- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Suarez gets 10 game ban.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:00 pm to RandySavage
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:00 pm to RandySavage
quote:
I'm confused. It seemed like you guys had finally come to your senses on Suarez after the match Sunday. Are you guys actually saying 10 games (half of which are meaningless) is too harsh given his crime?
YES. 5-7 is legitimate given his history.
1
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:01 pm to olddawg26
quote:
They will defend suarez until he's off the team. To even start making excuses for him not being banned blows my mind.
I'd love to see what you scored on the reading comprehension section of the ACT.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:03 pm to McRebel42
quote:
YES. 5-7 is legitimate given his history.
So, you think it'd be fair to give him less of a suspension the second time he bit a guy during a game than the first time he bit a guy?
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:05 pm to RandySavage
quote:
What footballer has ever had two instances where they have bitten another player during a match?
#1 An FA official revealed that Suarez's first biting offence in the Netherlands could in absolutely no way have a bearing on this current ruling. For the FA it was essentially as if this was his first biting offence.
#2 In that situation, charged with violent conduct, what reason is there for him to get such a massive ban when another player (Defoe) got nothing for the same offence?
#3 When considered in the spectrum of the actual charge (violent conduct), why was Suarez's suspension so much worse than 95% of other bans that stemmed from much much more dangerous challenges?
That is all I am upset about. It has nothing to do with him being punished because, as I have said many times on this board, it was a despicable action that deserves punishment. It's the blatant inconsistency that has me sick to my stomach.
By blatant inconsistency, I mean:
Zero-match suspension
Zero games conveniently after Shearer threatens to drop out of the 98' WC squad
8 matches
Zero matches
Zero matches
Chris Morgan fractured a player's skull. No ban:
Three matches
Defoe bite. Zero matches
Zero matches:
Meanwhile in Spain, Pepe gets 10 matches for this:
LINK
This post was edited on 4/25/13 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:06 pm to DestrehanTiger
quote:
So, you think it'd be fair to give him less of a suspension the second time he bit a guy during a game than the first time he bit a guy?
The FA already said that no previous punishments handed out by other FAs will come into effect in regarding their decisions. My concern with the situation doesn't even involve Suarez, but more so the dangerous precedent it sets for other foreign players being discriminated against (then again that's the lawyer in me, so I'm probably the only one who is thinking about the future here).
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:16 pm to DestrehanTiger
quote:
So, you think it'd be fair to give him less of a suspension the second time he bit a guy during a game than the first time he bit a guy?
#1 An FA official revealed that Suarez's first biting offence in the Netherlands could in absolutely no way have a bearing on this current ruling. For the FA it was essentially as if this was his first biting offence.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:16 pm to BleedPurpleGold
I've actually been surprised at the reactions from the LFC fans on this debate. The first response was, "oh my God that is awful and horrendous" now after the ban it is "unjust"?
Acting as though 10 matches is ludicrous seems short sighted. The unusual length of the ban is a result of the unusual offense. Remember this isn't an isolated incident. He got 7 games the first time and now on a second offense he gets 10. Seems completely logical to someone not wearing an LFC kit.
I'm sure the outrage and reaction comes from it being your star player. I don't imagine a ban on Sterling (same offense) getting as much grief. As a club who prides itself on "no player being above the badge", the handling of all of Suarez' problems has cast the club in a dark light outside of Merseyside.
The "victim card" LFC are playing is tired. The bottom line is that without Suarez, LFC become toothless. The threat of Suarez leaving is what is causing a lot of this clouded judgement. Serve the 10 match ban and be glad about it.
Acting as though 10 matches is ludicrous seems short sighted. The unusual length of the ban is a result of the unusual offense. Remember this isn't an isolated incident. He got 7 games the first time and now on a second offense he gets 10. Seems completely logical to someone not wearing an LFC kit.
I'm sure the outrage and reaction comes from it being your star player. I don't imagine a ban on Sterling (same offense) getting as much grief. As a club who prides itself on "no player being above the badge", the handling of all of Suarez' problems has cast the club in a dark light outside of Merseyside.
The "victim card" LFC are playing is tired. The bottom line is that without Suarez, LFC become toothless. The threat of Suarez leaving is what is causing a lot of this clouded judgement. Serve the 10 match ban and be glad about it.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:17 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:- some generic default loser liverpool butt boy
there is no reason why Suarez should have gotten over three times the standard punishment for an action that caused very little harm.
What is this?
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:17 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
quote:
Totti received 4 matches for this against Balotelli...
He even admitted it was revenge based... Of course, Balo said Totti dropped an N bomb on him which he denied...
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:18 pm to beezylsu
quote:
He got 7 games the first time and now on a second offense he gets 10.
See the above 4 posts.
quote:
The "victim card" LFC are playing is tired.
Easy to say when your team consists of English players.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:20 pm to olddawg26
quote:
- some generic default loser liverpool butt boy
First of all, what are you, 12? Try and act more like an adult.
quote:
What is this?
Again, reading comprehension. If you don't have it I can't help you. I'm not going to explain what the previous posts mean word for word. You should be educated enough to understand that.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:22 pm to olddawg26
quote:
- some generic default loser liverpool butt boy
Is name-calling all you have?
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:22 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
First of all, what are you, 12? Try and act more like an adult.
yes
quote:
Again, reading comprehension. If you don't have it I can't help you. I'm not going to explain what the previous posts mean word for word. You should be educated enough to understand that.
Edit -
quote:- me
To even start making excuses for him not being banned blows my mind.
My OP said liverpool fans would try and defend suarez getting banned. As you have. I'm done with this chelsea is on.
This post was edited on 4/25/13 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:25 pm to olddawg26
quote:
My OP said liverpool fans would try and defend suarez getting banned. As you have. I'm done with this chelsea is on.
Let me explain this to you, as you apparently don't understand.
There is a clear difference between saying Suarez shouldn't be banned and saying the penalty is too extreme. No Liverpool fan, to a man, has "defended" his actions. He should be banned. In my opinion, 7-8 games. Saying 10 is severe is not defending his actions, its having an issue with the judgment. Those two concepts are different.
I know you don't really see that right now, but just trust me on this one, I'm right.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:27 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
I'm right.
Sounds good.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:29 pm to beezylsu
quote:
The first response was, "oh my God that is awful and horrendous" now after the ban it is "unjust"?
TBH, my initial response was frick... this is going to explode and take on a life of its own... its a fricking bite that didnt even leave a mark...
Now did I think it was a stupid act that should be punished, absolutely, but I knew he'd never get a fair shake because of who he is...
again, surprisingly a lot of the British media has agreed that the punishment doesnt seem to fall in line with others handed down recently and that it's a fricking bite... he didnt even hurt anyone!!!
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:29 pm to olddawg26
quote:
My OP said liverpool fans would try and defend suarez getting banned. As you have. I'm done with this chelsea is on.
Here is the problem we all feel he should be banned and ARE NOT DEFENDING HE SHOULDN'T but we are saying that the punishment doesn't fit the crime and most of us Reds believe that 4-7 would have been sufficient and just. In addition there was a lot of other bullshite by other players that was overlooked that should have been handled in accordance to the Suarez affair has been.
So please get off your fricking pretentious high horse of morality & sense of justice.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:31 pm to McRebel42
quote:
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:32 pm to McRebel42
guys, dont bother... olddawg doesnt have the grey matter to comprehend the discussion at hand...
Posted on 4/25/13 at 2:33 pm to TFTC
Ya'll honestly thinking he shouldn't be banned for biting someone is amazing to me.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News