Suarez Ban Sees Liverpool Bite Back

Oh come on, you knew I wouldn’t be able to let this whole ‘Suarez’ thing pass me by without having my say on it surely?

To be honest though, as far as I was concerned (once I’d picked my jaw up off the floor) Suarez bit Ivanovic, got his ten game ban and that was pretty much that. A pretty ugly and totally bizarre incident and fortunately not one we see routinely in the game, but it was dealt with in a timely way with a punishment that reflected the gravity of the misdemeanour.

We move on.

Liverpool though, don’t see it quite the same way. From the current to former manager, players and supporters, yet again they see themselves, their club, as the victims in all this. Sod the fact that one of their players sunk his teeth into an opponent for God knows what reason last weekend, as far as Liverpool are concerned, they’re the injured party here.

Brendan Rodgers (what the hell has happened to that man by the way?), no doubt as “shocked and disappointed” as his club at the ban, came out with “You can only compare it with similar incidents we’ve had. There have been two similar incidents both in 2006. One player (Tottenham’s Jermain Defoe) received no ban and has continued to be picked by the FA for the England team. The other player (defender Sean Hessey, who was charged for biting in a game between Chester City and Stockport County in 2006) received a five-game ban. So when Luis receives a 10-game ban it’s hard to understand.  I honestly believe the punishment has been made against the man and not the incident.”

As we know though, with Defoe, this incident was seen by the ref and deemed to be dealt with at the time, so according to the rules of the game (whether we agree with them or not), the FA can’t then deal with it retrospectively.  And in looking at either of those two offences you have to take into account they were 7 years ago – so a lot of time, and FA punishments have gone by since then. If offences continue to happen in spite of precedents set before, then surely the increase in length of bans should reflect the FA’s desire to stamp it out?

As for Rodgers’ suggestion that “the punishment has been made against the man and not the incident”, surely that’s the point? This isn’t a first offence we’re dealing with here? In fact, just 2 years ago in his last game for Ajax, Luis Suarez bit PSV Eindhoven midfielder Otman Bakkal. Of course the fact that he received a 7 match ban for that and still repeated the offence would and indeed should have been taken into account in giving him 10 games this time.

It’s all very well Dalglish bleating If you commit a crime in this country, you get the right for your case to be heard by a jury that has no affiliation or responsibility to the people prosecuting you”, but we all know the FA don’t reflect (or even pay attention to) the law of the land.  The bottom line is, if a professional footballer steps outside of the boundaries set by the Football Association, irrespective of the law, they know their punishment will be set by an FA panel. The similarity, of course, will be that should the offender repeatedly step outside those boundaries – to the point whereby the governing body are probably considering getting him his own chair – then it stands to reason that will also be reflected in any punishment dished out.

Probably the worst defence I’ve heard coming out of Liverpool so far though, was that of Jamie Carragher.  Whilst suggesting ‘we’ should be ‘helping’ rather than ‘hounding’ Suarez for wrapping his teeth around the arm of an opponent, Carragher appeared to accept his team-mates behaviour was not that of a professional, stating “You simply don’t expect to see a grown man bite another grown man – that is behaviour you would associate with nursery school” – which should surely concern any parent about to place their children in the hands of any of the kindergartens he may have frequented. But whilst Carragher seemingly acknowledges non-accidental biting is clearly not a part of the game, he says “Was it worse than a challenge that could end someone’s career? I know what it is like to have your leg broken by a reckless tackle. Lucas Neill cost me six months of my career in September 2003 when he played for Blackburn. Would I have preferred to have been bitten? Absolutely.”

Oh dear Liverpool, oh dear.

10 Responses to “Suarez Ban Sees Liverpool Bite Back”

  1. Rafa, Rafael, Rafa, Rafael, Rafa, Rafael, Rafael Benitez

  2. I know that’s you interim. Tick tock, tick tock

  3. Accept it,the FA is racist and bent on getting at Suarez while using the veil of punishment.

  4. This is a bit rich coming from a club captained by a pretty unpleasant racist who happened to get off on a technicality and then was given the lightest possible punishment by the self serving corrupt FA and now even bleats publicly about that. All this rubbish about the FA not being able to take action against players cos the ref saw it and therefore it’s “against the rules” – they write the damn rules. And even Alex Ferguson thinks they’re an inconsistent law unto themselves!
    Suarez acted stupidly and deserves appropriate punishment – and the laws of natural justice say you punish the act not the individual. Pretty well all neutral (and many biased commentators) think the punishment was inappropriate and excessive and share Liverpool’s view. Seems the Daily Mail and this site don’t, but of course you have no axe to grind. Maybe it’s time to take the pastic flags from in front of your eyes.

  5. 8 match ban for a very debatable spat with Evra who admitted to the fa he was being racist and abusive to Suarez yet Terry gets 4 for an outright racist rant explain that and put your own house in order you sanctimonious prick.

  6. The blogposter comes up with very weak counter arguments for the already proposed arguments made by Liverpool, Rodgers & Carragher. “We all know the FA don’t abide by country laws” – What kind of sense does that make? To further suggest a precedence set 7 years ago is outdated and should be changed because of frequent misdemeanors, even though it is just the one, shows the level of understanding he has about 1) History of the FA and 2) Law in general.

    This post is quite simply an attempt to put down Luis Suarez and Liverpool. The poster offers no in-depth look into why or how the FA can justify such a huge ban. Mind you, the two former incidences were cautioned much softer, whilst someone like Taylor who almost ended Eduardo’s career got three days, Keane who ended Haalands career also got much less (but later recieved a few extra days). And in the end, you have to ask yourself: Had Wayne Rooney done it, how would his ban had looked? 2 days? Maybe just one.

    There is no other sensible conclusion to this case other than the FA has acted against the man rather than going by rules or precedence.

  7. Bill, the only possible explanation is that you have been withholding evidence in relation to the Terry trial.

    Suarez racially abused Evra several times during the course of one game and then admitted to everything he was alleged to have said but claimed it was culturally acceptable to do so in Uruguay (conveniently forgetting he’d been living in Europe for around three years by this time).

    You call this ‘a very debatable spat’.

    John Terry was alleged to have made one racially motivated insult to Anton Ferdinand but a UK court felt that the evidence was too flimsy to convict him of a public order offence.

    So what evidence do you have Bill that allows you to brand it ‘an outright racist rant’?

    As you have kept this evidence to yourself the FA did not have sufficient grounds to issue such an extensive ban to Terry as they did to Suarez.

    So you’ve really only got yourself to blame……

  8. How apt that Andrew should suggest “This post is quite simply an attempt to put down Luis Suarez ” because quite frankly that’s the usual outcome when an animal behaves this way.

  9. Looking through the comments is probably more interesting than the ill informed blog; it’s amazing how many contributors either inadvertently or deliberately re create the past to fit their own view.
    For the record (and probably doing the same as everyone else ;) ) Suarez didn’t admit to abusing Evra he admitted to speaking Spanish like a native, something backed up in the report by the ‘expert’ ‘ Evra didn’t get charged because Suarez didn’t complain, (did Ivanovich? just a thought)
    The Ajax incident was said to have no part in this judgement. which was judged in isolation
    All of the LFC fans I’ve spoken to think Suarez is off his head and needs help, so accept the punishment, but not necessarily either the length or the none explanation as to how it was decided on.

  10. 10 Match ban is a must because of bit Ivanovic…this may not happend in the future..