opinions4u Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 (edited) Rodgers told LFC TV: "The punishment is against the man, rather than the incident.[/Quote] It's against the man who caused the incident. "We have a punishment with no intention of helping [his] rehabilitation."[/Quote] Rehabilitation is feck all to do with The FA. His employer could support it. Feck me, a man earning £4m a year could stretch to getting his own treatment. The FA has very kindly given him five months to sort himself out. Rodgers, whose side travel to Newcastle United on Saturday, also said: Liverpool were "shocked" and "bitterly disappointed" by the severity of the ban.[/Quote] Well if it's good enough for seven in Holland it's good enough for the same here. Plus some for repeat offence and previous form. No-one could have complained if the punishment had been a six-game ban with a further six suspended. Why would any of the ban be suspended? He's done it before. "If I had more players of a similar mentality we would be in a different position. He has not let me down one bit. This is unbelievable. It is the comment of a complete dickhead. Edited April 25, 2013 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyGortonsMatches Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Rapists, killers, women beaters 0 game bans, biters 10 games. sounds about the right punishment to me... How many matches have you seen the 1st three occur? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 How many matches have you seen the 1st three occur? None, but there are players guilty of said crimes that are plying their trade on the pitch and not one of them banned by the F.A. Just looking at the bigger picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 None, but there are players guilty of said crimes that are plying their trade on the pitch and not one of them banned by the F.A. Just looking at the bigger picture. What a strange point you are trying to make? Are you trying to say that the FA should have a say on incidents that occur outside of the football ground? One could argue that the FA are looking at the bigger picture by considering Suarez's rap sheet and the fact that he can't stop cheating/behaving like a knob. Anyway, based on your argument we would never have assisted with rehabilitating Lee Hughes and also that if someone guilty of the crimes you refer to wouldn't get the opportunity to be banned by the FA as they would be more concerned about dropping the soap in the shower in Strangeways. Now there's an idea........get Suarez to go round the schools to tell the kids that biting an opponent is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 One could argue that everyones got a bit hysterical, it's a wonder Camoron hasn't come out with a statement, in line with the nations outrage against Suarez's attempted amputation of Ivanovic arm, I bet the poor lads having HIV tests, Hepitiis, rabies mad cow disease and the rest of the tests available for bites that don't actually break the skin Oh no, that's right he's playing in the game tonight, Roy Keane's victim didn't get the same opportunity though, did he? I think the FA have a duty to be consistent, Unfortunately i feel they are just going along with.... well, just have a read of this thread. The FA do act on incidents that happen off the pitch already. I think they should act more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 How many matches have you seen the 1st three occur? I'm guessing Latics vs Peterborough has featured two guilty and one falsely accused Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Roy Keane's victim didn't get the same opportunity though, did he? No, the completely :censored:ed up knee that Keane didn't kick couldn't take any more. Why does this one keep getting trotted out (apart from very widespread dislike of Keane)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 No, the completely :censored:ed up knee that Keane didn't kick couldn't take any more. Why does this one keep getting trotted out (apart from very widespread dislike of Keane)? That kick did happen though wether it was the other knee or not, it was worse than the biting incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 That kick did happen though wether it was the other knee or not, it was worse than the biting incident. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I can understand Keane's action, I can't understand Suarez'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 (edited) I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I can understand Keane's action, I can't understand Suarez'. Neither can i, inconsistent foul, inconsistent F.A. I suppose they make a good pair. Edited April 25, 2013 by Scratch2000uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Because the ref saw it and booked him and I don't think Defoe has a rap sheet that reaches 10% of what Suarez has. - The ref saw ben thatcher too and booked him. A prescent has been set that in "Extreme cases" they could enforce a ban when the ref sees it. If biting someone is worth a 10 game ban, then it it is an extreme case - the defoe incident was not reviewed? Why? Im with Rodgers to a point. When he says things like "Suarez hasn't let anyone down" - that is complete horse:censored:. His statement admitted that. Ok, it wont have been written by him, but it is still from him in effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 No, the completely :censored:ed up knee that Keane didn't kick couldn't take any more. Why does this one keep getting trotted out (apart from very widespread dislike of Keane)? Because the poster you quoted has 4,500 on City's Blue Moon forum, enough said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 I don't understand the logic of trotting out previous punishments to try and prove the FA are wrong. Who says they were right the first time? I certainly don't. The FA hid behind the "ref saw it so we can't do anything" clause on Defoe and Thatcher. A ridiculous clause they need to get rid of. The FA's behaviour over the Terry affair was outright embarrassing and the eventual punishment wholly insufficient. Where I believe they have got the punishments about right are on Suarez's racist abuse of Evra and his bite on Ivanovic. I would like to think these set a precedent for how they will treat all cases in the future, but I have no confidence in that happening. A lot of people are quite rightly calling the FA out on this, not because their treatment of Suarez is harsh, but because their treatment of English - and in particular England squad - players is unduly lenient. At the moment the FA would have great difficulty answering the charge that they themselves are racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Rehabilitate, what a load of old tosh, I logged onto my FB account this morning which is a rarity nowadays; just to see what the Liverpool fans I have on there were saying- match attending fans, to my surprise (not) they were backing Suarez and LFC, fair doos for backing their club, I can't take issue with that but what I do take issue with is there reluctance to openly criticise their player, instead they chose not to condem him but to bleat on about how hard done to they are, blah blah :censored:in blah, change the bastard record will you LFC fans and just say what he did was wrong instead of trying to portray yourselves as being hard done by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Always the :censored:ing victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 (edited) I don't understand the logic of trotting out previous punishments to try and prove the FA are wrong. Who says they were right the first time? I certainly don't. The FA hid behind the "ref saw it so we can't do anything" clause on Defoe and Thatcher. A ridiculous clause they need to get (changed?) This is the one issue that I really can't get my head around, how can a governing body not overrule the referee (because they are underminding the ref) once evidence has been provided to the offence alleged to have taken place??????? Really doesn't make sense at all. Edited April 26, 2013 by tangerinedreams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 This is the one issue that I really can't get my head around, how can a governing body not overrule the referee (because they are underminding the ref) once evidence has been provided to the offence alleged to have taken place??????? Really doesn't make sense at all. Because FIFA, a higher governing body, get very upset when they try to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 it's a wonder Camoron hasn't come out with a statement Give him chance... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22304322 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Because FIFA, a higher governing body, get very upset when they try to. Because FIFA, a higher governing body, get very upset when they try to. I've heard a few interviews on the radio over this and the reason given by (I forget the names) were that they didnt want to undermine the ref, take away his power, but if incidents are that severe then FIFA/ FA should be stepping in and saying- the red card stands but we feel that the offence committed in relation to the standard punishment on this occasion doesn't fit the offence, not hard is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Give him chance... http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/22304322 Opening that article, I was struck by the question of which one of them I'd punch first. I think Cameron wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 This is the one issue that I really can't get my head around, how can a governing body not overrule the referee (because they are underminding the ref) once evidence has been provided to the offence alleged to have taken place??????? Really doesn't make sense at all. They can. Ben Thatcher was booked for the elbow, but later banned on review. There is a prescedent.The FA just bottle it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 They can. Ben Thatcher was booked for the elbow, but later banned on review. There is a prescedent.The FA just bottle it. Different rules at different times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 (edited) Different rules at different times. "aware of the severity of the incident, the FA have controvened it's own rules" - There is a prescedent. If biting is worth 10 matches, surely Defoe should have been given a ban?! http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/5339964.stm Edited April 26, 2013 by pukka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Yes he should. But the fact he wasn't shouldn't be an argument for a more lenient punishment for Suarez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 "Because we did things :censored: in the past we should carry on doing things :censored:" is a great mantra for life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.