james_wilko Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I think it should just be for international games, it's unfair to punish Liverpool for this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georginho_juventusygr Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I think Liverpool will send a personal coach to prevent him from becoming fat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 so only opposition players are in danger from being bitten? What if he bites a team mate during training?That could've happened already tbh. Wouldn't be surprised if Liverpool would cover it. Ha, so that's why they ban him for 4 months then "off you go Luis, 4 months are up so we're sure you'll never bite anyone again" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georginho_juventusygr Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 james_wilko: It's actually not punishing Liverpool. It punishes Suárez and only him. It's equal to banning him from football, the only way FIFA thinks will make him think about his future and job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizzy Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Ha, so that's why they ban him for 4 months then "off you go Luis, 4 months are up so we're sure you'll never bite anyone again" You're right, it should've been a life time ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizzy Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I think it should just be for international games, it's unfair to punish Liverpool for this. The same Liverpool who bought a player who bites? that Liverpool? Yeah really unfair. Liverpool should've put a clause in his new bumper contract he signed recently that stated if he's banned again for biting they don't need to pay him (or pay him less) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheps. Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Like others have said, I'd prefer it if the ban was a touch longer - say up until the start of 2015, but it's nice to see FIFA hand out a quite severe punishment for once so I'm fairly happy with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillsminnow Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I hope the Liverpool researcher has reduced his balance attribute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el sid Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I like how the poll results show an increase in ascending order Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el sid Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 And you should've made the poll public Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 You're right, it should've been a life time ban. Not it shouldn't. Otherwise you can start handing out lifetime bans for bad tackles as well, they are potentially much worse than a bite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizzy Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Not it shouldn't.Otherwise you can start handing out lifetime bans for bad tackles as well, they are potentially much worse than a bite. Yes, bad tackles are worse than a single bite. And I would expect them to be punished differently, but he has done this 3 times. If a player broke the legs of 3 different player on purpose, what would you except the punishment to be? Every single player Suarez comes into contact with on a football pitch is in danger of being bitten, how can anyone say he should still be allowed to play? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Bad tackles are part of the game (you have to make the distinction between a bad tackle and outright violence such as Keane on Haaland etc). Intending to hurt people is not and has never been a part of the game. Suarez has intended to hurt three times now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizzy Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Bad tackles are part of the game (you have to make the distinction between a bad tackle and outright violence such as Keane on Haaland etc). Intending to hurt people is not and has never been a part of the game. Suarez has intended to hurt three times now. 100% agree JD. Think FIFA should have said something like if he was ever to do it again (a 4th time!) then it would be a life time ban Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliss Seeker Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I seriously wanted FIFA to explore the legality of forcing him to wear a muzzle for 12 months. Think they got it right though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redshift Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Another shot of the incident. May affect the poll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I think the ban is spot on. You can't just continuously go around biting players on the pitch. On the other hand, you can't ban him forever neither. I think 4 months is fair enough. Why not? This is what the 3rd time its happened. Clearly banning him doesnt work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulHartman71 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 think it should just be international games. when he did it whilst playing club football they didn't ban him from international games did they? I reckon they should have banned him from international for 1 year, making sure he missed next years Copa America. The ban they've done gives no real incentive for Uruguayans to be pissed at him imo, if hurts Liverpool more than the Uruguay national team going forward, which is stupid imo. Uruguay/Uruguayans couldn't give a **** if it screws over Liverpool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 think it should just be international games. when he did it whilst playing club football they didn't ban him from international games did they? I reckon they should have banned him from international for 1 year, making sure he missed next years Copa America. The FA/Dutch FA dont have the authority to ban him from international games, whilst FIFA do have the authority to ban him from any football, so they have Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 They should make him go to anger management classes or something too. The courts would if this happened outside of football Need to find the route cause of him doing what he does Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razzler Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 No one is trying to punish Liverpool. FIFA aren't saying 'right, let's stick this right to Liverpool, have you heard those accents' It's Suarez's fault, no one elses. Uruguay are appealing, are Liverpool appealing in any way? I wondered whether on appeal they could get that 4 months down to 3 months but the international 9 game ban stays, something like that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriss Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 If a company suffers financial or other loss due to an employees actions they claim redress from that employee, that's as I understand it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puevlo Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 The international ban is fair enough but the domestic ban is clearly an attempt to punish Liverpool. Jealous mutts are just upset we have the best player in the world and are trying to sabotage our season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el sid Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 The international ban is fair enough but the domestic ban is clearly an attempt to punish Liverpool. Jealous mutts are just upset we have the best player in the world and are trying to sabotage our season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Albrighton Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 The international ban is fair enough but the domestic ban is clearly an attempt to punish Liverpool. Jealous mutts are just upset we have the best player in the world and are trying to sabotage our season. This. He didn't kill him ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizzy Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Never change Liverpool Fans (not all) Never Change Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa Claus Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 The international ban is fair enough but the domestic ban is clearly an attempt to punish Liverpool. Jealous mutts are just upset we have the best player in the world and are trying to sabotage our season. It is a punishment for Suarez, not for Liverpool. It only happens that they are his employers. Imagine you rob someone on the street, get caught and sent to jail, and your employer says to the judge "but wait, he didn't do it during work hours, we want him back from prison every day 9-5". Is that simple enough explanation for you? They took the risk with him when they decided to grant him a new contract last season. They weighted risk-reward and came up with the decision he is worth it. He scored 31 goal, took them to CL group stage. But now, with 200k+ p/w he is getting, LFC is about to lose close to £3M for the 2 and half months he won't be able to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 The international ban is fair enough but the domestic ban is clearly an attempt to punish Liverpool. Jealous mutts are just upset we have the best player in the world and are trying to sabotage our season. "we" :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizzy Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 It is a punishment for Suarez, not for Liverpool. It only happens that they are his employers. Imagine you rob someone on the street, get caught and sent to jail, and your employer says to the judge "but wait, he didn't do it during work hours, we want him back from prison every day 9-5".Is that simple enough explanation for you? They took the risk with him when they decided to grant him a new contract last season. They weighted risk-reward and came up with the decision he is worth it. He scored 31 goal, took them to CL group stage. But now, with 200k+ p/w he is getting, LFC is about to lose close to £3M for the 2 and half months he won't be able to play. I was thinking of a way to best explain it to the simpletons and Santa Claus you have by far got the best one. well done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 The other side to that argument though, to put it in simple terms for you to understand, just for arguments sake: You have a job at Burger King and you do part time work at mcdonalds. You get suspended at mcdonalds for basically being an idiot. You don't expect mcdonalds to then say "oh this applies to your Burger King job as well" The people at Burger King should be able to make up their own mind what to do with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razzler Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Burger King may not want him to come in if he bit someone though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Burger King may not want him to come in if he bit someone though Yup, that's their choice though. The guy did something while working for someone else. It shouldn't affect them as well. Ideally, it would have been an international ban only, but Liverpool took the steps to suspend him from club football as well and looked to sell him as soon as possible, that would have been my ideal scenario. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aiston Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Liverpool fans and their bitching is one of the more entertaining things of this whole saga. Poor innocent Suarez, he was only trying to have a nibble, no one died. He was just trying to be smart and get a reaction out of Chiellini.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puevlo Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 It is a punishment for Suarez, not for Liverpool. It only happens that they are his employers. Imagine you rob someone on the street, get caught and sent to jail, and your employer says to the judge "but wait, he didn't do it during work hours, we want him back from prison every day 9-5".Is that simple enough explanation for you? They took the risk with him when they decided to grant him a new contract last season. They weighted risk-reward and came up with the decision he is worth it. He scored 31 goal, took them to CL group stage. But now, with 200k+ p/w he is getting, LFC is about to lose close to £3M for the 2 and half months he won't be able to play. After Liverpool got him the help he needed he never once bit anyone while wearing a Liverpool shirt. Only when he went outside Liverpool's sphere of influence did he start biting again. The only logical conclusion is that the more time he spends playing for Liverpool the less he will bite people. FIFA need to pay Suarez's wages for the entirety of the ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 The minority of Liverpool fans and their bitching is one of the more entertaining things of this whole saga. Idiot Suarez, even though he's done this twice already he was only trying to have a nibble, no one died. He was just trying to be smart and get a reaction out of Chiellini.... Made it more accurate for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused Clarity Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 After Liverpool got him the help he needed he never once bit anyone while wearing a Liverpool shirt. Only when he went outside Liverpool's sphere of influence did he start biting again. The only logical conclusion is that the more time he spends playing for Liverpool the less he will bite people. FIFA need to pay Suarez's wages for the entirety of the ban. You are a special, special boy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoolFan Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Liverpool should've put a clause in his new bumper contract he signed recently that stated if he's banned again for biting they don't need to pay him (or pay him less) I agree with that completely. He must be on close to 150k-200k a week, that's a hell of a lot of money to be paying someone who isn't allowed to play due to his own craziness. In saying that I hope we keep him, unless Barca offer Sanchez and a boat load of money we should just accept his faults. The dude is dynamite on the pitch, if we kept him for the next three/four seasons we would almost guarantee to be competing for champions league spot each season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pukey Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 After Liverpool got him the help he needed he never once bit anyone while wearing a Liverpool shirt. Only when he went outside Liverpool's sphere of influence did he start biting again. The only logical conclusion is that the more time he spends playing for Liverpool the less he will bite people. FIFA need to pay Suarez's wages for the entirety of the ban. This can't be serious? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 He also said Suarez is the best player in the world, so no definitely not serious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar2010 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 TBF to Puevlo I do remember reading somewhere that Liverpool arranged for him to get some sort of "help" If he has been getting counseling on a regular basis whilst at Liverpool it maybe didn't continue when he went off on National duty which perhaps played a role in him having a relapse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa Claus Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 The other side to that argument though, to put it in simple terms for you to understand, just for arguments sake:You have a job at Burger King and you do part time work at mcdonalds. You get suspended at mcdonalds for basically being an idiot. You don't expect mcdonalds to then say "oh this applies to your Burger King job as well" The people at Burger King should be able to make up their own mind what to do with you. Bad example. FIFA has jurisdiction over English FA, and judge from my example has jurisdiction over anyone. McDonalds don't have jurisdiction over Bruger King. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootador Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 A teacher has an affair with a student in a school and is suspended from teaching in all schools. The end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Why would all of the Fifa disciplinary panel have it in for Liverpool anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused Clarity Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 A teacher has an affair with a student in a school and is suspended from teaching in all schools. The end. But what if they're a substitute teacher & did it in one school that they provide cover for one day a week, but it had nothing to do with the school that they provide cover for 4 days a week? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 But what if they're a substitute teacher & did it in one school that they provide cover for one day a week, but it had nothing to do with the school that they provide cover for 4 days a week? Please tell me thats not a serious question Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bracken Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 The analogies in here are fantastic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puevlo Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 A teacher has an affair with a student in a school and is suspended from teaching in all schools. The end. Kid pushes his younger brother over at home. Scrapes his knee. Foreign media go ballistic and dig up all sorts of historical dirt on the child prodigy. Kid gets suspended from school and the principal steals his pocket money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused Clarity Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Please tell me thats not a serious question ffs dude! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 ffs dude! always worth asking the question with you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Kid pushes his younger brother over at home. Scrapes his knee. Foreign media go ballistic and dig up all sorts of historical dirt on the child prodigy. Kid gets suspended from school and the principal steals his pocket money. Finally right about one thing, Suarez is acting like a big kid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.