- 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
3
Posted on 4/24/13 at 10:48 am to WarSlamEagle
An FA official has already come out and said that the suspension in the Netherlands can have zero bearing on the FA's decision. The same idea that a US court wouldn't make a ruling based on a Mexican court or the NBA wouldn't make a ruling based on the Argentinian or French league's ruling.
Different rules, different precedents set, etc.
The fact is there is no precedent in England for biting a player. Furthermore, much more "violent" charges have resulted in lesser bans. Standard punishment is 3 matches, and for Suarez to have been punished more than three times the standard punishment, you would think he would have seriously injured someone.
Liverpool will appeal, as they should (standard proceedings - nothing to do with PR), and hopefully it will be lessened a couple games. Summed up well by a Telegraph contributor:
Different rules, different precedents set, etc.
The fact is there is no precedent in England for biting a player. Furthermore, much more "violent" charges have resulted in lesser bans. Standard punishment is 3 matches, and for Suarez to have been punished more than three times the standard punishment, you would think he would have seriously injured someone.
Liverpool will appeal, as they should (standard proceedings - nothing to do with PR), and hopefully it will be lessened a couple games. Summed up well by a Telegraph contributor:
quote:
Luis Suárez’s challenge to the Football Association’s call for an extended ban should be seen entirely in the context of legal compulsion rather than another public relations own goal.
This post was edited on 4/24/13 at 10:52 am
Posted on 4/24/13 at 10:54 am to WarSlamEagle
I think we all knew it was going to be excessive, its the FA...
But, I was at least hoping calmer heads would have prevailed and looked at it justly...
What happened in Holland is kinda irrelevant to me (not entirely), its a different governing body, and i would think they would follow the guidelines they have set forth with other violent conduct charges in England
But, I was at least hoping calmer heads would have prevailed and looked at it justly...
What happened in Holland is kinda irrelevant to me (not entirely), its a different governing body, and i would think they would follow the guidelines they have set forth with other violent conduct charges in England
Posted on 4/24/13 at 11:42 am to WarSlamEagle
quote:
He got a seven-match one when he did it at Ajax. You should've known it was going to be more than that.
yupppp
on sky they just said liverpool recomended 3 games
This post was edited on 4/24/13 at 11:45 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News