Shame on you Liverpool FC

6 Jan 2012

Quote by essex34m

Blue, to answer your specific point that bullying with words is wrong regardless of the words used, you're right, except of course that noone ever got strung up from a tree by a gang of racist thugs above the law for being ginger, or fat, or ugly

I disagree to some extent here neil. People may not get strung up for being fat ginger or even ugly by racists but they sure do by other narrow minded people. Have seen plenty of storys of school kids one of whom was kiled in back alley by other kids for being fat. A tragic case is it any more or less tragic than a racial one, no. I myself was picked on in primary school for having big ears lol

At the time I found it most upsetting and I cant imagine that its any worse to be upset by being abused for you ear size than it is to be abused for your race? Being hurt or being offended is universal.

Quote by Bluefish2009
As far as I am aware, no one word is , neither is it, by its self, offensive.
Words only become offensive when put in the wrong context, aimed at some one, or used in inappropriate manor or company
I do so hate this,
You must conform to this way of thinking or you are racist
You must agree with global warming or you are a denier
Etc

Very interesting what you say Blue. At work over about the last 18 months I have been involved in a few discussions about the kind of topic of this thread and also other political issues such as imigration and other more petty things. I have now heard three times a statement along the lines of "I think this and I cant change that if this makes me a racist than call me a racist, I dont care". That statement has then been almost unanimously agreed with by the small groups in the room normally 5-6 people. Its shows that people are getting annoyed with the silly things such as the original issue of this thread and other things such as haivng to watch every word you say just in case you say one out of place. Not being able to hang christmas decoartions in certain parts of the country (myth or legend I dont know but people belive it) or one I know to be true a car park owner who was banned from having a picture of a pig on his car park sign. Buthcer not being able to hang pigs in the window in certain areas? This is the kind of thing myth or not thats gets peoples backs up and it needs adressing. I dont think for one moment it will casue any immediate problem but things that boil under the surface for too long can one day have nasty overspill sad

6 Jan 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
As far as I am aware, no one word is , neither is it, by its self, offensive.
Words only become offensive when put in the wrong context, aimed at some one, or used in inappropriate manor or company
I do so hate this,
You must conform to this way of thinking or you are racist
You must agree with global warming or you are a denier
Etc

I'm sorry but I really did think we had managed to move on from certain words. Words on there own are very emotional.
Would you consider calling anyone, in any context...NIG NOG !!
Would you consider calling anyone, in any context...WOG !!
Would you consider calling anyone, in any context...Spastic !!
Would you consider calling anyone, in any context...puffter !!
All these words were used common place in the 60's and 70's. I hope as a society we have moved on, things change. Words and their meanings change !!
I mean if you see a happy person, smiling and dancing, you don't say OMG your gay today !! Maybe you don't think certain words are offensive, but if you know others may, surely you would have the respect not to use them.

6 Jan 2012

Quote by deancannock
As far as I am aware, no one word is , neither is it, by its self, offensive.
Words only become offensive when put in the wrong context, aimed at some one, or used in inappropriate manor or company
I do so hate this,
You must conform to this way of thinking or you are racist
You must agree with global warming or you are a denier
Etc

I'm sorry but I really did think we had managed to move on from certain words. Words on there own are very emotional.
Would you consider calling anyone, in any context...NIG NOG !!
Would you consider calling anyone, in any context...WOG !!
Would you consider calling anyone, in any context...Spastic !!
Would you consider calling anyone, in any context...puffter !!
All these words were used common place in the 60's and 70's. I hope as a society we have moved on, things change. Words and their meanings change !!
I mean if you see a happy person, smiling and dancing, you don't say OMG your gay today !! Maybe you don't think certain words are offensive, but if you know others may, surely you would have the respect not to use them.
I thought I had made that quite clear, sorry if I did not. See above in red. As stated above I would not aim these words at any one, any more than I would call them a cunt or bastard. However, they are just words, and used in context, say in a book from the time or writing about that time, then they could well be required and used. They are not

6 Jan 2012

Quote by tweeky

Blue, to answer your specific point that bullying with words is wrong regardless of the words used, you're right, except of course that noone ever got strung up from a tree by a gang of racist thugs above the law for being ginger, or fat, or ugly

I disagree to some extent here neil. People may not get strung up for being fat ginger or even ugly by racists but they sure do by other narrow minded people. Have seen plenty of storys of school kids one of whom was kiled in back alley by other kids for being fat. A tragic case is it any more or less tragic than a racial one, no. I myself was picked on in primary school for having big ears lol

At the time I found it most upsetting and I cant imagine that its any worse to be upset by being abused for you ear size than it is to be abused for your race? Being hurt or being offended is universal.

Quote by Bluefish2009
As far as I am aware, no one word is , neither is it, by its self, offensive.
Words only become offensive when put in the wrong context, aimed at some one, or used in inappropriate manor or company
I do so hate this,
You must conform to this way of thinking or you are racist
You must agree with global warming or you are a denier
Etc

Very interesting what you say Blue. At work over about the last 18 months I have been involved in a few discussions about the kind of topic of this thread and also other political issues such as imigration and other more petty things. I have now heard three times a statement along the lines of "I think this and I cant change that if this makes me a racist than call me a racist, I dont care". That statement has then been almost unanimously agreed with by the small groups in the room normally 5-6 people. Its shows that people are getting annoyed with the silly things such as the original issue of this thread and other things such as haivng to watch every word you say just in case you say one out of place. Not being able to hang christmas decoartions in certain parts of the country (myth or legend I dont know but people belive it) or one I know to be true a car park owner who was banned from having a picture of a pig on his car park sign. Buthcer not being able to hang pigs in the window in certain areas? This is the kind of thing myth or not thats gets peoples backs up and it needs adressing. I dont think for one moment it will casue any immediate problem but things that boil under the surface for too long can one day have nasty overspill sad

You make some very valid points, i actually fear such debates in many ways, I am not the best with words and they are so easily twisted by others

6 Jan 2012

Quote by deancannock
Would you consider calling anyone, in any context...Spastic !!

Yes.........if used in the correct context. India still has the Spastic Society that is a charity.
Now one I didn't know is that the derogatory term Spastic has grown out of fashion due to campaigning by Scope. Now spastic has been replaced by Scope or Scopey to mean the new insult in the 2000's. Have to admit that I have not heard it being used though...........but there again I do not hang around kids to listen to slang
Dave_Notts

8 Jan 2012

22 Apr 2013

8 match ban last time, and this time ?
Least the club were aware of the PR disaster and spoke out last night as well as fining him an undisclosed amount - though at least it went to the 96 Campaign :thumbup:.
The FA said that, while the standard punishment for violent conduct was a three-match ban, that was "clearly insufficient in these circumstances", probably in light of the 7 match ban he got for biting PSV Eindhoven midfielder Otman Bakkal during a match in November 2010 whilst playing for Ajax.
Suarez is one of the six contenders for the PFA Players' Player of the Year award banghead

23 Apr 2013

Quote by HnS
8 match ban last time, and this time ?
Least the club were aware of the PR disaster and spoke out last night as well as fining him an undisclosed amount - though at least it went to the 96 Campaign :thumbup:.
The FA said that, while the standard punishment for violent conduct was a three-match ban, that was "clearly insufficient in these circumstances", probably in light of the 7 match ban he got for biting PSV Eindhoven midfielder Otman Bakkal during a match in November 2010 whilst playing for Ajax.
Suarez is one of the six contenders for the PFA Players' Player of the Year award

in his defence he does look a little under feed and in a statement he said "i had an over whelming urge for an macbramovich" bolt

23 Apr 2013

Quote by Lizaleanrob
8 match ban last time, and this time ?
Least the club were aware of the PR disaster and spoke out last night as well as fining him an undisclosed amount - though at least it went to the 96 Campaign :thumbup:.
The FA said that, while the standard punishment for violent conduct was a three-match ban, that was "clearly insufficient in these circumstances", probably in light of the 7 match ban he got for biting PSV Eindhoven midfielder Otman Bakkal during a match in November 2010 whilst playing for Ajax.
Suarez is one of the six contenders for the PFA Players' Player of the Year award

in his defence he does look a little under feed and in a statement he said "i had an over whelming urge for an macbramovich" bolt

I am sorry but the officials seem to have this wrong on this occasion, just because he has a track record for violent biting this clearly was not the case this time.
Like everyone else recently he simply mistook the other players arm for a horseburger and just wanted a snack, besides has it been proved the meat he bit into was actually human ?
On a more serious note, a 7 match ban would be fair in light of his previous track record and the history that most players using violent conduct of a more unusual nature (as opposed to the bad tackles) generally incur a 7 match ban, Cantonna for showing his new boot to the spectator for example (clearly another case where an innocent player is accused of something for a totally different motive).
Perhaps a 4 match ban and his eligibility for the PFA award would be appropriate as this would be a double hit as it bans him for the rest of the season, shows that the PFA don't consider such conduct right for a player that might be considered as player of the year (play is not just about the football abilities of a player it is also about his conduct on and off the pitch when it comes to such an award or certainly should be) and as a third hit, it would also eliminate any chance he has of getting the Golden Boot award for the most goals scored this season (he is currently in 2nd place 1 goal behind Van Persie following Persie's hat trick last night)

23 Apr 2013

Let us get this into context eh? The guy is an animal and in all the years I have watched football at both amateur and professional levels, I have never witnessed a player biting another. This animal ( for that is what he is and am sorry if a few tender souls think that is a little bit offensive rolleyes

) has done this before remember, and he also served a ban for the abuse against Evra of Man Utd.
Liverpool playing the PR exercise, would have ordered Suaez to appologise to the Chelsea player, and to issue a grovelling public apology.......Pffffttt. This animal could even yet be named the PFA's footballer of the year FFS, and how crazy would that be? The fact that Liverpool FC have decided to NOT disclose their own fine on Suaerz stinks. Why have they not disclosed the fine? I for one want to know what that fine is and how they came to that amount. A bit like Chelsea when they fined JT after his guilty verdict by the FA in his recent racial abuse case.
A piddly little fine is not the answer on this occasion, as this is his second disgusting offense for biting an opponent, I believe his fine should be a million pounds and half donated to the Hillsborough fund, and a six month ban minimum starting on the first game of next season. Also for every week he does not play for Liverpool FC he should also not be paid by them. This should be a world wide ban and enforced by both UEFA and FIFA.
Remember that Cantona got a nine month ban for doing his famous kung fu kick on a supporter, and I think this is just as bad as that when put into context.
This guy is in the same league as Joey Barton........an animal and a thug and a proven racist, ban him and then kick him out. Harsh? Not at all, but well deserved.

23 Apr 2013

I actually think that what he did was worse than Cantonna, wrong as Eric was his act was one of instant anger, already fired up from a sending off his emotions were not in the best state, to then get taunted and his mother abused and racist comments from a fan tipped him over the edge, Suarez on the other hand was not provoked, he did something that he had done before, practically pre-meditated in that sense of reasoning having not learned from the first time he did it, Cantonna on the other hand learned so much from what he did that he realised he could not continue his footballing career because of his fiery temperement, but I still maintain that Cantonna was only showing the supporter his new football boots lol

23 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
On a more serious note, a 7 match ban would be fair in light of his previous track record and the history that most players using violent conduct of a more unusual nature (as opposed to the bad tackles) generally incur a 7 match ban, Cantonna for showing his new boot to the spectator for example

Mids I really do not mean to be rude but do you know all the facts about this player? He did this before. On the 20 November 2010 he bit Otman Bakkal in the shoulder in a match between Ajax and Eindhoven, where he received a 7 match ban and was then sold to Liverpool. So how in your eyes can a 7 match ban be " fair " for a second biting offense in less than 3 years? Also he was found guilty of racially abusing Evra and was issued with an EIGHT game ban for that. I do not know where you are going Mids with a lesser ban than he has already served in recent times. I thought the first offense was the most lenient and then got heavier if you continued to offend?

Quote by MidsCouple24
Cantonna for showing his new boot to the spectator for example

What so you think Cantonna got a seven match ban as well for his Kung Fu kick then Mids? Actually he was charged he got a two week prison sentence which was overturned but got instead 120 hours of community service. Oh and he got in total a NINE month ban Mids. Sometimes I do wonder where you get your news from.

Quote by MidsCouple24
I actually think that what he did was worse than Cantonna

So Mids, one minute you are saying what he did was worse than Cantonna's actions where he got a nine month ban from the game, and the next you are saying a four game ban would be fair. You see how silly your comments look at times?

Quote by MidsCouple24
Perhaps a 4 match ban and his eligibility for the PFA award would be appropriate as this would be a double hit as it bans him for the rest of the season,

A 4 match ban? Are you really being serious? The ban which will happen should NOT start until the start of next season. What is the point of banning him for the last 4 games at Liverpool when those games actually mean nothing, not a bloody thing?

Quote by MidsCouple24
shows that the PFA don't consider such conduct right for a player that might be considered as player of the year (play is not just about the football abilities of a player it is also about his conduct on and off the pitch when it comes to such an award or certainly should be) and as a third hit, it would also eliminate any chance he has of getting the Golden Boot award for the most goals scored this season (he is currently in 2nd place 1 goal behind Van Persie following Persie's hat trick last night)

In the light of these events he should step down from the award himself. Players and whoever else votes should have his name scrubbed from the list. How disgraceful would that be if after being found guilty of racial abuse and then banned for extreme violent behaviour towards a fellow player, then gets any award. That would be utter nonsense but then nothing surprises me with football.

23 Apr 2013

I dont see much of a difference between biting another player or kicking a ball boy similar to whatever player it was that did the latter earlier this year? No injuries seem to have been recorded by the bitten player, the police have not taken any action on the biting and supposedley the player apologised (since denied by the victim)
The only difference being the Suarez dude appears to have bitten a player before so perhaps a longer ban thang and more money as a fine but thats about it, Footie is a physical and sometimes contact sport, some players seem more physical than others but essentially they're just men playing their game and getting caught up in the heat of the moment and then in this instance made much much worse by excessive media coverage of the actual biting.
If examples were to be made, the Police regardless of 'no injury sustained/no complaint made would charge the player with Common Assault, the Football Association or whomever it is would ban him from the game, his contract with his sponsors be severed and he be deported with immediate effect *smiling*
It's football, it happens, deal with it accordingly and let the game carry.

23 Apr 2013

Quote by Toots
I dont see much of a difference between biting another player or kicking a ball boy similar to whatever player it was that did the latter earlier this year? No injuries seem to have been recorded by the bitten player, the police have not taken any action on the biting and supposedley the player apologised (since denied by the victim)

I think it was this " kick " that some were talking about.

Quote by Toots
The only difference being the Suarez dude appears to have bitten a player before so perhaps a longer ban thang and more money as a fine but thats about it, Footie is a physical and sometimes contact sport, some players seem more physical than others but essentially they're just men playing their game and getting caught up in the heat of the moment and then in this instance made much much worse by excessive media coverage of the actual biting.

You are joking......yes? " excessive media coverage "? Obviously biting an opponent on a football field, is a mere little thing for tough footballers.

Quote by Toots
If examples were to be made, the Police regardless of 'no injury sustained/no complaint made would charge the player with Common Assault, the Football Association or whomever it is would ban him from the game, his contract with his sponsors be severed and he be deported with immediate effect *smiling*

He will be made an example of, but then I think he has done a much better job than anyone else could have done with regards to making himself an example of being a thug.

Quote by Toots
It's football, it happens, deal with it accordingly and let the game carry.

Well I jolly well hope that the powers at the FA, see this as a bit more serious than you obviously do.

23 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Well I jolly well hope that the powers at the FA, see this as a bit more serious than you obviously do.

I'm sure they will do exactly that, the good name of English Football needs to be upheld...remind me again re the recent Millwall fan thuggery, or the John Terry stupidity or whatever else but oh should a player dare to bite another...a bite that left 'no injury' (thats the key part that you appear to have overlooked) and you want him hung drawn and quartered? *smiling*
I'm only surprised you haven't suggested that should he be found guilty of 'violent conduct' that he be shot at dawn?

23 Apr 2013

Quote by Toots
I'm sure they will do exactly that, the good name of English Football needs to be upheld...remind me again re the recent Millwall fan thuggery, or the John Terry stupidity or whatever else but oh should a player dare to bite another...a bite that left 'no injury' (thats the key part that you appear to have overlooked) and you want him hung drawn and quartered? *smiling*

The Millwall fan thuggery as you aptly put it, is being dealt with. I am sure that any fan caught via cctv will be banned from the ground for life. A just punishment most would agree. The John Terry " stupidity " was dealt with harshly, even though he was found NOT guilty in a court of law, the FA still would not let it drop and he was fined and banned accordingly. Oh and how do YOU know that no injury was caused? It was the intent of the bite that is the thing here. Had he have pierced the skin of the other player, I am sure that Branislav Ivanovic would have without a doubt issued his own court proceedings. Do you not get the intent used?
I have not said I want him hung or drawn or come to think of it quartered either, but what I do want is a right and just punishment for what was ABH on a football pitch.

Quote by Toots
I'm only surprised you haven't suggested that should he be found guilty of 'violent conduct' that he be shot at dawn?

Now you are being completely childish, and I would presume you would like him to be given a pat on the back, for a great bite? :doh: You are about as much a football supporter, as I am a fan of girls netball, as your comments make no sense at all.

23 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Now you are being completely childish, and I would presume you would like him to be given a pat on the back, for a great bite? :doh: You are about as much a football supporter, as I am a fan of girls netball, as your comments make no sense at all.

You get 10/10 for entertainment value and for consistency I wish I could give you 11/10.
Read back through the first few pages of this very same thread Star, you question whether he was a racist, you supported LFC for supporting him and now this?
Can you not just be consistent? Then again - it wouldn't be half as much fun if you were.

23 Apr 2013

Yes Starlight perhaps a 4 match ban would be too light, but at the time I was thinking about the other bits along with it, no chance of the golden boot award and kicked off the player of the year list, with further thought on the matter I would certainly ban him for the rest of the season and for a period of next season.
I would also dock the club points, yes I would, fines to a club don't mean much, but facing the other players knowing he had lost them points would hurt him, facing the fans would be have the same effect, it would be a lesson to others and perhaps make them think which is what a lot of being punished is about.
Why should Liverpool FC being penalised, because quite simply a football club has a duty to ensure it's players do not do such things, Manchester United learned their lesson with George Best at their own expense, players cannot be left to run amok they are ambassadors to sport.
United changed after Best, when Ryan Giggs came into the spotlight from the youth team, at the ripe old age of 17 he was made to live with "foster careres so to speak" in Manchester, he had strict home rules and cufews, all the youngsters get that kind of control over them, MUFC will not tollerate the kind of behaviour and bad press some players are capable of achieving, but not just MU, most football clubs are the same these days, there have been minor indiscretions at MU, Giggs affair, Rooney's prostitute scandal but for the most part their multi-millionaire playboy kids are well behaved, most footballers are, but the odd idiot needs to be hammered down on and a club that doesn't control them should be penalised, after all if it was their fans that had let them down the club would have been punished and a club has less control over them than it does it's players. In this instance because the offence took place on the pitch the club should be penalised with a points deduction. Make all clubs realise that they have to take responsibility for the actions of the players they put into the limelight and turn into rich kids with more money than sense.

23 Apr 2013

Quote by Too Hot
You get 10/10 for entertainment value and for consistency I wish I could give you 11/10.
Read back through the first few pages of this very same thread Star, you question whether he was a racist, you supported LFC for supporting him and now this?
Can you not just be consistent? Then again - it wouldn't be half as much fun if you were.

I questioned the validity of Suarez being a racist at the start of this thread, as the way he used the word to Evra, and the context it was used in was something that happens in Uruguay as a norm. At the start of this thread I indeed defended Suarez, but knowing what I know about him now I admit I was wrong to have made any excuses for him. Am I not allowed to admit I was wrong TH? I always thought that knowledge is wisdom, and I am wise enough to admit that he is indeed a racist and now a thug.
I don't often admit I am wrong, so take this down and frame it on your wall in your front room, as it don't often happen. lol

24 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
United changed after Best, when Ryan Giggs came into the spotlight from the youth team, at the ripe old age of 17 he was made to live with "foster careres so to speak" in Manchester, he had strict home rules and cufews,

Well it obviously worked with Giggs then Mids eh? Or was it another player that was caught shagging his own Brother's Wife for eight years? Or certainly not the player who was named for the player taking out a super injunction to stop the press from finding out about his, shall we say " little indiscretions ".

Quote by MidsCouple24
there have been minor indiscretions at MU

Would you consider the outrageous behaviour of Cantonna as a minor indiscretion Mids?

24 Apr 2013

Quote by Too Hot

Now you are being completely childish, and I would presume you would like him to be given a pat on the back, for a great bite? :doh: You are about as much a football supporter, as I am a fan of girls netball, as your comments make no sense at all.

You get 10/10 for entertainment value and for consistency I wish I could give you 11/10.
Read back through the first few pages of this very same thread Star, you question whether he was a racist, you supported LFC for supporting him and now this?
Can you not just be consistent? Then again - it wouldn't be half as much fun if you were.
To be fair these are two different incidents
In the first there was absolutely no video evidence, Suarez was convicted on the word of a serial liar and serial accuser evra
Its funny i read an article in a magazine about the whole affair, 70% of premiership players said they thought Saurez was not guilty and evra was lying..go figue that one
This time there is video evidence so the man can rightfully proved to be guilty
its very simple and easy to have a different opinion on both dunno

if biting someone means you are also rasist then someone better tell mike tyson rolleyes

24 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

United changed after Best, when Ryan Giggs came into the spotlight from the youth team, at the ripe old age of 17 he was made to live with "foster careres so to speak" in Manchester, he had strict home rules and cufews,

Well it obviously worked with Giggs then Mids eh? Or was it another player that was caught shagging his own Brother's Wife for eight years? Or certainly not the player who was named for the player taking out a super injunction to stop the press from finding out about his, shall we say " little indiscretions ".

Quote by MidsCouple24
there have been minor indiscretions at MU

Would you consider the outrageous behaviour of Cantonna as a minor indiscretion Mids?
or Ferguson's son being exposed in the football bung scandal by the BBC

24 Apr 2013

Quote by Lizaleanrob

United changed after Best, when Ryan Giggs came into the spotlight from the youth team, at the ripe old age of 17 he was made to live with "foster careres so to speak" in Manchester, he had strict home rules and cufews,

Well it obviously worked with Giggs then Mids eh? Or was it another player that was caught shagging his own Brother's Wife for eight years? Or certainly not the player who was named for the player taking out a super injunction to stop the press from finding out about his, shall we say " little indiscretions ".
I myself quoted the indiscretion of Ryan Giggs I don't need reminding of it, but yes it was an indiscretion not a crime, violence is a crime, having an affair is morally wrong, a club should not be held responsible for a player having an affair and I doubt any measures could be put in place by any club to prevent such things happening but you can put measures in to deal with violence, if a worker at Toyota or Asda was violent towards another employee they would almost certainly be sacked for gross misconduct, they would not be sacked for having an affair, Football clubs are business's just like Asda or Toyota and the same rules should apply.
Taken into context of what Giggs did during a 30 year career of otherwise excellent behaviour, loyalty and as an ambassador to the game I think talking about him and Suarez in the same vein is ridiculous.

Quote by MidsCouple24
there have been minor indiscretions at MU

Would you consider the outrageous behaviour of Cantonna as a minor indiscretion Mids?
Of course not and had United been deducted points at the time I would have agreed with that decision.
or Ferguson's son being exposed in the football bung scandal by the BBC
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.

24 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
I have not said I want him hung or drawn or come to think of it quartered either, but what I do want is a right and just punishment for what was ABH on a football pitch.
Now you are being completely childish, and I would presume you would like him to be given a pat on the back, for a great bite? :doh: You are about as much a football supporter, as I am a fan of girls netball, as your comments make no sense at all.

Quite how you justify a £1 Million fine, a blanket 6mths ban, removal of his name from the Player of the Year (like he'll win it now anyway), his wages docked for 6months...all for a bite that left no injury? deliberate bad tackles that have cost the careers of many a football player have gotten nothing more than a sending off or suspension etc.
You want justice and yet the ridiculous terms you set would seem to dictate that it's you that has little or no comprehension of the game of football and not I.
You're just being sensationalist for the rise, nothing more.

24 Apr 2013

A 10 match ban, what a lucky boy .........
•9 months - Manchester United's Eric Cantona for his 'kung-fu' style kick in 1995
•9 months - Chelsea keeper Mark Bosnich who tested positive for cocaine in 2003
•8 months - Rio Ferdinand of Manchester United for missing a drugs test in 2003
•12 games - QPR's Joey Barton for two counts of violent conduct against Man City players in 2012
•11 games - Sheffield Wednesday's Paolo di Canio for pushing over referee Paul Alcock in 1998
•10 games - Former Southampton player David Prutton for shoving referee Alan Wiley in 2005
•9 games - Paul Davis of Arsenal for punching Southampton's Glenn Cockerill in 1988
•8 games - Liverpool's Luis Suarez for racially abusing Patrice Evra in 2011
•8 games - Man City's Ben Thatcher for elbowing Portsmouth's Pedro Mendes in 2006
•5 weeks - Man United's Roy Keane for comments made in his autobiography in 2002

24 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
A 10 match ban, what a lucky boy .........
•9 months - Manchester United's Eric Cantona for his 'kung-fu' style kick in 1995
•9 months - Chelsea keeper Mark Bosnich who tested positive for cocaine in 2003
•8 months - Rio Ferdinand of Manchester United for missing a drugs test in 2003
•12 games - QPR's Joey Barton for two counts of violent conduct against Man City players in 2012
•11 games - Sheffield Wednesday's Paolo di Canio for pushing over referee Paul Alcock in 1998
•10 games - Former Southampton player David Prutton for shoving referee Alan Wiley in 2005
•9 games - Paul Davis of Arsenal for punching Southampton's Glenn Cockerill in 1988
•8 games - Liverpool's Luis Suarez for racially abusing Patrice Evra in 2011
•8 games - Man City's Ben Thatcher for elbowing Portsmouth's Pedro Mendes in 2006
•5 weeks - Man United's Roy Keane for comments made in his autobiography in 2002

I'd say it was disproportionate for the Suarez event and missing from your above list was an incident re Jermain Defoe who also bit a player on October 22, 2006 Defoe bit Javier Mascherano (thanks google) and ended up with a 'yellow card' to make it worse it was in retaliation for being fouled and when he was asked about it he said it was 'a bit mischievous of him'
So, yellow card for one player for biting, 10 games for a repeat offender and who if he was given the same as Defoe the first time around would now probably be looking at a 3 match ban instead.

24 Apr 2013

Toots,
To some extent blame the FA 'rules'
If the incident had been spotted by the Ref during the game on Sunday and sanction applied then, the FA rules (which they've applied already this year never mind this season) say they wouldn't of been able to consider a Disciplinary/Regulatory today.
It wasn't spotted
So they considered today, granted how and why without Suarez being present is strange ..... then again so is the FA .... though he has until this Friday to Appeal.
Like Gary Linekers comment "Vital now that FA are consistently strong on all issues eg racism, abusing refs etc. Also this ridiculous nonsense of 'if the ref saw it they can't punish retrospectively' has to be addressed!"

24 Apr 2013

The defoe incident as is said above was dealt with by the referee and didn't appear on the list because the list is that of the biggest punishments handed out by the FA.
The FA were able to deal with it in Suarez absence because he had admitted responsibility/pleaded guilty beforehand so it was not a hearing about guilty or not guilty it was about just punishment being considered.
I think the FA do have to look at this with his previous record in mind, it is the second time he has committed the same offence during his career and I think that this is relative to the punishment, a two footed tackle however wrong, a deliberate attempt to stop someone through a foul tackle can be dangerous but is more common at all levels of football but biting ? that's a rugby thing, so a 10 match ban is fair because he was playing rugby on the football pitch lol

24 Apr 2013

10 games? It should have been 9 months.

24 Apr 2013

Quote by Toots
So, yellow card for one player for biting, 10 games for a repeat offender and who if he was given the same as Defoe the first time around would now probably be looking at a 3 match ban instead.

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?
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. Of course the Liverpool fans are now screaming a " witch hunt " against him. No witch hunt at all, the guy bit a fellow professional for the second time. What will the third time be Toots? Bite another players ear off on the pitch? A finger perhaps? He has to learn it stops right now, and for once the FA have at least had one testicle.
People are also squeaking that he needs help, he does not need any help, he just needs to flipping grow up and curtail his temper. It is all rather pathetic from a man who is paid fortunes to kick a ball around. Without football he would be a nothing person and he should well remember that. IF Liverpool appeal against the 10 match ban, then I hope they increase it a further two games.