications, so whatever happens in one country does effect another.
The key words in that final paragraph are sanctions and may be extended. Sanctions mean penalties handed out by governing bodies, not the infringements that incurred the sanctions. The words 'may be' mean that this is at the whim of FIFA and not mandatory.
If your interpretation was correct, Joey Berton's ban would also have stood in France.
4. If the judicial bodies of FIFA discover that associations, confederations and
other sports organisations have not requested a decision to be extended to
have worldwide effect, these bodies may themselves pass a decision.
So how does that fit with

Quote by Max777
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.

Once again, reading only what you want to or maybe even trying to be clever by only quoting in part. Try reading all of section 136 in context.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by Max777
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?

What has that childish comment go to do with it?

Quote by Max777
Your vitriol towards Suarez might be laudable if it wasn't for your complete hypocrisy when it comes to the Chelsea thug.

Another thing that is as obvious as what I first said, is your hatred of Chelsea. Really Max........I thought better of you.

26 Apr 2013

Well it seems that Suarez has accepted the 10 match ban. The FA's statement on the reasons for a long ban were that Suarez did not realises the seriousness of what he did basically. I cannot find anything on the net as yet but heard it on the radio.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

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?

What has that childish comment go to do with it?

Quote by Max777
Your vitriol towards Suarez might be laudable if it wasn't for your complete hypocrisy when it comes to the Chelsea thug.

Another thing that is as obvious as what I first said, is your hatred of Chelsea. Really Max........I thought better of you.
Wrong again Star. I have no hatred for Chelsea, in fact I greatly admire many of the players they have in their squad with one obvious exception. I even wanted them to win last night!

26 Apr 2013

Quote by Max777
Wrong again Star. I have no hatred for Chelsea, in fact I greatly admire many of the players they have in their squad with one obvious exception. I even wanted them to win last night!

So you don't like John Terry? At least he has a genuine right to feel aggrieved by the FA, as he was found NOT guilty in a court of law, and yet the FA ( tossers btw )still chose to make an example of him come what may.
You think that was in same category as Suarez and his nashers? In fact don't bother answering that Max as it is as obvious as the sun setting tonight what your predictable answer will be.

26 Apr 2013

considering the fact that his last ban for same offence was 7 games....this ban had to be longer really. What they have done in reality is added in a red card on top....and topped it up to 10 games. It is harsh, but also I think just about right. I do hope he does the right thing now and has a nice long holiday, and comes back after his ban, with re-newed vigour, as despite his flawed nature, he is a great footballing talent, and it would be a shame to lose him from English football.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

Wrong again Star. I have no hatred for Chelsea, in fact I greatly admire many of the players they have in their squad with one obvious exception. I even wanted them to win last night!

So you don't like John Terry? At least he has a genuine right to feel aggrieved by the FA, as he was found NOT guilty in a court of law, and yet the FA ( tossers btw )still chose to make an example of him come what may.
You think that was in same category as Suarez and his nashers? In fact don't bother answering that Max as it is as obvious as the sun setting tonight what your predictable answer will be.
Suarez wasn't allowed the luxury of being found not guilty in a court of law. Both Suarez and Terry were found guilty by the FA on the grounds of 'probabilities' Suarez was banned for 8 matches for using the term negro, Terry was banned for 4 matches for using the words 'black c***'
I seem to recall Terry being sent off against Barcelona last season for kneeing an opponent in the back and then trying to claim that the Barca player backed on to him. I would rank kneeing a player in the back up there with Suarez's bite.

26 Apr 2013

The FA have announced that their decision to ban Suarez for 10 matches was reached after considering his latest indiscretion in isolation.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by Max777
I would rank kneeing a player in the back up there with Suarez's bite.

What a silly and ridiculous comment to make, and there is YOU stating that others are not seeing anything. Your comments on this matter and especially the one above, well......how can anyone take you seriously ever again ?
It was not in the back, it was the top of the thigh. He was sent off for that and let his team down as well. In the end the sending off only spurred Chelsea on even more, and we all know the result eh Max? :bounce::bounce:

26 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
I would rank kneeing a player in the back up there with Suarez's bite.

What a silly and ridiculous comment to make, and there is YOU stating that others are not seeing anything. Your comments on this matter and especially the one above, well......how can anyone take you seriously ever again ?
It was not in the back, it was the top of the thigh. He was sent off for that and let his team down as well. In the end the sending off only spurred Chelsea on even more, and we all know the result eh Max? :bounce::bounce:
Seems you haven't learnt much from your recent 'rest' star.
Everyone is more than entitled to make an observation without being derided for it., no matter how absurd it might seem.
It's Max's viewpoint. He is entitled to it. He's entitled to express it.
Get over it and be a bit more tolerant in future eh? rolleyes

26 Apr 2013

Quote by GnV
I would rank kneeing a player in the back up there with Suarez's bite.

What a silly and ridiculous comment to make, and there is YOU stating that others are not seeing anything. Your comments on this matter and especially the one above, well......how can anyone take you seriously ever again ?
It was not in the back, it was the top of the thigh. He was sent off for that and let his team down as well. In the end the sending off only spurred Chelsea on even more, and we all know the result eh Max? :bounce::bounce:
Seems you haven't learnt much from your recent 'rest' star.
Everyone is more than entitled to make an observation without being derided for it., no matter how absurd it might seem.
It's Max's viewpoint. He is entitled to it. He's entitled to express it.
Get over it and be a bit more tolerant in future eh? rolleyes

GNV, it's really rich Star claiming that others comments are ridiculous and silly. He is so myopic he even denies the obvious. In my book, a cowardly knee in the BACK is as bad as Suarez's indiscretion.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by Max777
I would rank kneeing a player in the back up there with Suarez's bite.

What a silly and ridiculous comment to make, and there is YOU stating that others are not seeing anything. Your comments on this matter and especially the one above, well......how can anyone take you seriously ever again ?
It was not in the back, it was the top of the thigh. He was sent off for that and let his team down as well. In the end the sending off only spurred Chelsea on even more, and we all know the result eh Max? :bounce::bounce:
Seems you haven't learnt much from your recent 'rest' star.
Everyone is more than entitled to make an observation without being derided for it., no matter how absurd it might seem.
It's Max's viewpoint. He is entitled to it. He's entitled to express it.
Get over it and be a bit more tolerant in future eh? rolleyes

GNV, it's really rich Star claiming that others comments are ridiculous and silly. He is so myopic he even denies the obvious. In my book, a cowardly knee in the BACK is as bad as Suarez's indiscretion.

I agree. Terry is a thug and Suarez is a fool.
Roy Keane though - he was the man......... bolt

:bolt:

26 Apr 2013

You accidently but definetely trip up an opposing player, you get a yellow card, later in the match you do it again or some other minor foul, you are sent off and banned for the next 3 matches, that means a 10 match ban for a deliberate act of violence is fair in my book, end of lol

26 Apr 2013

Quote by GnV
Seems you haven't learnt much from your recent 'rest' star.

Oh yes the " rest " GnV. I wonder who put in the support ticket?
Max is a grown up and capable of speaking for himself. You are not the moral guardian on here, but certainly the poor little wounded soldier when it suits. Tell you what....put in a complaining support ticket.
Or maybe I shall ask Max if he is ok with you speaking on his behalf.
Max ?

26 Apr 2013

The FA's written reasons for the ban stated it should send out a "strong message that such deplorable behaviours do not have a place in football".
The 21-page rationale, published by the three-man independent panel appointed to rule on the case, noted that Suarez's tussle with Chelsea defender Ivanovic in the teams' 2-2 draw at Anfield on Sunday had been "seen by millions of viewers both domestic and overseas, as well as generating a great deal of interest and debate amongst countless number of people".
It continued: "Whilst we accepted that Mr Suarez's reputation had been impacted, these unsavoury pictures would have given a bad image of English football domestically and across the world alike. ........All players in the higher level of the game are seen as role models, have the duty to act professionally and responsibly, and set the highest example of good conduct to the rest of the game - especially to young players."
Amongst its conclusions the panel stated that "biting an opponent is alien to football and must remain so".
Under FA rules, see E CONDUCT and then General behaviour item 3
(1) act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any
one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive,
indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more
of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”), a Regulatory Commission shall consider the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the following entry points:
:arrow: For a first offence, a sanction that is double that which the Regulatory Commission
would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.
:arrow: For a second offence, a sanction that is treble that which the Regulatory
Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.
Any further such offence(s) shall give rise to consideration of a permanent
suspension.
These entry points are intended to guide the Regulatory Commission and are not
mandatory.
The Regulatory Commission shall have the discretion to impose a sanction greater
or less than the entry point, according to the aggravating or mitigating factors
present in each case.
So something both the Club and the Player will be very well aware of, particularly after 2011 and whilst Liverpool maybe "bitterly disappointed" by the length of the ban the club left the decision on whether to appeal up to Suarez, who decided against it.
So like Star, some one else who will be taking a 'rest'.

26 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
You accidently but definetely trip up an opposing player, you get a yellow card, later in the match you do it again or some other minor foul, you are sent off and banned for the next 3 matches, that means a 10 match ban for a deliberate act of violence is fair in my book, end of

The ban for receiving 2 yellow cards in a match is only 1 match. A straight red receives a 3 match ban.

27 Apr 2013

Quote by Max777
You accidently but definetely trip up an opposing player, you get a yellow card, later in the match you do it again or some other minor foul, you are sent off and banned for the next 3 matches, that means a 10 match ban for a deliberate act of violence is fair in my book, end of

The ban for receiving 2 yellow cards in a match is only 1 match. A straight red receives a 3 match ban.
Thankyou for the clarification, I still think that a red getting a 3 match ban for a deliberate foul for example handling the ball to prevent a goal shows that the 10 match ban was fair but of course that is just my personal opinion.

27 Apr 2013

Quote by HnS
The FA's written reasons for the ban stated it should send out a "strong message that such deplorable behaviours do not have a place in football".
The 21-page rationale, published by the three-man independent panel appointed to rule on the case, noted that Suarez's tussle with Chelsea defender Ivanovic in the teams' 2-2 draw at Anfield on Sunday had been "seen by millions of viewers both domestic and overseas, as well as generating a great deal of interest and debate amongst countless number of people".
It continued: "Whilst we accepted that Mr Suarez's reputation had been impacted, these unsavoury pictures would have given a bad image of English football domestically and across the world alike. ........All players in the higher level of the game are seen as role models, have the duty to act professionally and responsibly, and set the highest example of good conduct to the rest of the game - especially to young players."
Amongst its conclusions the panel stated that "biting an opponent is alien to football and must remain so".
Under FA rules, see E CONDUCT and then General behaviour item 3
(1) act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any
one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive,
indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more
of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”), a Regulatory Commission shall consider the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the following entry points:
:arrow: For a first offence, a sanction that is double that which the Regulatory Commission
would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.
:arrow: For a second offence, a sanction that is treble that which the Regulatory
Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.
Any further such offence(s) shall give rise to consideration of a permanent
suspension.
These entry points are intended to guide the Regulatory Commission and are not
mandatory.
The Regulatory Commission shall have the discretion to impose a sanction greater
or less than the entry point, according to the aggravating or mitigating factors
present in each case.
So something both the Club and the Player will be very well aware of, particularly after 2011 and whilst Liverpool maybe "bitterly disappointed" by the length of the ban the club left the decision on whether to appeal up to Suarez, who decided against it.
So like Star, some one else who will be taking a 'rest'.

Thanks for that HnS as it must have been fresh news when I heard it last night on the radio, and I could find no mention of it on the net.
What I am baffled by is that if Suarez got a 7 game ban for the last biting offense, why would a second biting offense carry a lesser punishment? I am damn sure that the FA took his last " indiscretion " into account when dishing out this latest punishment.
Has Suarez learned anything from this at all? I think it is in his character, and it is not a case of if but when, as he will bring himself to task again and again, it's the kind of person he is, a thug basically.
Liverpool and in particular their " manager " talk of helping Suarez with his problems instead of punishing him. What a lot of old clap trap. When the same club brought him after his last biting incident, did they not think then to give him the help he so obviously needs? No? All they did was pay him more money to play for them, and then wrapped their arms around him, and when he was charged by the FA over the Evra affair then went out onto the pitch with those shirts on display for all the world to see. Liverpool by doing some of the things they have with regards to him, have I think only themselves to blame.
Maybe now as a Liverpool player, and it being Liverpool who are being shown in a bad light, will they now give him the help he so deserves knowing his character, or take the weak option and continue to blame the FA or the media etc for his bites and his dives and his general being an arse?

27 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
You accidently but definetely trip up an opposing player, you get a yellow card, later in the match you do it again or some other minor foul, you are sent off and banned for the next 3 matches, that means a 10 match ban for a deliberate act of violence is fair in my book, end of

The ban for receiving 2 yellow cards in a match is only 1 match. A straight red receives a 3 match ban.
Thankyou for the clarification, I still think that a red getting a 3 match ban for a deliberate foul for example handling the ball to prevent a goal shows that the 10 match ban was fair but of course that is just my personal opinion.
i think you need to get someone to read the whole thread to you mids, no one is disputing that he should have been banned for 10 matches loon

27 Apr 2013

Quote by Too Hot
I would rank kneeing a player in the back up there with Suarez's bite.

What a silly and ridiculous comment to make, and there is YOU stating that others are not seeing anything. Your comments on this matter and especially the one above, well......how can anyone take you seriously ever again ?
It was not in the back, it was the top of the thigh. He was sent off for that and let his team down as well. In the end the sending off only spurred Chelsea on even more, and we all know the result eh Max? :bounce::bounce:
Seems you haven't learnt much from your recent 'rest' star.
Everyone is more than entitled to make an observation without being derided for it., no matter how absurd it might seem.
It's Max's viewpoint. He is entitled to it. He's entitled to express it.
Get over it and be a bit more tolerant in future eh? rolleyes

GNV, it's really rich Star claiming that others comments are ridiculous and silly. He is so myopic he even denies the obvious. In my book, a cowardly knee in the BACK is as bad as Suarez's indiscretion.

I agree. Terry is a thug and Suarez is a fool.
Roy Keane though - he was the man......... bolt

:bolt:
i would agree Keane was the complete thuggish idiot in English football but joey Barton is looking to take crown innocent

27 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Thanks for that HnS as it must have been fresh news when I heard it last night on the radio, and I could find no mention of it on the net.
What I am baffled by is that if Suarez got a 7 game ban for the last biting offense, why would a second biting offense carry a lesser punishment? I am damn sure that the FA took his last " indiscretion " into account when dishing out this latest punishment.

You are baffled. There is no second offence and even if there were, 10 is greater than 7. ( He actually received a 6 match ban + a further 1 match that had previously been suspended) If you read back through this thread you'll see that I have tried to explain the fact that his biting offence in Holland could not be taken into account by the English FA. I also said that the panel appointed by the FA to decide on Suarez's case said that it considered his latest indiscretion in isolation. You can read the full article here.

27 Apr 2013

well....fogetting the actual bite itself a minute....I would like to compliment the way Chelsea and more over Ivanovic have dealt with this. Chelsea to their credit has not complained about the fact someone that should have been sent off at the time, scored in the 6th minute of extra time !!! But I do admire the dignity and restraint Ivanovic has shown in this instance. At the time, I think 90% of players would of got up and grabbed Suarez by the throat or maybe even knocked a few of those teeth out so he couldn't be doing it again !!! I think he showed great restraint by simply showing the referee the teeth marks, and even then during the rest of the match did not seek any revenge, in the shape of an ill timed tackle or anything. Since the incident, he has kept a low profile and out of the media, and if anything played the incident down. A mark of a real footballer and a real man.

27 Apr 2013

I agree well done Chelsea for their quiet and dignified action in this situation.
I do think Liverpool FC need to do put some thought into just how they go about supporting their players, when a player is wrong he is wrong and the stance of a club can aggravate situations.
Manchester City took the right stance when they spoke about Tevez last season.
Chelsea do it.
Tomorrow Arsenal will host Manchester United at the Emirates Stadium and will provide an honour guard of their players when the League Champions step out onto the pitch.
The most honorouble thing I have seen in football was Robbie Fowler at Liverpool refusing a penalty and standing up for a fellow albeit opposition player, now that action earned the player the respect of a lot of people.
Football is sport and those are sporting stances/gestures.
P.S. I said I thought a 10 match ban was fair I didn't say anyone had said it wasn't I simply gave my own personal view of the FA's decision.

27 Apr 2013

Quote by flower411

Thanks for that HnS as it must have been fresh news when I heard it last night on the radio, and I could find no mention of it on the net.
What I am baffled by is that if Suarez got a 7 game ban for the last biting offense, why would a second biting offense carry a lesser punishment? I am damn sure that the FA took his last " indiscretion " into account when dishing out this latest punishment.

You are baffled. There is no second offence and even if there were, 10 is greater than 7. ( He actually received a 6 match ban + a further 1 match that had previously been suspended) If you read back through this thread you'll see that I have tried to explain the fact that his biting offence in Holland could not be taken into account by the English FA. I also said that the panel appointed by the FA to decide on Suarez's case said that it considered his latest indiscretion in isolation. You can read the full article here.
In the 21 page rationale included in your link it explains that they decided to view the case in isolation because it was "exceptional" and was not covered by FIFA regulations. If they had treated it as a second similar offence they would have had to deal with it differently and presumably left themselves open to appeals to FIFA against their decision.
They treated this exceptional case as an isolated incident precisely because they had taken the other incident into consideration.
Er no. Once again you are reading what you want to read.
"28. We noted that the action for the Referees under Laws of the Game, Law 12, for violent conduct is the dismissal of the player from the field of play and that there is no instructions or guidelines for the sanctions from FIFA. It has been up to individual country’s Association or Federation to apply the sanctions as they see fit under their own jurisdictions."
Where does it say that they treated this exceptional case as an isolated incident because they had taken the other incident into consideration? This is what is actually said:
"As The FA had claimed that the standard punishment that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient (refer in para 8) and this was not accepted by Mr Suarez (refer in para 11), we were to deal with this case, not as a Misconduct Charge but, under the Schedule A of Standard Directions and we did not take into consideration any previous Disciplinary Records of Mr Suarez and considered the offence in isolation."

27 Apr 2013

Suarez ban? Haven't we done this already? It's old news, move on.

27 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
well....fogetting the actual bite itself a minute....I would like to compliment the way Chelsea and more over Ivanovic have dealt with this. Chelsea to their credit has not complained about the fact someone that should have been sent off at the time, scored in the 6th minute of extra time !!! But I do admire the dignity and restraint Ivanovic has shown in this instance. At the time, I think 90% of players would of got up and grabbed Suarez by the throat or maybe even knocked a few of those teeth out so he couldn't be doing it again !!! I think he showed great restraint by simply showing the referee the teeth marks, and even then during the rest of the match did not seek any revenge, in the shape of an ill timed tackle or anything. Since the incident, he has kept a low profile and out of the media, and if anything played the incident down. A mark of a real footballer and a real man.

:thumbup: