Liverpool Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
My impression is that the ten match decision was somewhat arbitrary, but if you accept the argument leading up to it, it had to be.
A lot of the report was about justifying that this was an exceptional incident. It was, of course. Apart from the Defoe incident which we have to put aside because he wasn't punished (when everyone in retrospect thinks he should have been) and the dutch Suarez incident, there is no history of it in consideration. The commission then went on to say that they thought an exemplary punishment (my words, not theirs) was appropriate, to express disapproval in the strongest way and discourage any other offenders. If you then believe they didn't take Suarez's history into consideration, they then plucked a figure from the air. If they did take Suarez's history into consideration then ten matches seems very plausible - both from an increase on the Dutch ban and also him having done eight matches for something else last year and being warned about his future conduct. So really, ten matches covers both bases.
The question is what will happen if there is another biting incident. Having claimed this wasn't about Suarez, it would seem that they have now set a tarriff for the offence. If a new offence gets less than that then it will be fair to question Suarez's punishment. If not, then not.
Mind you, the person most likely to be up on a biting charge in the future is ............
Robert first off I need to apologize, my previous post suggested you had not addressed the report, but that was before I saw this post, where obviously you have.
For me much of the report makes logical reading, and there is little I don't disagree with. The case of Violent Conduct was already proven, and yes the report spent most of its time addressing whether it was an exceptional incident or not, and I do think they showed that. In this area I think Suarez was wrong to try to justify the standard (3 match ban) was appropriate.
However where the thing breaks down for me is the sanction and where they try to justify it. In the report they clearly state they have not considered Suarez's history, so I assume we have to take them at their word. However they also state they did not pluck the 10 games out of the air, but looked for similar cases as a benchmark (despite also saying they could not always rely on past cases as things evolve - which to me sounds like a license to make it up as they go, but maybe that's just me). However the Suarez team provided 10 cases they felt were equivalent to justify keeping the punishment to 3 matches. We don't know what these cases were, other than the Defoe incident.
I can understand them wanting to ignore the Defoe case as its a bad precedent, although its the only precedent we have. Therefore rather than writing it off as dissimilar (which its obviously not as its one of the very few biting cases in the English game) they should have stated why it was a bad precedent. I assume they did not as this would have openly stated the ref on the day was wrong, which is something the FA finds it can rarely do.
Instead it comes up with two cases for comparison. First a player kicking a ball boy (one I'm sure your familiar with) and second a player from the Championship who tripped a ref. Now is it just me, or do neither of these seem even close to the Suarez case. But some how they decide the first is not extraordinary (although its the first case I've heard of a player attacking a boy boy) and the second is, but that Suarez's offense is markedly worse so deserves a higher sanction.
Surely they could of come up with at least one other case which was a bit more like what happened between Suarez and Ivonovic. Maybe one involving two players. Maybe one involving violent conduct. Maybe something like Gaston Rameriez elbowing out of frustration, resulting in a red card but no more, or any other case. Or maybe other cases would have been difficult to square with a 10 match ban as its unprecedented.
Sorry but 80% of the report for me makes perfect sense, however the other 20% looks like its been made up or crammed together so that the conclusion can be a 10 match ban.