2012/2013 Premier League Season + FA & League Cup chat

  • Thread starter Sureboss
  • 2,947 comments
  • 98,974 views
Defoe was not banned because FA rules meant that he could not be banned because the referee had seen and dealt with the issue on the pitch (a yellow card was awarded IIRC)... so you cannot compared these two incidents on that basis alone.

The length of any ban has to reflect several things, but I strongly disagree with your view that previous offenses should have no bearing on the matter.

So yellow card incident = ten game ban. Ok.

Suarez bit someone before, served his ban. He allegedly racially abused Evra (even though no one else heard him, only Evra), served his ban. This is now a separate incident that wasn't at all serious. But obviously everybody likes to jump on the media bandwagon and proclaim how terrible it was. So the FA feel like they need to give him a massive ban just to keep people happy.
 
You guys are forgetting that its a 3 game ban initially and he has until midday friday to appeal the additional 7 game ban...but he is DEFINIATELY missing the next 3 games...
 
Touring Mars
Defoe was not banned because FA rules meant that he could not be banned because the referee had seen and dealt with the issue on the pitch (a yellow card was awarded IIRC)... so you cannot compared these two incidents on that basis alone.

The length of any ban has to reflect several things, but I strongly disagree with your view that previous offenses should have no bearing on the matter.

Are here any guidelines to follow when issuing a ban? While I am not sure I agree that having been in another controversial event is reason to increase a ban,i don't know if this is the case,though even with his previous doings,the ban is still way too lengthy.
 
sems4arsenal
the ban is still way too lengthy.

Is it? He got a 7 match ban for the bite at Ajax, an 8 match ban for racial abuse. He clearly hasn't learnt any lessons so they have seen fit to give him a 10 match ban.

That seems perfectly fine to me.
 
This happened at my old primary school recently

Luis Suarez should be booed until Liverpool sell him.

Erm, and you're blaming that on Suarez :lol: The kid that bit him is stupid and so are his parents. That's not Suarez's fault. That's bad parenting. How many kids are there who haven't bitten anyone after seeing Suarez? Quite a lot. You're just another person who likes to jump on the media bandwagon and make a big deal out of nothing.

Suarez is a great player, Liverpool would be stupid to sell him.

So Bacon, if you were the FA, what would you have handed out as punishment, if any?

2 game ban for the red card he should have been given.
 
Bacon
Erm, and you're blaming that on Suarez :lol: The kid that bit him is stupid and so are his parents. That's not Suarez's fault. That's bad parenting. How many kids are there who haven't bitten anyone after seeing Suarez? Quite a lot. You're just another person who likes to jump on the media bandwagon and make a big deal out of nothing.

Suarez is a great player, Liverpool would be stupid to sell him.

2 game ban for the red card he should have been given.

Lol wut? You really think he was blaming that on Suarez? Oh dear.

Also he was charged with violent conduct, which comes with a 3 match ban as standard.

Plus:

Pagey279
Is it? He got a 7 match ban for the bite at Ajax, an 8 match ban for racial abuse. He clearly hasn't learnt any lessons so they have seen fit to give him a 10 match ban.

That seems perfectly fine to me.
 
Lol wut? You really think he was blaming that on Suarez? Oh dear.

Also he was charged with violent conduct, which comes with a 3 match ban.

Plus:

Of course he was blaming it on Suarez. Why else would he post that article if he did not think Suarez was to blame or at least partly to blame? Oh dear. Maybe you should read it again.

Aguero's lunge on David Luiz was not violent conduct, according to the FA. However, the chance for serious injury was far more real. The FA are corrupt. End of story.
 
Bacon
Aguero's lunge on David Luiz was not violent conduct, according to the FA. However, the chance for serious injury was far more real. The FA are corrupt. End of story.

They are quite inconsistent when it comes to cases with different players, the Aguero example shows that. But this was a unique case, it wasn't a bad tackle, it was one player sinking his teeth into another, biting him for no apparent reason.

Taking that into account, plus his previous offenses they had to issue him a ban that would really make him change his ways. A seven match ban wasn't enough. Nor was an eight match ban. So they have given him a ten match ban. Simple as that.
 
Of course he was blaming it on Suarez. Why else would he post that article if he did not think Suarez was to blame or at least partly to blame? Oh dear. Maybe you should read it again.

Aguero's lunge on David Luiz was not violent conduct, according to the FA. However, the chance for serious injury was far more real. The FA are corrupt. End of story.
I don't particularly want to get involved here but you do know as one of the officials claimed that they saw the incident and no action was taken at the time, the FA can't do anything about it right?
 
They are quite inconsistent when it comes to cases with different players, the Aguero example shows that. But this was a unique case, it wasn't a bad tackle, it was one player sinking his teeth into another, biting him for no apparent reason.

Taking that into account, plus his previous offenses they had to issue him a ban that would really make him change his ways. A seven match ban wasn't enough. Nor was an eight match ban. So they have given him a ten match ban. Simple as that.

"Sinking his teeth". I don't think so...there was no injury cause to Ivanovic. No bite mark. Not anything.

A ban will not change Suarez. You can never change anyone. They must try and change themselves. Banning him will not achieve that.
 
Bacon
"Sinking his teeth". I don't think so...there was no injury cause to Ivanovic. No bite mark. Not anything.

A ban will not change Suarez. You can never change anyone. They must try and change themselves. Banning him will not achieve that.

When you bite something, you sink your teeth into it.

Banning him is the only thing they can do. If they don't they will appear toothless.

Geddit?
 
When you bite something, you sink your teeth into it.

Banning him is the only thing they can do. If they don't they will appear toothless.

Geddit?

When you sink you teeth into someone, you leave a bite mark. Was there a a mark? I don't think so. He obviously didn't bite him that hard.

I get the pun. But, the FA have already made fools of themselves regardless.
 
When you sink you teeth into someone, you leave a bite mark. Was there a a mark? I don't think so. He obviously didn't bite him that hard.

I get the pun. But, the FA have already made fools of themselves regardless.
Sinking your teeth into is a more sophisticated way of saying biting really. No matter how hard the bite is.
 
They only give out such lengthy ban for SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES like the one on sunday..

Cantona's kung-fu kick...8 game ban
Di Canio's push on referee...11 game ban
Barton taking on almost half the City team...12 game ban

..etc, etc...
 
They only give out such lengthy ban for SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES like the one on sunday..

Cantona's kung-fu kick...8 game ban
Di Canio's push on referee...11 game ban
Barton taking on almost half the City team...12 game ban

..etc, etc...
In TM's link earlier, it said that Cantona got banned for 9 months? Oh and drug related things also tend to get a long ban.
 
Oh my god...as a United fan, i have my head in my hands right now as i forgot that Cantona did get a 8/9 month ban!....sorry....:guilty:


...and Ferdinand did get an 8 month ban for missing a drugs test..
 
Oh my god...as a United fan, i have my head in my hands right now as i forgot that Cantona did get a 8/9 month ban!....sorry....:guilty:


...and Ferdinand did get an 8 month ban for missing a drugs test..
'Tis cool :lol: Chelsea's keeper in 2003 also got banned for 8 months after testing positive for Cocaine.
 
Pagey279
Is it? He got a 7 match ban for the bite at Ajax, an 8 match ban for racial abuse. He clearly hasn't learnt any lessons so they have seen fit to give him a 10 match ban.

That seems perfectly fine to me.

This still follows the assumption that previous action influence bans which I'm asking if that is the case
 
"Sinking his teeth". I don't think so...there was no injury cause to Ivanovic. No bite mark. Not anything.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

126436439__406451c.jpg
 
Yes there is, you can clearly see it on the inside of his arm. I don't know what you're trying to defend(or why, for that matter), but at least take a good, long look at the picture before you make such conclusions.
 
Yes there is, you can clearly see it on the inside of his arm. I don't know what you're trying to defend(or why, for that matter), but at least take a good, long look at the picture before you make such conclusions.

I smell pork-scented troll.

Best to just let it stew in its own juices and don't touch it; the smell will go away soon enough.
 

Latest Posts

Back