Bootador Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Suicide bomber attacks US soil, Bid Laden absolved of all blame because because the bomber was on international duty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillsminnow Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Why would he attack soil? Surely a heavily populated building would be more effective? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootador Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Why would he attack soil? Surely a heavily populated building would be more effective? Lost his balance unfortunately, think the whole thing's a huge misunderstanding tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 People seem to be missing the point with regards the two separate parts of the ban. FIFA have banned him from all activity for four months as he's a danger to other players on the field. The nine game ban for Uruguay matches the previous biting suspensions. These nine games will be over a period of longer than four months. I'm guessing FIFA thought this would e been excessive hence the splitting of the suspension into games & length. Liverpool will argue it's them who are suffering due to the player being suspended for more games for them but that's just due to the domestic schedule being more fixture heavy. whether or not the ban will make him learn or correct his actions is a whole different argument. Not sure when Uruguays tenth fixture from the ban starting is but it'll be longer than four months I assume. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razzler 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. Maybe it's that Steve Peters. He worked wonders for Gerrard's mental state in matches Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razzler Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 People seem to be missing the point with regards the two separate parts of the ban. FIFA have banned him from all activity for four months as he's a danger to other players on the field. The nine game ban for Uruguay matches the previous biting suspensions. These nine games will be over a period of longer than four months. I'm guessing FIFA thought this would e been excessive hence the splitting of the suspension into games & length. Liverpool will argue it's them who are suffering due to the player being suspended for more games for them but that's just due to the domestic schedule being more fixture heavy. whether or not the ban will make him learn or correct his actions is a whole different argument. Not sure when Uruguays tenth fixture from the ban starting is but it'll be longer than four months I assume. You got to figure for Uruguay, last night is obviously the first game so 8 more Maybe have an August friendly on that date set aside and then September, October, November international dates. Maybe he double friendly dates there, possibly. Even so that'd be 6 more games and then we're into February internationals after that I am assuming official friendlies here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizzy Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Do friendlies count towards the bans? And people think it's unfair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Is it a 9 game ban for Uruguay or a 9 competitive game ban? But as I said, it matches his previous punishments for biting. In my view the four month exile from football is a different branch of the same ban. Whether or not the four months is going to have any effect on his behaviour as Divinty (& others) have argued is an entirely different matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 It's a competitive ban, he'll miss next years Copa America. He can actually play in Uruguay friendlies after the 4 months is up but not competitive games until the 9 games are up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouchaldinho 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. It's actually nothing like that at all. If it was Uruguay (or McDonalds in your example) who gave the suspension then it would make sense. However, it was FIFA. Using your food analogue, it's actually like the Food Standards Agency, or whatever they're called, finding you guilty and banning you from working with food. This ban would mean that you couldn't work for McDonalds or Burger King. Btw, are Liverpool really Burger King in this example? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 So basically a 9 game ban by the governing body it took place under for biting. Four month football ban because it's the third offence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 It's actually nothing like that at all. If it was Uruguay (or McDonalds in your example) who gave the suspension then it would make sense. However, it was FIFA. Using your food analogue, it's actually like the Food Standards Agency, or whatever they're called, finding you guilty and banning you from working with food. This ban would mean that you couldn't work for McDonalds or Burger King. Btw, are Liverpool really Burger King in this example? I was going for a tongue in cheek international football v club football thing. So yes, Burger King was club football and McDonalds was international football. I don't believe FIFA should be able to ban players from club football when they play internationals. I think they should just concentrate on internationals and let UEFA or the FA sort out his club status. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouchaldinho Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I was going for a tongue in cheek international football v club football thing. So yes, Burger King was club football and McDonalds was international football. I don't believe FIFA should be able to ban players from club football when they play internationals. I think they should just concentrate on internationals and let UEFA or the FA sort out his club status. So, as in your example, if someone does something dangerously unhygienic at McDonalds then the Food Standards Agency should only stop him from working with food at McDonalds? He should be fine to continue working with food at Burger King? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razzler Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 It's a competitive ban, he'll miss next years Copa America. He can actually play in Uruguay friendlies after the 4 months is up but not competitive games until the 9 games are up. Is that definitely competitive games? They have basically banned him from the Copa without just coming out and saying he's banned from the Copa then. No doubt that is what they had in mind. Ban him from a competition Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 does the 9 match ban start after the 4 month ban or do they run concurrently? just wonder if the match Uruguay played yesterday counts as one of the 9 or not Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I imagine it counts. There was no mention of the 9 games starting after 4 months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Riccardo Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Should have been longer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMLF Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Is that definitely competitive games?They have basically banned him from the Copa without just coming out and saying he's banned from the Copa then. No doubt that is what they had in mind. Ban him from a competition He won't really miss much, Copa América hardly that important nowadays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I dont agree with the domestic ban, i'd have banned him from international football for 24 matches, but no domestic ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizzy Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Robbie Fowler was on the radio today was asked about two subjects. On Suarez biting: Think the domestic ban is unfair On Robben diving: BAN HIM!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.