The Football Thread - Season 2012/2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
joescrivens said:
Ummm, That was a joke guys
Click to expand...

I know it was a joke, but I'd imagine Ruffy would have responded, and then yourself and it would have spun into another "Joe Must Have The Last Word" scenario again.
 
mindcrime said:
I know it was a joke, but I'd imagine Ruffy would have responded, and then yourself and it would have spun into another "Joe Must Have The Last Word" scenario again.
Click to expand...

Last word scenario on a joke?

Come on we keep things lighthearted in this thread.
 
joescrivens said:
You put way too much weight on PR disasters.

Yes they want him to learn, but extra game bans hurt the club not the player. He gets to sit on his backside earning his wage.

But the two are related - LFC have a responsibility for Suarez's actions too. If their PR had been a bit smarter they might have got a shorter ban. They should have banned Suarez themselves from the outset and not used the ridiculous ploy of admitting guilt and simultaneously suggesting a 3-match ban was sufficient!

And what they should do now is accept the ban and move on. Waiting for reports and deciding whether to appeal just tells Luis that they're trying to get him off the hook.

Make him learn internally...

What with - have they got a special "probe"? :D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
No hopefully they will appeal and get it reduced by a game or two when the board realise their error
Click to expand...

Never going to happen though is it. They'll increase the ban to 12 matches if LFC appeal. As I said I think 10 is quite lenient. How many games left 4? Not really going to do anything to their season this season and it's obvious they need another striker as well as Suarez, trouble is so do many other teams.
 
Simmotino said:
Because he BIT someone?? :shrug:

That's ABH in the real world and a probable prison sentence with that sort of track record, yet in the insular fantasy land of the footballing 'elite' there's outrage when the animal is punished with 2 months off.
Click to expand...

We can all disagree about how long someone should get for say biting... some will say 3 games, others 8, others 12.... its all subjective.

What is wrong, is that it basically says that biting is far worse than breaking someones leg with a foul, or punching them. Now a tackle (like the one the wigan player made v Newcastle the other week) could have ended a career. Ok, he was probably going for the ball, got it wrong and had no intent... and I understand when people say thats part of the game. BUT, what about the many instances when a player deliberately stamps on another or punches them. A stamp could break a limb or certainly put someone out for some games, and a punch could cause damage too. Yet if a player did that this weekend it would be a 3 game ban.

Its like me getting a 3 month driving ban for being caught doing 50 in a 40 zone, while someone else gets a months ban for being over the limit.
 
dinners said:
The last thing Suarez needs is LFC saying he/they have been treated harshly. Defend him again or trot out the victim / witch hunt twaddle and he's got no hope of learning.

Hopefully LFC will take it on the chin, accept he's their responsibility and help him with whatever problems he has.
Click to expand...

dinners said:
What message does it give Suarez if LFC try to reduce it. What message does it put out about LFC. Surely LFC want him to learn don't they ?
Click to expand...

joescrivens said:
Yes they want him to learn, but extra game bans hurt the club not the player. He gets to sit on his backside earning his wage.

Make him learn internally. With anger management and internal fines etc
Click to expand...

In agreement then - his actions have hurt the club.

As I said earlier, the club have a duty of care to help him - and therefore themselves. If Liverpool (rather than Suarez) are affected by the punishment then perhaps they will put more empasis on sorting his issues out rather than defending him and giving him the impression that he's been harshly treated - as that clearly hasn't worked.
 
dinners said:
In agreement then - his actions have hurt the club.

As I said earlier, the club have a duty of care to help him - and therefore themselves. If Liverpool (rather than Suarez) are affected by the punishment then perhaps they will put more empasis on sorting his issues out rather than defending him and giving him the impression that he's been harshly treated - as that clearly hasn't worked.
Click to expand...

they'll do both.

He has been harshly treated and they will put emphasis on helping him

The two arent mutually exclusive
 
Can you not tell they were all accidental? It's so obvious!

Poor guy is just misunderstood and hated for doing nothing wrong :bonk:
 
TriggerHappy said:
Can you not tell they were all accidental? It's so obvious!

Poor guy is just misunderstood and hated for doing nothing wrong :bonk:
Click to expand...

I'm truly amazed that one player can have so many "accidental incidents" ;)
 
mindcrime said:
I'm truly amazed that one player can have so many "accidental incidents" ;)
Click to expand...

Well he's so clumsy and slow when trying to control the ball at his feet I see it as inevitable that he's equally clumsy and slow to react when trying to tackle :D
 
Funny stat for the day - Ronaldo has now scored in 6 consecutive champions league matches. Only two players have previously achieved that. Can you guess?

Yilmaz and ?

Chamakh :lol:

Edit: Lewandowski is tearing Real Madrid a new one! Gundogan and Bender on top form as well. I've got so much love for BVB and their fans, if it wasn't already obvious haha!
 
Last edited:
Have to laugh at papers & Barca moaning about the ref yesterday... they have benefitted from very dodgy decisions for years.
 
mindcrime said:
He doesn't just bite, you know.
Click to expand...

Somewhere there's a post with a compliation of lots of his 'moments' but they've all been discussed before at length.

TriggerHappy said:
Lewandowski is tearing Real Madrid a new one! Gundogan and Bender on top form as well. I've got so much love for BVB and their fans, if it wasn't already obvious haha!
Click to expand...

I'm busy so not watching the match but I'm loving what I've heard so far :D

I wanted Barca and Real paired together in the semis just so I could see one of them loose. Could be double the fun the way the ties are panning out.
 
Ruffy said:
Well I don't think it was long enough...just putting that out there !

My 6 year old lad watched that game and he is football mad, what do I do when he plays next time and bites someone ???
Click to expand...

Give him a 10 match ban. Seems to be the going rate. ;) :lol:

[YOUTUBE]JzXBSvngRR0[/YOUTUBE]

So another bite just gets a yellow card, and that's it. :shrug: :thinking:

As long as you're not Suarez, and/or are British, then not much may happen if someone does something similar. :shrug:

A 10 match ban sets a precedent for how other incidents are measured, and I don't think future incidents will measure up well. I'm all for longer bans and larger fines dangerous incidents, but it has to be consistent for everyone.
 
cambsno said:
What is wrong, is that it basically says that biting is far worse than breaking someones leg with a foul, or punching them. Now a tackle (like the one the wigan player made v Newcastle the other week) could have ended a career. Ok, he was probably going for the ball, got it wrong and had no intent... and I understand when people say thats part of the game. BUT, what about the many instances when a player deliberately stamps on another or punches them. A stamp could break a limb or certainly put someone out for some games, and a punch could cause damage too. Yet if a player did that this weekend it would be a 3 game ban.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm biased because I play a less soft code of football, but you should expect aggression in a so called contact sport. When you are playing a sport as hard as you can big tackles happen, doesn't mean you are necessary being malicious. Soccer isn't really a sport that should generate much punch throwing, but when you are full of adrenaline and someone is getting in your face it happens. These offences are probably worthy of just a 10 minute ban IMO.

Now spitting and biting, while maybe not as dangerous as other stuff is just pure malevolence, you're not defending yourself, it's just sick and wrong and deserving of far more punishment than the other stuff.
 
redddraggon said:
Perhaps I'm biased because I play a less soft code of football, but you should expect aggression in a so called contact sport. When you are playing a sport as hard as you can big tackles happen, doesn't mean you are necessary being malicious. Soccer isn't really a sport that should generate much punch throwing, but when you are full of adrenaline and someone is getting in your face it happens. These offences are probably worthy of just a 10 minute ban IMO.

Now spitting and biting, while maybe not as dangerous as other stuff is just pure malevolence, you're not defending yourself, it's just sick and wrong and deserving of far more punishment than the other stuff.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you lost me when you called it 'soccer' :D
 
The difference between the Defoe and Suarez incidents is the the yellow card.

The FA rules are so that if a ref sees an incident and reports it, then the FA can not do any more about it.

As for the two footed challenges etc being worse...if they are spotted on the field - they are dealt with - if not then the FA look into them. It is that simple.

For for all those moaning about Suarez lengthy ban - you need to understand that it is the refs fault for not seeing the bite in the first place! ..........
 
As for other sports and biting....

Rugby players receive huge bans for such incidents often 20 games yet they just get on with it without the frenzy from their supporters. They understand that it is the players OWN fault in the first place. Mind you, us rugby players/fans are far more intelligent about administration than football fans.
 
tiler65 said:
The difference between the Defoe and Suarez incidents is the the yellow card.

The FA rules are so that if a ref sees an incident and reports it, then the FA can not do any more about it.
Click to expand...

It is funny how they keep harking back to that.
I was trying to find out when the retrospective rule was introduced, anyone know? Defoe's bite was almost seven years ago and apart from Norman Hunter biting someone's legs off in the 70's I cant remember anyone else being bitten in the english league.
 
redhed17 said:
As long as you're not Suarez, and/or are British, then not much may happen if someone does something similar. :shrug:

A 10 match ban sets a precedent for how other incidents are measured, and I don't think future incidents will measure up well. I'm all for longer bans and larger fines dangerous incidents, but it has to be consistent for everyone.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, I can almost hear the violins in the background.
The fact that Suarez has a bit of "previous" for this sort of offence, and given that he has already had an FA ban for another piece of less charming behaviour, tells me that this was about right.

I was wondering why you were defending him, until I saw your location and avatar:)

You can always rely on a football supporter for an unbiased view, particularly when it involves one of their team's players:lol:
 
tiler65 said:
The difference between the Defoe and Suarez incidents is the the yellow card.

The FA rules are so that if a ref sees an incident and reports it, then the FA can not do any more about it.

As for the two footed challenges etc being worse...if they are spotted on the field - they are dealt with - if not then the FA look into them. It is that simple.

For for all those moaning about Suarez lengthy ban - you need to understand that it is the refs fault for not seeing the bite in the first place! ..........
Click to expand...

But, the ref saw Bartons antics v Man City, took action yet he got further punishment?
 
cambsno said:
But, the ref saw Bartons antics v Man City, took action yet he got further punishment?
Click to expand...

Sent off by the ref for the elbow, then further punished for the ensuing antics, not the elbow?
 
Yes he got a 4 game ban for the elbow incident.

The other 8 games came from two altercations after with Aguero and kompany. 4 games each.

However, no extra games though for all the previous history with the fa. The violent conduct that sent him to prison and the punch on Morton. Inconsistency is rife when it comes to football punishments.
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
Inconsistency is rife when it comes to football punishments.
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone disagrees with that, but we dont know the breakdown of the ban yet :shrug:
 
Alan Brazil said:
What happens if Suarez meets Defoe in a game?
BANGquet!
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
joescrivens said:
Inconsistency is rife when it comes to football punishments.
Click to expand...

On that basis you could argue though that English law in general is inconsistent. It provides a framework of sentencing guidelines and as a result offender's sentences are variable for a given offence, based on how a judge interprets the circumstances.

The FA has it's guidelines and then the discretion to add to those penalties as it sees fit. That's why it's wrong to say, in Suarez's case, racism is worse than biting therefore his biting ban should have been shorter. It's the fact that he hasn't learnt how to conduct himself within the rules of the game from his racism ban that means his biting ban is longer.

You cannot use the "so and so did this and only got that" argument, just as you shouldn't do that in legal cases - within the framework.
 
I fail to see how an act of accused racism and violent conduct are related. Suarez hasn't racially abused anyone since his ban so you could say he learnt his lesson. During that ban nobody told him to not be violent so how are they related exactly?
 
new2me said:
Then why make the comparison?
Click to expand...

They are not related for the fa to say he is a repeat offender. Two separate incidents. Doesn't mean the punishments for both can't be compared.

Talk about splitting hairs and I'm always the one being accused of that :lol:
 
joescrivens said:
I fail to see how an act of accused racism and violent conduct are related. Suarez hasn't racially abused anyone since his ban so you could say he learnt his lesson. During that ban nobody told him to not be violent so how are they related exactly?
Click to expand...

They are related in this case by Suarez showing a disregard for the rules of the game and showing that he was unable to exercise self-control on both occasions.
 
joescrivens said:
Yes he got a 4 game ban for the elbow incident.

The other 8 games came from two altercations after with Aguero and kompany. 4 games each.

However, no extra games though for all the previous history with the fa. The violent conduct that sent him to prison and the punch on Morton. Inconsistency is rife when it comes to football punishments.
Click to expand...

The 4 games for each of the other offences may not have been given to someone without his history though. There's nothing in the rules that says if a player is involved in a scuffle after being sent off, that it's automatically punishable as per a red card. This is probably just how it was interpreted in Barton's case because of his previous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top