2012

J-Mezzy · Post #1461 » by **J-Mezzy** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:45 pm

Suarez is one of my favorite players. Too bad he acts like an idiot. Hope Liverpool keep him.

BTW, I know there is a history with Suarez but I still find it funny that Defoe got no ban for his bite on Mascherano while Luisito gets 10 games.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXBSvngRR0[/youtube]

Post #1462 » by **Next Coming** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:38 pm

10 games is harsh but shouldn't be surprised with the FA and their ridiculous rulings/non rulings. Could be the last we see of Suarez in the PL.

Such a shame.

J-Mezzy · Post #1463 » by **J-Mezzy** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:44 pm

Agueros kick on Luiz should have gotten a ban. The FA is joke.

Post #1464 » by **Next Coming** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:51 pm

J-Mezzy wrote:Agueros kick on Luiz should have gotten a ban. The FA is joke.

Keane ended someone's career and got 5 games. LOL! There's countless examples like this. Didn't an Arsenal player punch someone and get 9 games in the late 80's?

But I'm not surprised and I wouldn't begrudge Suarez if he left this Summer. Deserves to play for a better side and enjoy CL football.

MaliBrah · Post #1465 » by **MaliBrah** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:53 pm

The FA just likes putting on a show

Post #1466 » by **Next Coming** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:55 pm

nmabdi28 wrote:The FA just likes putting on a show

Doesn't David Gill a former United exec run the show there? Don't want to be the Liverpool fan that complains but the FA is a joke but Suarez shouldn't have given them the rope to hang us with.

Post #1467 » by **Slava** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:03 pm

Roy Keane's challenge did not end Hangelaand's career, being a **** footballer did. He even went to court with that excuse and got his case tossed aside.

Post #1468 » by **Next Coming** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:09 pm

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Roy Keane's challenge did not end Hangelaand's career, being a **** footballer did. He even went to court with that excuse and got his case tossed aside.

What was more dangerous? A little nibble or that dirty tackle?

treiz · Post #1469 » by **treiz** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:16 pm

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Roy Keane's challenge did not end Hangelaand's career, being a **** footballer did. He even went to court with that excuse and got his case tossed aside.

Roy Keane admitted he wanted to hurt Alf Inge Haaland, to only get 5 games for that is ridiculous

IronChef · Post #1470 » by **IronChef** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:22 pm

J-Mezzy wrote:Suarez is one of my favorite players. Too bad he acts like an idiot. Hope Liverpool keep him.

BTW, I know there is a history with Suarez but I still find it funny that Defoe got no ban for his bite on Mascherano while Luisito gets 10 games.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXBSvngRR0[/youtube]

He probably didn't get a ban because he was carded, and the FA has the ridiculous rule about not taking action if the referee saw it. They certainly are a joke, biting someone is ridiculous but it's not as dangerous as some of the tackles that have gotten far less, i.e. 3 match ban for Shawcross breaking Ramseys leg.

Boognish · Post #1471 » by **Boognish** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:28 pm

The FA is a disgrace no disputing that, but I don't think them making fcked decisions in the past invalidates a good decision today. 10 games seems about right, maybe a bit harsh, but Suarez/Liverpool can't any real complaints

MaliBrah · Post #1472 » by **MaliBrah** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:31 pm

Next Coming wrote:
nmabdi28 wrote:The FA just likes putting on a show

Doesn't David Gill a former United exec run the show there? Don't want to be the Liverpool fan that complains but the FA is a joke but Suarez shouldn't have given them the rope to hang us with.

yeah , basically fergies puppet tho :lol:

, suarez has him self to blame but a little bite isnt as bad as people are blowing it up to be , although its embarrassing as an adult lol

IronChef · Post #1473 » by **IronChef** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:32 pm

I don't think 10 games is too harsh, really. It just seems a bit ridiculous when put into the context of the bans they've given out for things that have, or easily could have, resulted in long-term injuries. Biting someone is ridiculous, and hilarious, but relatively harmless (unless he has rabies)

Post #1474 » by **Slava** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:37 pm

Tackles are a part of football, even the dangerous ones, biting and punching opponents, being a racist aren't, that's why he got the 10 game repeat offender ban.

Post #1475 » by **Next Coming** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:37 pm

IronChef wrote:I don't think 10 games is too harsh, really. It just seems a bit ridiculous when put into the context of the bans they've given out for things that have, or easily could have, resulted in long-term injuries. Biting someone is ridiculous, and hilarious, but relatively harmless (unless he has rabies)

Violent conduct is 3 games. An additional 7 on top is harsh. Biting > Repeated racism?

IronChef · Post #1476 » by **IronChef** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:31 pm

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Tackles are a part of football, even the dangerous ones, biting and punching opponents, being a racist aren't, that's why he got the 10 game repeat offender ban.

Reckless and dangerous tackles shouldn't be an accepted part of the game. Using the Shawcross example again, that was the third Arsenal player he's seriously injured. Broke Francis Jeffers ankle, and injured Adebayor (who wasn't even on the pitch at the time), before taking out Ramsey. Yet he only got a three game ban. I'm certainly against racism, and biting, and don't really have a problem with a 10 game ban. I do find it odd when bans for biting are more than three times the length of a reckless, leg-breaking tackle.

and1GS · Post #1477 » by **and1GS** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:21 pm

How is it odd? Reckless tackles happen...maybe a player is tired, or mis-estimates the distance between him and the opponent, or maybe the player just ain't that good and over-reaches to make an awful tackle. But the main sticking point should be that you need to tackle in football...biting has no use in any area of the game and is not an essential part of the sport...it's not even a part of the sport.

It's laughable that people are trying to say this isn't that big of a deal...dude **** bit someone! I've played my entire life and have never seen that before! I've seen hundreds upon hundreds of rough tackles, but I have never seen one footballer grab another one and freakin bite him. 10 games makes sense. Biting has no place in sport...

Post #1478 » by **Shaazzam** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:35 pm

I've seen it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltGcTwLOFwQ[/youtube]

But yeah, good on them for the 10 games. He deserves it.

and1GS · Post #1479 » by **and1GS** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:38 pm

wow, I meant in games I've played in.

IronChef · Post #1480 » by **IronChef** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:03 pm

and1GS wrote:How is it odd? Reckless tackles happen...maybe a player is tired, or mis-estimates the distance between him and the opponent, or maybe the player just ain't that good and over-reaches to make an awful tackle. But the main sticking point should be that you need to tackle in football...biting has no use in any area of the game and is not an essential part of the sport...it's not even a part of the sport.

It's laughable that people are trying to say this isn't that big of a deal...dude **** bit someone! I've played my entire life and have never seen that before! I've seen hundreds upon hundreds of rough tackles, but I have never seen one footballer grab another one and freakin bite him. 10 games makes sense. Biting has no place in sport...

No one said it isn't a big deal, even said I don't have a problem with a 10 game ban. I just find it odd in the context of other bans (or lack of bans) the FA has handed out. Biting is a ridiculous thing to do, no question, but the frequency of the event isn't the only thing that's important, the result of it is too. And, I wasn't talking about slightly late, or mis-timed tackles, there is a difference to me at least. One results in maybe some teeth marks on the arm, the other could be a career ender or some major missed timed. I'd rather be bit like Ivanovic than tackled like Haidara.