In 2006, Jermain Defoe bit Javier Macherano.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-412157/Mascherano-rages-FA-punish-Defoe.html
Defoe was booked. Consequently the FA said they would take no further action against Defoe because, the referee had seen and dealt with the incident at the time.
In the same year, I think, Ben Thatcher committed one of the worst tackles ever seen in the prem and the referee dealt with it at the time.
However, the FA took action against Thatcher stating "exceptional circumstances".
Today, the FA again used the phrase "exceptional circumstances" when explaining their reasons for Luis Suarez's 10 Match ban.
Can anyone explain why the Suarez case was exeptional and Defoe's not?
Of course, there's no hint of a witch hunt.
Am I missing something.
posted on 27/4/13
Suarez 8*
posted on 27/4/13
Biting offense for Defoe is ok because the referee saw it and took action
.......................................
I am saying they couldn't take action because it goes against their rules
........................................
Biting offense for Suarez is bad , and should get a huge punishment , with the prime minister of England getting involved ... Followed by a media witch hunt
.....................................
Firstly I do not approve of media witch hunts at all!
It can mean those of a higher profile get punished more harshly which isn't fair at all!
Although obviously premier league footballers can easily afford a much bigger fine than a league 2 player, fines should be based on weekly wages but other punishments based on the crime and not how high profile the player is or how much media coverage he generates.
There is an argument to be made for higher profile players being treated more harshly because
1) Their actions get seen by more people.
2) They are role models.
Both of those reasons are complete bull to me, for the role model angle it is not up to footballers to teach our kids morality. Cantona is my all time hero and I would say I probably literally loved the guy when I was younger...
I was never once tempted to karate kick somebody in the face because of his actions though, any children that did so because of Cantona's influence quite simply have terrible parents. The same obviously goes for Suarez.
I think I covered 2) up above, a higher profile should not equal a higher punishment.
This is getting a bit long so I will split it up.
posted on 27/4/13
Secondly there is very little worse than a politician sticking his nose in and making noises. Done entirely to fit in with popular sentiment no doubt, makes me sick quite honestly.
............................................
Shouldn't the crime from Defoe be brought before the fa no matter if the ref saw it or not ....
............................................
Don't get me wrong I do think the rule is quite stupid and should probably be changed...
Although with me being a United fan and you being a fan of a Liverpool team containing Luis Suarez you do realise such a change in the law could be used very painfully against us?
When a high profile player does something wrong it makes big news, big news would put pressure on the FA.
We could (both mine and your team) end up in a situation where a foul in much lower profile game with lower profile players and teams ends up with no retrospective action whereas a foul that isn't even as bad but committed by one of yours or my teams high profile players does receive retrospective action.
I don't trust the FA to be fair with United players and it seems the Liverpool fans feel similar about the FA.
By bringing in such a new rule we could both end up even worse off than we were before!
In a perfect world with a perfect FA though such a rule would be sensible and correct!
.....................................
Terry is on camera mouthing racial obscenities , Suarez isn't , yet Terry is banned for 4 and Terry 8
....................................
I agree that that is strange, I can't help but feel the fact a court of law found Terry not guilty didn't help the FA feel they could give as much of a punishment.
That isn't a good reason for Suarez getting a longer ban but is possibly the cause of it.
posted on 27/4/13
The faux-indignation of the Scouse is tedious.
posted on 27/4/13
Maybe as a protest Liverpool should apply to join the Scottish premier league? It would only hurt Liverpool's fans not to be in the fa cup you moron.
I agree they got the Defoe issue wrong but Suarez and Liverpool should be bright enough to know he isn't well liked nd that his every action will be under the microscope. As with the racist incident the club is at fault. When he joined the club he should have been told what is acceptable behaviour in our culture. The or people then should have been warning him.weekly of his responsibilities on the pitch.
posted on 27/4/13
I think there was serious flaws and contradiction in the FA verdict and the club should have fought this. Forget the LFC fans and ex players and listen to what other ex pros and current managers say and they all say the ban was too harsh.
This alien phrase used is a shambolic when they refuse to label Defoe incident in the same manner. They claim that this incident is judged on its own so ignoring Evra issue and what he did in Holland but still come out with a ten game ban. The club should have fought this but because of how poor we acted in the race claim we gave in.
posted on 27/4/13
the fa do not need "exceptional circumstances" to take further action on an incident seen by the ref. they claim they do due to a 'fifa directive' yet fifa have repeatedly publicly stated there is NO SUCH DIRECTIVE. the fa are free to deal with disciplinary issues as they see fit.
basically, they're a bunch of lying a*holes. but is anyone surprised at that?
posted on 27/4/13
They decided however that these were exceptional circumstances so decided to overrule the referee on the pitch and give him a ban. FIFA rightly scolded them for going outside of their rules to punish someone.
nail on head!!
posted on 27/4/13
Just a quick point.
Mr Bennett did not see the bite on Mascherano, and said he simply booked Defoe for retaliation, and not biting.
Therefore if it had taken their fancy, the FA could have used their exceptional rules, but decided that stating that, 'its not really in the spirit of the game', was enough of a punishment, was enough to deter others from copying, and also helped to protect the good name of English football around the world.
posted on 27/4/13
Just a quick point.
Mr Bennett did not see the bite on Mascherano, and said he simply booked Defoe for retaliation, and not biting.
Therefore if it had taken their fancy, the FA could have used their exceptional rules, but decided that stating that, 'its not really in the spirit of the game', was enough of a punishment, was enough to deter others from copying, and also helped to protect the good name of English football around the world.
now that is the whole thing nailed on....
defoe got nada for biting ..
suarez gets 10 games and the prime minister of england sticking his dirty tory nose in....
it seems like the biting offence is ok for defoe ....the ref didnt see so the bite itself is fine.....