The FA bites back !!!

[Rivvo 257]

It''s ok though, apparently he''s now going to leave the Premier league for a new club....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Borussia Munchonthecentreback

 

I''ll get my coat.

[Shankslad 0]

I couldn''t care less how long his ban is or how short his ban is.   I''m not digusted at all by Suarez, he was just behaving in accorance to his character.   What disgusts me is Liverpool FC and many supporters complaining about the punishment.

 

I don''t care how good a player he is or how talented he is - the truth of the matter is that he should NOT ever play for Liverpool again.   Shanks and Paisley will be rolling in their graves - gone completely are the ethics and principles they set and mainrained.   "Many players have the skill to play for Liverpool but few have the heart" so said Shankly.

 

Suarez has the wrong character - kick him out, get rid.   I''d rather face relegation than have characters like him associated with LFC.   I got used to people like Ian Callaghan, Roger Hunt and the rest of them who were total professional on and off the field of play.

 

This episode is just one antic too far - gerrimout!!!

 

[J 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]If I bit someone and they complained to the

police, and if the incident was on CCTV, could I expect 3 months in

jail, or a suspended sentence ?[/quote]Yes, but what you''re

forgetting is that such an incident took place on a football pitch and

the punishment is conducted by the governing body - the same in other sports like boxing. IE; If I broke someones leg with a dangerous jumping

''tackle'' on the street, I would expect to be done for ABH/GBH. But the rules are different in sport.It''s a fair ban, if anything, not long enough. The truth is, he''s done it before and his history isn''t exactly setting a good example. The FA needed to be harsh and rightly so.

[Monty13 2,231]

Thats not really true J. If a complaint was made to the police you can be prosecuted for abh/gbh on a football field if the intent was to harm. Ivanovic could have easily requested the police investigate by making a complaint, he chose not to.

[morty 0]

I know Brendan Rogers has to support his player, but I am cringeing at him on Sky Sports News.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Maybe if the FA rescinded the 10 match ban......but pulled out 10 of his teeth instead.....would that pacify the scousers?

[Mister Chops 7]

I wonder if Lambert''s still looking for young hungry players?

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Is that a widely held view among Liverpool fans, Shankslad?

Suarez is a world class striker but I admire your principles because the last incident made the player look bigger than the Club.

Plenty of players wear protective masks, ie Torres, so how about a Lechter style muzzle when Suarez returns?

[......and Smith must score. 1,342]

[quote user="morty"]I know Brendan Rogers has to support his player, but I am cringeing at him on Sky Sports News.[/quote]Yes, his comments don''t reflect well in this mornings papers either and he''s only dug himself a bigger holeAfter insinuating that David Cameron and various former players were mainly responsible for the FA handing out the hefty ban he then quotes two cases of players biting another player. To be fair he has point in that Jermaine Defoe got away extremely lightly with just a booking but in the other case in the same season a Chester City player received a five match ban and a £700 fine. This sounds about right for what was presumably a first offence but Rodgers conveniently forgets that Suarez has previous form in this field. Coupled with his earlier racist spat with Evra meant it was hardly surprising that the FA came down hard this time.No doubt Rodgers is aware that losing Suarez for the first six games of the next campaign is not going to help Liverpool''s search for honours and consequently his  prospects of continued employment there but he''s got this wrong big time.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="morty"]I know Brendan Rogers has to support his player, but I am cringeing at him on Sky Sports News.
[/quote]

Yes, his comments don''t reflect well in this mornings papers either and he''s only dug himself a bigger hole

After insinuating that David Cameron and various former players were mainly responsible for the FA handing out the hefty ban he then quotes two cases of players biting another player. To be fair he has point in that Jermaine Defoe got away extremely lightly with just a booking but in the other case in the same season a Chester City player received a five match ban and a £700 fine. This sounds about right for what was presumably a first offence but Rodgers conveniently forgets that Suarez has previous form in this field. Coupled with his earlier racist spat with Evra meant it was hardly surprising that the FA came down hard this time.

No doubt Rodgers is aware that losing Suarez for the first six games of the next campaign is not going to help Liverpool''s search for honours and consequently his  prospects of continued employment there but he''s got this wrong big time.


[/quote]

Incidents and punishments handed out by other FAs should not have any bearing on Suarez''s punishment under the English FA - I''m sure they don''t do background checks on every player that comes before them to see if it has happened before in overseas'' leagues -- if they don''t do that for every player they shouldn''t do it for any player.

 

I''m also unsure the ban for a racial comment should be taken into consideration - these are two seperate offences for different things and should probably be treated seperately, otherwise the FA run the risk of getting into a situation where players are getting massive bans as numerous punishments add-up.

 

Without the massive media hype that surrounded this incident Suarez would have been given a much smaller ban - at most 5 games; due to the player''s high profile he has been targeted which is unfair. The FA need to come out with a set of rules for themselves when determining these bans, otherwise they are influenced by the media too much; they are good at setting out rules and sticking to them (much to the ire of fans) in other areas, I can''t understand why they can''t do that for this as well.

[hogesar 9,658]

Don''t think i could possibly disagree more Bethnal to be honest.

If you repeat offend the ban should be longer because the previous ban hasn''t had the desired effect.

Suarez and the Evra incident should be taken into consideration? Just because they''re not the same issue doesn''t mean they don''t both have a diminishing effect.

It is quite blatantly clear to anyone that Suarez is a nasty little rat-faced prick who just so happens to have an amazing footballing ability.

Regardless of what FA it was under, he bit another fucking person! IF you go and do that again, of course you deserve a heavier ban.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="morty"]I know Brendan Rogers has to support his player, but I am cringeing at him on Sky Sports News.[/quote]Yes, his comments don''t reflect well in this mornings papers either and he''s only dug himself a bigger holeAfter insinuating that David Cameron and various former players were mainly responsible for the FA handing out the hefty ban he then quotes two cases of players biting another player. To be fair he has point in that Jermaine Defoe got away extremely lightly with just a booking but in the other case in the same season a Chester City player received a five match ban and a £700 fine. This sounds about right for what was presumably a first offence but Rodgers conveniently forgets that Suarez has previous form in this field. Coupled with his earlier racist spat with Evra meant it was hardly surprising that the FA came down hard this time.No doubt Rodgers is aware that losing Suarez for the first six games of the next campaign is not going to help Liverpool''s search for honours and consequently his  prospects of continued employment there but he''s got this wrong big time.

[/quote]

Incidents and punishments handed out by other FAs should not have any bearing on Suarez''s punishment under the English FA - I''m sure they don''t do background checks on every player that comes before them to see if it has happened before in overseas'' leagues -- if they don''t do that for every player they shouldn''t do it for any player.

 

I''m also unsure the ban for a racial comment should be taken into consideration - these are two seperate offences for different things and should probably be treated seperately, otherwise the FA run the risk of getting into a situation where players are getting massive bans as numerous punishments add-up.

 

Without the massive media hype that surrounded this incident Suarez would have been given a much smaller ban - at most 5 games; due to the player''s high profile he has been targeted which is unfair. The FA need to come out with a set of rules for themselves when determining these bans, otherwise they are influenced by the media too much; they are good at setting out rules and sticking to them (much to the ire of fans) in other areas, I can''t understand why they can''t do that for this as well.

[/quote]

 

Bethnal, is that feasible? The argument against is that no two incidents - in terms of the event itself and the player''s previous record- are ever quite the same. In criminal law you can get two crimes that are superficially similar but the particular circumstances lead to different levels of punishment.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Incidents and punishments handed out by other FAs should not have any bearing on Suarez''s punishment under the English FA - I''m sure they don''t do background checks on every player that comes before them to see if it has happened before in overseas'' leagues -- if they don''t do that for every player they shouldn''t do it for any player.[/quote]Bit like saying an offender who has commited a string of crimes in the Metropolitan area should be treated as a first time offender in Norwich if he''s caught here.There is no reason why ALL offences shouldn''t be registered with FIFA and be made accessible to FA''s anywhere in the world. If football wants to keep the game clean, it can''t ignore persistent offenders.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Incidents and punishments handed out by other FAs should not have any bearing on Suarez''s punishment under the English FA - I''m sure they don''t do background checks on every player that comes before them to see if it has happened before in overseas'' leagues -- if they don''t do that for every player they shouldn''t do it for any player.[/quote]

Bit like saying an offender who has commited a string of crimes in the Metropolitan area should be treated as a first time offender in Norwich if he''s caught here.

There is no reason why ALL offences shouldn''t be registered with FIFA and be made accessible to FA''s anywhere in the world. If football wants to keep the game clean, it can''t ignore persistent offenders.
[/quote]

 

It''s not like a crime in the metro area and then one in Norfolk - that would be if Suarez bit someone in the Championship and then again in the Premier League - both have the same rules and governing body. I belive in the British courts convictions made abroad are not taken into accout in the UK as laws and judicial procedure differ greatly.

 

If there is a record of offences that respective FAs can check against then yes it is fair to look back upon them - but with 100s of FAs across the world, all with their own laws and punishments it would be difficult to say the least.

 

 The fact is this system doesn''t exist so the FA shouldn''t use previous offences that they just happen to known about as a factor in giving punishments. There are hundreds of players in all the Football Leagues that have played abroad, do the FA know about every disicplinary procedure they have faced? Of course not - they are only likely to know about ones that involve high profile players, meaning those who play in League One or Two are more likely to be given a more leniant punishment; this is unfair and undermines the FA and it''s procedures.

 

I''m not saying Suarez doesn''t deserve a lengthy ban, all I''m saying that I don''t think it would be fair to take into account previous incidents overseas into account - this is unfair on players with high profiles. Time and time again the FA comes across as weak to media pressure, and this is just another example. There is no reason why the ban for biting needed to be higher than the one for racial abuse - in my opinion 5 or 6 games would have been fair.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Incidents and punishments handed out by other FAs should not have any bearing on Suarez''s punishment under the English FA - I''m sure they don''t do background checks on every player that comes before them to see if it has happened before in overseas'' leagues -- if they don''t do that for every player they shouldn''t do it for any player.[/quote]Bit like saying an offender who has commited a string of crimes in the Metropolitan area should be treated as a first time offender in Norwich if he''s caught here.There is no reason why ALL offences shouldn''t be registered with FIFA and be made accessible to FA''s anywhere in the world. If football wants to keep the game clean, it can''t ignore persistent offenders.[/quote]

 

It''s not like a crime in the metro area and then one in Norfolk - that would be if Suarez bit someone in the Championship and then again in the Premier League - both have the same rules and governing body. I belive in the British courts convictions made abroad are not taken into accout in the UK as laws and judicial procedure differ greatly.

 

If there is a record of offences that respective FAs can check against then yes it is fair to look back upon them - but with 100s of FAs across the world, all with their own laws and punishments it would be difficult to say the least.

 

 The fact is this system doesn''t exist so the FA shouldn''t use previous offences that they just happen to known about as a factor in giving punishments. There are hundreds of players in all the Football Leagues that have played abroad, do the FA know about every disicplinary procedure they have faced? Of course not - they are only likely to know about ones that involve high profile players, meaning those who play in League One or Two are more likely to be given a more leniant punishment; this is unfair and undermines the FA and it''s procedures.

 

I''m not saying Suarez doesn''t deserve a lengthy ban, all I''m saying that I don''t think it would be fair to take into account previous incidents overseas into account - this is unfair on players with high profiles. Time and time again the FA comes across as weak to media pressure, and this is just another example. There is no reason why the ban for biting needed to be higher than the one for racial abuse - in my opinion 5 or 6 games would have been fair.

[/quote]

 

Bethnal, I understand the point you''re making , but in practical terms the FA could not possibly ignore a previous incident of what was essentially the same offence (I am probably the only person on the planet who hasn''t seen either). I don''t think it is being unfair on Suarez that someone in League One might (only might) be getting away lightly. The real unfairness would be if Suarez got punished as a first-time offender rather than as the recidivist he is.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Incidents and punishments handed out by other FAs should not have any bearing on Suarez''s punishment under the English FA - I''m sure they don''t do background checks on every player that comes before them to see if it has happened before in overseas'' leagues -- if they don''t do that for every player they shouldn''t do it for any player.[/quote]

Bit like saying an offender who has commited a string of crimes in the Metropolitan area should be treated as a first time offender in Norwich if he''s caught here.

There is no reason why ALL offences shouldn''t be registered with FIFA and be made accessible to FA''s anywhere in the world. If football wants to keep the game clean, it can''t ignore persistent offenders.
[/quote]

 

It''s not like a crime in the metro area and then one in Norfolk - that would be if Suarez bit someone in the Championship and then again in the Premier League - both have the same rules and governing body. I belive in the British courts convictions made abroad are not taken into accout in the UK as laws and judicial procedure differ greatly.

 

If there is a record of offences that respective FAs can check against then yes it is fair to look back upon them - but with 100s of FAs across the world, all with their own laws and punishments it would be difficult to say the least.

 

 The fact is this system doesn''t exist so the FA shouldn''t use previous offences that they just happen to known about as a factor in giving punishments. There are hundreds of players in all the Football Leagues that have played abroad, do the FA know about every disicplinary procedure they have faced? Of course not - they are only likely to know about ones that involve high profile players, meaning those who play in League One or Two are more likely to be given a more leniant punishment; this is unfair and undermines the FA and it''s procedures.

 

I''m not saying Suarez doesn''t deserve a lengthy ban, all I''m saying that I don''t think it would be fair to take into account previous incidents overseas into account - this is unfair on players with high profiles. Time and time again the FA comes across as weak to media pressure, and this is just another example. There is no reason why the ban for biting needed to be higher than the one for racial abuse - in my opinion 5 or 6 games would have been fair.

[/quote]

 

I should stop digging my old son. Ten games is about right; it could well have been more.

[Yellow Wal 314]

I wonder how many matches Vinny Jones would get nowadays for squeezing Gazza''s nuts?

[lappinitup 629]

As a matter of interest, with four games left to play this season, obviously he will be banned for the first six games next season. What happens if he moves abroad during the summer? Does the ban still apply on the continent or is it put on ice until some time in the future should he return to England?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="lappinitup"]As a matter of interest, with four games left to play this season, obviously he will be banned for the first six games next season. What happens if he moves abroad during the summer? Does the ban still apply on the continent or is it put on ice until some time in the future should he return to England?
[/quote]

Joey Barton was still banned in France, so I''m guessing that Suarez would carry the ban with him abroad as long as he was in a UEFA registered league (not 100% sure about this, but I think that is how it works now).

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="lappinitup"]As a matter of interest, with four games left to play this season, obviously he will be banned for the first six games next season. What happens if he moves abroad during the summer? Does the ban still apply on the continent or is it put on ice until some time in the future should he return to England?

[/quote]Joey Barton was still banned in France, so I''m guessing that Suarez would carry the ban with him abroad as long as he was in a UEFA registered league (not 100% sure about this, but I think that is how it works now).[/quote]

Interesting point Bethnal. If current bans are respected throughout the EUFA region, then why should previous bans be ignored?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="lappinitup"]As a matter of interest, with four games left to play this season, obviously he will be banned for the first six games next season. What happens if he moves abroad during the summer? Does the ban still apply on the continent or is it put on ice until some time in the future should he return to England?

[/quote]Joey Barton was still banned in France, so I''m guessing that Suarez would carry the ban with him abroad as long as he was in a UEFA registered league (not 100% sure about this, but I think that is how it works now).[/quote]

Interesting point Bethnal. If current bans are respected throughout the EUFA region, then why should previous bans be ignored?

[/quote]

 

The FA shouldn''t take actions in overseas into consideration on an ad-hoc basis - if they are going to apply it to every player that is fine - but to use it only in the occasions it has been brought to their attention by the media is unfair.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="lappinitup"]As a matter of interest, with four games left to play this season, obviously he will be banned for the first six games next season. What happens if he moves abroad during the summer? Does the ban still apply on the continent or is it put on ice until some time in the future should he return to England?

[/quote]Joey Barton was still banned in France, so I''m guessing that Suarez would carry the ban with him abroad as long as he was in a UEFA registered league (not 100% sure about this, but I think that is how it works now).[/quote]

Interesting point Bethnal. If current bans are respected throughout the EUFA region, then why should previous bans be ignored?

[/quote]

 

The FA shouldn''t take actions in overseas into consideration on an ad-hoc basis - if they are going to apply it to every player that is fine - but to use it only in the occasions it has been brought to their attention by the media is unfair.[/quote]

I do understand what you''re saying Bethnel and agree with you to a point. However, I think you''re referring to lower league players mainly, although these players are not in the spotlight in the way players in the top leagues are. Thanks to TV, top players are set up as role models for kids and therefore need to set an example. Somebody playing for Barnet or Exeter for example would not have quite the same influence on kids as a Premier League player would and wouldn''t come under the same scrutiny.

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

Its unlikely that the ban would follow him abroad. He still has an outstanding ban in Holland for the last time he bit someone, it didn''t follow him to Liverpool.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="Comfort Big Fish Ramatebele"]Its unlikely that the ban would follow him abroad. He still has an outstanding ban in Holland for the last time he bit someone, it didn''t follow him to Liverpool.
[/quote]

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/06/30/78/statusinhalt_en_122007.pdf

Page 12, Article 12

[paul moy 235]

So, the FA have released a 70 odd page document outlining their reasons for the severity of the ban.

Just a few major reasons given are:

Exceptional nature of the incident... biting must never be accepted in football

Dangers of copycat incidents by children.... apparently there have been many since the incident, not least in junior football and at school

Dangers of ongoing health problems due to biting

The assailants very poor disciplinary history 

 

 

 

 

[Webbo118 0]

Any mention of vermin?

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="Comfort Big Fish Ramatebele"]Its unlikely that the ban would follow him abroad. He still has an outstanding ban in Holland for the last time he bit someone, it didn''t follow him to Liverpool.[/quote]

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/06/30/78/statusinhalt_en_122007.pdf

Page 12, Article 12

[/quote]Well the FA certainly didn''t adhere to those rules, as he left Ajax 4 games into a 7 game ban