Could use recent cases of the aguero tackle, sidwell 2 red cards in 2 games, etc in his favour :/
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Suso The Magician (U11770)
posted 8 minutes ago
Could use recent cases of the aguero tackle, sidwell 2 red cards in 2 games, etc in his favour :/
...................................
Was biting involved?
no but they were dangerous tackles with no intent to win the ball
The gutless FA will hammer Suarez. They are completely unable to do what should be done rather than attempting to be seen to be doing the right thing.
comment by Suso The Magician (U11770)
posted 1 minute ago
no but they were dangerous tackles with no intent to win the ball
.............
But not actually trying to feast on another player.
.................
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 51 seconds ago
The gutless FA will hammer Suarez.
..................
They will be gutless if they don't.
It isn't as if it is Nibbles first offence.
It is this season.
Increases in bans for similar offences are only within the same season.
Fa are just useless and just as hypocritical like any footy fan. To ban suarez for more than three games yet not do anything re the mcmanaman tackle and aguero challenge is awful.
What gets me is that wen huth stamped on suarez the ref did not see it but had a word with huth so the fa thn stated the ref dealt with it. Didnt the ref this sunday do the same with suarz ie rid not see it but chatted to both players? They cant just make things up. H should be banned , and rightly so, but not be treated differently from others.
The FA have already made known their intentions which makes the hearing an unfair one with the independent panel. In a court of law this would have been thrown out.
That's a interesting point about Huth. According to the BBC:
Under FA rules retrospective action cannot be taken if an incident has been seen, even if the full extent of it has not been witnessed.
And at least one of the match officials saw the coming together of the players.
So under the rules as long as a official sees some of it then no retrospective action can be taken. Whether or not an official did see the bite is different but you would think the linesman may have seen them clash and fall.
On a side note though how can they say an official saw the stamp but didn't even book him is an utter disgrace.
Even biting a fellow pro does nothing to sort the Suarez delution
To say it's his first offence this season is laughable
It wasn't even his only offence in the game unless deliberate handballs are allowed in Liverpool these days too
Every scouser i know want Liverpool to cash in as soon as possible
Making a fool of Kenny last season was the last stroke for most but the bite has pretty much convinced them all
goofy
The ref didn't see it. Had he have done, he would have sent Suarez off.
Thus, the FA are taking action.
Liverpool really should have done this themselves, and banned him for the rest of the season. Fining him was limp wristed to say the least.
Now, I am not over the top in this, and wouldn't expect Liverpool to cut ties with the player, but he really does need a lengthy ban, after all of his recent transgressions.
If the Dutch FA saw fit to ban him seven games, and he clearly hasn't learnt from that, you really shouldn't be surprised with a larger ban.
Lastly, Liverpool fans need to man up, and stop blaming this on the FA and actually blame it on the idiot who is really responsible. Suarez.
It's not a question of manning up its a question of applying the rules evenly, which the FA seem unable to do. Personally I think we should move Suarez on come the summer but the FA are more interested in their own image at times rather than being even handed.
the animal is biting people, he's got previous for it and
there's no room in the game for that kind of behaviour, a 12 match ban is the minimum
It's not a question of manning up
.............
Yes it is Aggers.
Stop blaming the FA.
The blame is squarely on Nibbles shoulders. He bit another player, for gods sake.
The FA are not allowed to use previous i.e what he did in Holland in this case.
comment by (kash) Coutinho's Through Ball (U1108)
posted 42 seconds ago
The FA are not allowed to use previous i.e what he did in Holland in this case.
.............
They don't have to. They can ban him for as long as he likes.
Deal with it.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
So this is more severe than racism
..............
He didn't get done for racism, as your fans are so fond of telling us.
Be mad at Suarez titliv, not the FA.
Off home now, feeling peckish, best leave before I take a nibble out of the bosses PA.
So this is more severe than racism (8 games)? ok.
no he should of been banned for life for racism
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Suarez
Page 1 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 23/4/13
Could use recent cases of the aguero tackle, sidwell 2 red cards in 2 games, etc in his favour :/
posted on 23/4/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 23/4/13
comment by Suso The Magician (U11770)
posted 8 minutes ago
Could use recent cases of the aguero tackle, sidwell 2 red cards in 2 games, etc in his favour :/
...................................
Was biting involved?
posted on 23/4/13
no but they were dangerous tackles with no intent to win the ball
posted on 23/4/13
The gutless FA will hammer Suarez. They are completely unable to do what should be done rather than attempting to be seen to be doing the right thing.
posted on 23/4/13
comment by Suso The Magician (U11770)
posted 1 minute ago
no but they were dangerous tackles with no intent to win the ball
.............
But not actually trying to feast on another player.
.................
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 51 seconds ago
The gutless FA will hammer Suarez.
..................
They will be gutless if they don't.
It isn't as if it is Nibbles first offence.
posted on 23/4/13
It is this season.
Increases in bans for similar offences are only within the same season.
posted on 23/4/13
Fa are just useless and just as hypocritical like any footy fan. To ban suarez for more than three games yet not do anything re the mcmanaman tackle and aguero challenge is awful.
What gets me is that wen huth stamped on suarez the ref did not see it but had a word with huth so the fa thn stated the ref dealt with it. Didnt the ref this sunday do the same with suarz ie rid not see it but chatted to both players? They cant just make things up. H should be banned , and rightly so, but not be treated differently from others.
posted on 23/4/13
The FA have already made known their intentions which makes the hearing an unfair one with the independent panel. In a court of law this would have been thrown out.
posted on 23/4/13
That's a interesting point about Huth. According to the BBC:
Under FA rules retrospective action cannot be taken if an incident has been seen, even if the full extent of it has not been witnessed.
And at least one of the match officials saw the coming together of the players.
So under the rules as long as a official sees some of it then no retrospective action can be taken. Whether or not an official did see the bite is different but you would think the linesman may have seen them clash and fall.
On a side note though how can they say an official saw the stamp but didn't even book him is an utter disgrace.
posted on 23/4/13
Even biting a fellow pro does nothing to sort the Suarez delution
To say it's his first offence this season is laughable
It wasn't even his only offence in the game unless deliberate handballs are allowed in Liverpool these days too
Every scouser i know want Liverpool to cash in as soon as possible
Making a fool of Kenny last season was the last stroke for most but the bite has pretty much convinced them all
posted on 23/4/13
goofy
The ref didn't see it. Had he have done, he would have sent Suarez off.
Thus, the FA are taking action.
Liverpool really should have done this themselves, and banned him for the rest of the season. Fining him was limp wristed to say the least.
Now, I am not over the top in this, and wouldn't expect Liverpool to cut ties with the player, but he really does need a lengthy ban, after all of his recent transgressions.
If the Dutch FA saw fit to ban him seven games, and he clearly hasn't learnt from that, you really shouldn't be surprised with a larger ban.
Lastly, Liverpool fans need to man up, and stop blaming this on the FA and actually blame it on the idiot who is really responsible. Suarez.
posted on 23/4/13
It's not a question of manning up its a question of applying the rules evenly, which the FA seem unable to do. Personally I think we should move Suarez on come the summer but the FA are more interested in their own image at times rather than being even handed.
posted on 23/4/13
the animal is biting people, he's got previous for it and
there's no room in the game for that kind of behaviour, a 12 match ban is the minimum
posted on 23/4/13
It's not a question of manning up
.............
Yes it is Aggers.
Stop blaming the FA.
The blame is squarely on Nibbles shoulders. He bit another player, for gods sake.
posted on 23/4/13
The FA are not allowed to use previous i.e what he did in Holland in this case.
posted on 23/4/13
comment by (kash) Coutinho's Through Ball (U1108)
posted 42 seconds ago
The FA are not allowed to use previous i.e what he did in Holland in this case.
.............
They don't have to. They can ban him for as long as he likes.
Deal with it.
posted on 23/4/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 23/4/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 23/4/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 23/4/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 23/4/13
So this is more severe than racism
..............
He didn't get done for racism, as your fans are so fond of telling us.
Be mad at Suarez titliv, not the FA.
Off home now, feeling peckish, best leave before I take a nibble out of the bosses PA.
posted on 23/4/13
So this is more severe than racism (8 games)? ok.
no he should of been banned for life for racism
posted on 23/4/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 23/4/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 1 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9