Titliv

Cause shît no i haven't, i pointed out that Suarez was NOT a racist and he WASN'T found guilty of racism.

I also pointed out that you had changed your mind from that he should get s massive ban to you now saying 3 games is enough.

I haven't once had ago at Suarez or demanded he should get more than 3 games, i have said I think 7.

In fairness Winegum deserves to be insulted. He's an absolute coсk.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Do you feel insulted by it


he's admitted it now but will he accept the length of ban ?

But if you think about it Red, the rules I mean, it's not crazy to suggest he should get three. He was charged with violent conduct, which carries a three game ban. You can only use previous incidents when deciding on the length of a ban and I've seen just as bad, worse and less, receive three game bans.

Personally I believe he should get more than three, however and I can't stress enough how I believe this should apply, you have to take the bans and length of bans in previous incidents into account before deciding on future one's.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Ttliv
Which was completely irrelevant
----
Its completely relevant when your now saying its all wrong if he gets more than 3, because you've had a huge change of heart

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Greatteamswinit4times (U6008)
posted 4 minutes ago
I don't think there is anyone that will claim that the way the fa works in relation to retrospective punishment needs to be changed. All I have ever said is that the fa are judging this case well within the laws they have and that a player biting another player definitely falls into the realms of an extension to the standard 3 games. Now, so should other incidents, some of which I'm sure were in the links provided earlier. The fa system, inconsistencies, whatever, does not mean that Suarez shouldn't face a 6-10 game ban.
---------------------------------------
I agree with this.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by winegum (U7062)
posted 4 minutes ago
Do you feel insulted by it


he's admitted it now but will he accept the length of ban ?
---------------------------
No, upon hearing it, he'll ride on horseback to the FA Castle, slay the guards, climb the wall using that long haired bint, whose name escapes me, turf her out. Slay a few henchmen, then behead the FA Panel members.

TOOR everything I have read on the Defoe case points too the FA wanted to punish him further but due to fifa laws could not. Whether what was reported is true I cannot say but that is what I have seen on multiple articles from 2006 and from recent articles that have compared the two

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

TOOR

I can see where your coming from, but its going to be bad news for Liverpool and we all know it.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Well I'm sure we can both be in agreement that you've worked hard to earn that insult

come on now i'm not taking all the credit for this, you've more than earned that name on this forum you lickle tinker you

Ttliv

Ok

I dont have a problem if someone changes their mind,

But if you look at it from my point of view when you said what said one day then i come on here and see you ranting at people who agreed with you first thoughts,

comment by Blackbeards Delight (U17561)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR everything I have read on the Defoe case points too the FA wanted to punish him further but due to fifa laws could not. Whether what was reported is true I cannot say but that is what I have seen on multiple articles from 2006 and from recent articles that have compared the two
-----------------------------------------
According to FA rules, they can act retrospectively on an incident, regardless of whether the referee has seen it or not, under special circumstances. They didn't deem the Defoe bite special circumstances and yet have deemed the Suarez bite special circumstances, evidenced by them saying they feel the ban should be higher than the normal three. Nice bit of psychology they tried to use, using the word 'obviously' too, the сunts. They said recently that they could act on McManaman but they don't want to open every incident up to review. I don't think FIFA comes into it, at least I haven't seen anything that suggests it does.

comment by winegum (U7062)
posted 54 seconds ago
Well I'm sure we can both be in agreement that you've worked hard to earn that insult

come on now i'm not taking all the credit for this, you've more than earned that name on this forum you lickle tinker you
--------------------------------
Now now, don't be modest. You did it all yourself.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

so what's the final result, are we all agreed on seven games ................................ to life ?