Liverpool Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Yes - the elbow was on Carra and Torres also dived to get him booked. Mata dived to get Lucas booked in the build up to the second goal. You're quite right - I missed off the most serious of all of them - Sturridge's tackle which could have broken Betrand's leg.
I know you and I disagree that cheating is cheating but, taking the last example as a jumping off point, wouldn't you be at least as upset if you were on the end of the sort of tackle that Betrand got as Ivanovic was? I know I would.
Like I say, none of this takes away from the fact that Suarez deserves to be castigated for his actions but the ban does, without the benefit of seeing the reasoning yet, seem unduly harsh when compared with other offences.
My take on the ban is that it is quite reasonable. Ferdinand was banned for missing a drug test ( despite returning for it ) longer than people who failed the test were banned for. Suarez has been punished because he is a serial offender, a deliberate offender. He has bitten twice, racially abused, punched an opponent, intentionally handballed in the world cup, admitted diving, raked calves, stamped on at least two opponents this season. So what is the FA meant to do ? Wait till he snaps an opponents achilles ? His punishments should increase until he stops. Liverpool fans felt a ban until the end of this season suffice , but as you have nothing to play for now no one cares, so a punishment is supported as long as no one is punished. Liverpool, Suarez and the fans have been punished. Maybe the FA want you to pull the unlikable scrote into line ? Remember Chelsea fans booing Drogbas diving ? Suarez is a cheat, a great footballer, but a horrible individual from what i see of him. I think he wants out of Liverpool, i suspect thats why hes done this. He doesnt deserve your support. Other players dive, foul, cheat ,punch and bite. But only he does it all repeatedly, and all that in 3 years ? No i cant think why hes been punished.
- 1 Reply to Steve
I grant you the Ferdinand ban was excessive, but as it was unprecedented I don't think we have anything before or since to compare it to. While biting is unusual we do have a precedent which only resulted in a yellow card. Additionally we have plenty of cases of Violent conduct, but very few that are punished at 3 times the standard sanction.
But on the repeat offender charge I've asked this question of Robert, but don't understand the logic. The FA is supposed to only take into consideration things within its own jurisdiction, so with everything you've quoted other tan the racial abuse happening either under FIFA jurisdiction or another league, I'm not sure why they are being considered. Put it this way would you accept the FA doubling or tripling a ban on Rooney or any other player because they've in the past received sanction on international duty?
I get that many don't seem to like Suarez, and while I might be bias in this area I do think its fair that perception of unlikeability is what drives much of the desire to single him out. Yes other players dive, foul, cheat, punch (although few bite) some within a single season, let alone 3, yet they don't receive near the venom aimed at Suarez by the press or opposing fans.
I didn't notice these dives or elbow. I don't know if the Sky commentary talked about them as I wasn't listening. They didn't replay the incidents to point them out as far as I noticed. MotD also didn't highlight them, or the Sky pundits afterwards (Souness and Rednapp), when I eventually listened to them. Maybe they were all too excited about the bite.
Yes, I'd be more upset to be Bertrand than Ivanovic. If I was Ivanovic I'd just regret not being in a situation where I could have introduced my fist to his nose. But since when were punishments about actual damage done? The racial abuse incidents can't easily be argued to have caused the "victims" any actual hurt. Offence, yes, maybe. But they are given longer penalties than the worst tackles.
But another aspect is that you can argue Sturridge's foul was accidental. Perhaps reckless, but accidental. The bite (or the abuse) can't be argued that way and so it makes a longer penalty easier to justify.