cms186 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Do you know the name of the person they used last time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Peters_(psychiatrist) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
av3ry Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Oh thats 9 Liverpool games, thought it as 9 internationals he was suspended for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Tv companies will have been pressurising FIFA, IMO. Suarez means ratings when he plays so I bet they have had some input. He should have got much longer. Ironic (for me) that his first game due back assuming he stays with the scousers is against us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 26, 2014 Author Share Posted June 26, 2014 Why's that ironic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ234 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I love some of the ridiculous arguments being put forward by certain Liverpool fans it is just braindead stuff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The reactions in here. People saying the ban shouldn't start until August basically just outing themselves as more interested in screwing over Liverpool than anything else. Fail to see what a four month ban achieves. Well, no. It's similar to the ridiculous 6 months cycling bans for doping -- during the off-season. Half his punishment will be totally pointless given there are zero competitive matches between their WC exit and mid-August. Seems like his international ban is more harsh, as they state 9 competitive matches, which I assume will mean a good section of their next tournament and qualifying matches - certainly a great deal longer than effectively 2 months. It could have been a more ridiculous punishment of course, so FIFA didn't completely shame themselves this time, but the main thing here is that Suarez won't learn anything from it. Particular in light of the Liverpool-esque Uruguay defence team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri916 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Tv companies will have been pressurising FIFA, IMO. Suarez means ratings when he plays so I bet they have had some input. He should have got much longer. Ironic (for me) that his first game due back assuming he stays with the scousers is against us. So what power do TV companies that broadcast the EPL have over FIFA exactly? Or are they supposed to have bribed them? ****ing hell BG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Why's that ironic? It's akin to those fabled ten thousand spoons iirc? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divinity Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 You're responding to me' date=' pretty hilarious to see you scrabbling around here like a fat man who's **** himself on the train. Kudos to you for not hiding away I guess, taking your sonning like a man.[/quote']Good lord. Pretty embarrassing post to make really. Pull your head in. A ban won't help Suarez. That much has been shown. But at least there are now some 12 games where those playing against Liverpool can be certain they won't get bitten during a game. I think the ban is more to protect others than to fix Suarez tbf In that respect I'd agree - but then if that's the case it needed to be longer. Bit hard to argue for the protection of others if you're only protecting them for so long. Maybe that's FIFA's thinking. 2 months of actual ban, made into four because it starts right away. Possible. Something hes done before, in a Liverpool game, in England.A Sports Psychiatrist, employed by the club, he needs to see a proper, independant one. Bit of an insult to a medical professional. I don't think the club sent him to a psychiatrist and wasn't bothered if he re-offended, so didn't get him proper treatment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMLF Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Poor Luis Suárez...: I think 9 games is perhaps too harsh but fair enough to make him miss the rest of the World Cup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 In that respect I'd agree - but then if that's the case it needed to be longer. Bit hard to argue for the protection of others if you're only protecting them for so long. Very much so, but then you'd probably have to ban him for life or giving a vague sentence of having him banned until psychiatrists say he's no longer a threat to other players. Somehow I don't think either of those are likely to happen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Ironic because Suarez will bag a hat trick on his return. We will roll over nicely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Ironic because Suarez will bag a hat trick on his return. We will roll over nicely. It's literally like rain on your wedding day Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtuck01 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Oh dear me; @LiverpoolUnion; The @luis16suarez ban shows how much of a corrupt organization FIFA is. Controlled by Man U and Everton scum attacking Liverpool constantly. Words. There are none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmi88 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 well im following that account now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan99 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Oh dear me;Words. There are none. Bit odd that when FIFA have just banned Martinez from all WC stadiums! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I really, really hope that's a troll, and if it came from anywhere else we wouldn't have the doubt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Bit odd that when FIFA have just banned Martinez from all WC stadiums! eh? ......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan99 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 eh?......... http://www.squawka.com/news/fifa-ban-everton-boss-roberto-martinez-from-entering-world-cup-grounds-after-breaching-accreditation-rules/129262 For nothing basically as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arenaross Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Tv companies will have been pressurising FIFA, IMO. Suarez means ratings when he plays so I bet they have had some input. He should have got much longer. Ironic (for me) that his first game due back assuming he stays with the scousers is against us. Err no, just no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The reactions in here. People saying the ban shouldn't start until August basically just outing themselves as more interested in screwing over Liverpool than anything else. Fail to see what a four month ban achieves. Whats the point of 4 month ban when he wouldnt be playing football for a month of it anyway. Thats why it should start in August Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Whats the point of 4 month ban when he wouldnt be playing football for a month of it anyway. Thats why it should start in August Like I said earlier, maybe that was factored into the ban? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Then the ban is even more lenient Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divinity Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Whats the point of 4 month ban when he wouldnt be playing football for a month of it anyway. Thats why it should start in August So he could play out the world cup then under the auspices of your suggestion? Seems a bit odd? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Then the ban is even more lenient Yeah, but it's impossible to say whether it was taken into consideration or not So he could play out the world cup then under the auspices of your suggestion? Seems a bit odd? Wasn't he banned for 9 international games independently of the 4 month ban? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMLF Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Oh dear me;Words. There are none. As if the world of football was all about Liverpool and petty EPL rivalries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 So he could play out the world cup then under the auspices of your suggestion? Seems a bit odd? Fifa can and have proven they do what they want. Nothing stopping them banning him from the rest of the WC by giving him a 3 game ban or whatever games they have left, then start his 4 month football ban when the season starts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orzelek Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Good decision by FIFA Well, assuming that it won't be reduced to something ridiculous on the appeal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootador Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Ban is longer than expected from FIFA, but still less than he deserved. Don't feel any sympathy for Liverpool and find it extra amusing that some think it's some kind of hatchet job - you willingly pay and play a nutcase - what do you expect at the end the day? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Good decision by FIFA Well, assuming that it won't be reduced to something ridiculous on the appeal Id increase it just for the joke of excuses that have come from Suarez aswell as Uruguay Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icondacarver Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 http://www.squawka.com/news/fifa-ban-everton-boss-roberto-martinez-from-entering-world-cup-grounds-after-breaching-accreditation-rules/129262For nothing basically as well. Gave a pass that gives people access to sensitive locations like team hotels and training grounds to "a friend". Those passes are non-transferable for a reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divinity Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Yeah, but it's impossible to say whether it was taken into consideration or notWasn't he banned for 9 international games independently of the 4 month ban? Seems a bit of an odd suggestion to impose a time ban that's intended to penalise his club for something he did on international duty though simply because of when he did it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pearcey_90 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Uruguay still saying there isn't enough evidence. I'm sorry but they should be banned from next World Cup if they appeal, like what are they not seeing ffs?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggressive minor Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Well done FIFA, 4 months is the right length, enough of a punishment. 1 year would have been ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootador Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Doesn't matter, the timed ban is effectively 3 months and that was probably the aim from FIFA - much easier to just ban him for 4 months rather than 3 months from a set date. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtuck01 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Hope FIFA extend it because of a frivolous appeal from the Uruguayan FA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootador Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Hope FIFA extend it because of a frivolous appeal from the Uruguayan FA. Should extend the ban to all players found to be trying to cover up the incident - perjury! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icondacarver Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Seems a bit of an odd suggestion to impose a time ban that's intended to penalise his club for something he did on international duty though simply because of when he did it. The ban has no intention of hurting Liverpool. It is aimed at punishing Suarez to the maximum they feel acceptable. Liverpool are a secondary casualty of this by being his employer but that is the risk they took when they signed him despite his previous and also kept him despite his previous. If you sell him next week, the punishment then affects his new club. Would you say it was aimed at punishing them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOUNGSTEVE Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Uruguay still saying there isn't enough evidence. I'm sorry but they should be banned from next World Cup if they appeal, like what are they not seeing ffs?! As a Man Utd supporter I do sympathize with Liverpool fans here, as it was done on international duty & not with the club. On the other hand you might argue if Liverpool had dealt with him more severely in the first place then this could have been avoided, though I think he has a psychological problem & needs help. I certainly agree with you about Uruguay, who seem to be in total denial whenever Suarez is in the news. Probably think he was provoked & perfectly entitled if he shot someone on the pitch knowing their idiocy. I would have rather seen Suarez & Uruguay banned from International football for the next few years, then his club suffer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulHartman71 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 tbf its a bigger ban than I thought they'd give him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Seems a bit of an odd suggestion to impose a time ban that's intended to penalise his club for something he did on international duty though simply because of when he did it. Intended to penalise his club? What utter nonsense is this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebsy Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Yeh, does make you think Uruguay would probably defend him and claim they're the victims if he pulled out a knife and slit someones throat before doing a **** in their gaping neckwound during a match . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divinity Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The ban has no intention of hurting Liverpool. It is aimed at punishing Suarez to the maximum they feel acceptable. Liverpool are a secondary casualty of this by being his employer but that is the risk they took when they signed him despite his previous and also kept him despite his previous. I'm talking about the ban from "all football" not starting until he'd returned to his club. That would directly have been an impediment to the club, not the player. If you sell him next week, the punishment then affects his new club. Would you say it was aimed at punishing them? Hard to make that argument given that his new employer would be party unknown. I'm talking about the hypothetical of moving the start date of the 'all football activities' ban to the commencement of the English season - that's targeting something specific rather than the player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootador Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 What if they sell him to Real, does the date of ban commencement get moved again? That's why the fixed timed period makes sense, disappointed about the lack of literal lynching though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divinity Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 What if they sell him to Real, does the date of ban commencement get moved again? That's why the fixed timed period makes sense. Precisely my point, which is why I'm surprised by the 'start date should have been different' point being made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The thing annoying me about this fiasco is the Liverpool fans piping up with "Liverpool FC are being punished because Suarez is under contract with us". Ehh, no. Liverpool haven't been punished at all. Your player has. And that's his fault. And yours for signing him. I can't stick this victim attitude the Liverpool fans have produced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divinity Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Really? That's annoying you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Really? That's annoying you? What, the fact that they're making it all about Liverpool and playing the victim card? Yes, it's annoying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjaminpeter Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Uruguay are the one's who've suffered the most with this, and they're only going to compound it by making stupid statements and frivolous appeals. They miss their best player for the rest of the WC and whatever qualifying games they have to play next. Liverpool suffer secondarily because, obviously he's our player. But there's no suggestion Liverpool are being punished, and frankly I don't see it as the club's fault or responsibility. Suarez has had a pretty good season from a disciplinary aspect, and I think the annoying thing is that we all thought he was past this kind of behaviour. It seems he isn't so I'm more annoyed with him than anyone else. Other crackpot Liverpool fans might think it's some kind of conspiracy but they're just as much an embarrassment as Suarez. The games he'll miss for Liverpool are punishment enough given that he was on international duty when it happened. I think the club will put down some kind of disciplinary action too. I'd also like to make my usual point in these situations which is the howling masses wouldn't be anywhere near as vocal on this if was a player who belonged to their club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren1983 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The thing annoying me about this fiasco is the Liverpool fans piping up with "Liverpool FC are being punished because Suarez is under contract with us".Ehh, no. Liverpool haven't been punished at all. Your player has. And that's his fault. And yours for signing him. I can't stick this victim attitude the Liverpool fans have produced. Really? That's annoying you? What, the fact that they're making it all about Liverpool and playing the victim card? Yes, it's annoying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.