-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Victimpool FC - Klopp leaving, grown men crying
- Thread starter southstand1882
- Start date
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
mjc23
Terry Fenwick
Aston Villa
Lost Mango
Pascal Chimbonda
It is an appalling example.
It may not be as dangerous as a two footed challenge but it is so out of context on a football pitch that it is becomes 'iconic' in all the wrong ways.
stinkfoot
Eidur Gudjohnsen
Rodgers: "Listen, it could have been 12 games, with 6 suspended, looking at his future behaviour"
Okay. Well this is the FA verdict from the racism case;
In a statement released shortly after 8pm, the FA said: ‘An Independent Regulatory Commission has found a charge of misconduct against Luis Suarez proven, and have issued a suspension for a period of eight matches as well as fining him £40,000, pending appeal.’
Explaining the decision of the commission, it added: ‘(1) Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1); (2) the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra’s colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2); (3) Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for 8 matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000; (4) the (penalty) is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision.’
So, how many warnings about future conduct does he need? :-k
It's like my little girl when she continues to be naughty even after repeated warnings....."but just give me one more chance. Pleeeeaaaasssseee!"
I wish they had appealed it and got a few more on top. cnuts.
Okay. Well this is the FA verdict from the racism case;
In a statement released shortly after 8pm, the FA said: ‘An Independent Regulatory Commission has found a charge of misconduct against Luis Suarez proven, and have issued a suspension for a period of eight matches as well as fining him £40,000, pending appeal.’
Explaining the decision of the commission, it added: ‘(1) Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1); (2) the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra’s colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2); (3) Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for 8 matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000; (4) the (penalty) is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision.’
So, how many warnings about future conduct does he need? :-k
It's like my little girl when she continues to be naughty even after repeated warnings....."but just give me one more chance. Pleeeeaaaasssseee!"
I wish they had appealed it and got a few more on top. cnuts.
superspurs
Justin Edinburgh
Will he want out in the summer? No CL in the foreseeable future for 'pool, you would imagine the FA and TV cameras etc will be focusing even more on him to catch his dirtiness (like that video posted earlier) doesn't sound too appealing does it...
Gordinho
Banned
I saw that at lunch time and hit the roof, ranting at anyone who'd listen, when did fudging off home and leaving your daughter in the pub qualify you to preach to others about setting a good example?
The Football Association have revealed the official reasons for Luis Suarez's 10-game ban for biting Branislav Ivanovic.
The 21-page report explicitly states that many of the high-profile incidents mentioned in recent days, such as Ben Thatcher's act of serious foul play in 2006, were not taken into consideration.
It also suggests that challenges such as Callum McManaman's for Wigan on Saudi Sportswashing Machine's Massadio Haidara cannot be compared as the act of competing for a ball is part of the game.
The report states: "We were mindful that, in a game of football, the coming together of opposing players and physical bodily contacts in challenging for the ball is part of the game - albeit some of the challenges, regrettably, could lead to more serious injuries."
As a result, the regulatory commission appears to have been guided instead by the incident in March when Brighton's Ashley Barnes was given a six-match ban for tripping the referee.
The report said: "We concluded that this offence is significantly more serious than that of Ashley Barnes' and, accordingly, the punishment should be significantly higher."
It added: "The participants in a game of football do not expect to be bitten by another participant when they come to play football.
"In this incident, Mr Ivanovic would not, and should not, have been expected to be subject to such a shocking and reprehensible action."
Intriguingly, it seems the initial response of Suarez and Liverpool, in which they indicated a three-match ban would be sufficient, led the FA to belief the player was taking the issue too lightly.
The report noted that: "It seemed to us that Mr Suarez had not fully appreciated the gravity and seriousness of this truly exceptional incident."
Read the full report here.
The 21-page report explicitly states that many of the high-profile incidents mentioned in recent days, such as Ben Thatcher's act of serious foul play in 2006, were not taken into consideration.
It also suggests that challenges such as Callum McManaman's for Wigan on Saudi Sportswashing Machine's Massadio Haidara cannot be compared as the act of competing for a ball is part of the game.
The report states: "We were mindful that, in a game of football, the coming together of opposing players and physical bodily contacts in challenging for the ball is part of the game - albeit some of the challenges, regrettably, could lead to more serious injuries."
As a result, the regulatory commission appears to have been guided instead by the incident in March when Brighton's Ashley Barnes was given a six-match ban for tripping the referee.
The report said: "We concluded that this offence is significantly more serious than that of Ashley Barnes' and, accordingly, the punishment should be significantly higher."
It added: "The participants in a game of football do not expect to be bitten by another participant when they come to play football.
"In this incident, Mr Ivanovic would not, and should not, have been expected to be subject to such a shocking and reprehensible action."
Intriguingly, it seems the initial response of Suarez and Liverpool, in which they indicated a three-match ban would be sufficient, led the FA to belief the player was taking the issue too lightly.
The report noted that: "It seemed to us that Mr Suarez had not fully appreciated the gravity and seriousness of this truly exceptional incident."
Read the full report here.
90291Spur
Paul Walsh
Official sources said he didn't have the appetite to appeal.
That one MIGHT be a manc WUM, but it's hard to tell.
I acknowledge the argument that people do stupid things in the heat of the moment, but that should have little bearing on how that incident is punished. With Suarez's history and considering what he did I think 10 games is not totally unfair, even if he isn't actually a prick off the field and is just susceptible to seeing red. Although it has to be said I think the ban would have been shorter for most other players.
I just find it funny that Defoe got nothing because he was booked for the challenge in which he bit someone. The FA's rules are ridiculous. Referees are human and as such are fallible, to have rules preserving their total control over proceedings when technology has developed enough to provide more accuracy is ludicrous, especially in a business where their fallibility can cost tens of millions. In the case of Defoe it was the difference between a booking and at least a 5 game ban...
I just find it funny that Defoe got nothing because he was booked for the challenge in which he bit someone. The FA's rules are ridiculous. Referees are human and as such are fallible, to have rules preserving their total control over proceedings when technology has developed enough to provide more accuracy is ludicrous, especially in a business where their fallibility can cost tens of millions. In the case of Defoe it was the difference between a booking and at least a 5 game ban...