• 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

camspur said:
How can the ban be too long. He's already served a SEVEN match ban for biting and he still hasn't learnt you don't do it! 10 in my opinion is waaaay too short, if he played rugby he wouldn't be playing another game this side of Christmas.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it wasn't FA that issued that ban, different governing body. Just because it's 7 games in Holland doesn't mean that it should be 7 games or more in UK.

Kind of like saying, a racist word e.g. Negrito not racist in South America but racist in UK.
 
ArcspacE said:
And who appoints the panel?

Even so - do you believe they're agenda free and absolutely no prejudice is taken based on his previous history?

Terry's 4 game ban was a fcuking joke
Click to expand...

The previous panels have been chaired by a QC, who I have found to be an independently minded lot in my dealings with them.

The good thing about this current process is that they publish their findings, so we can see the reasons they have reached a decision. This hasn't been published yet because the affected get a chance to read it before it is published.

The Terry punishment was in line with the rules that were in place at the time. The FA are working on a new set of rules for racial abuse that I understand are going to be published in the coming weeks. I think that most people would agree that this is an area where football has been too lenient in the past.

I do not believe for a second that the Premier League or the FA want Suarez out of English football. Both are primarily concerned with making as much money as they can for their members and Suarez is good box office.
 
ArcspacE said:
Because the ban is investigated under the FA within the PL - they have no jurisdiction to impose the ban outside of the PL hence cannot and should not take into consideration factors outside the PL
Click to expand...

You're half right there, had Suarez had a history of biting and gone unpunished it couldn't be taken in to consideration. The fact that a ban was imposed meant they could take the length of that ban as a precedent in deciding how long his ban should be this time. I guess they also took his 8 match racial abuse ban in to consideration as well.

Either way they have made their judgment and he has to take it on the chin just like Gonzalo Jara did when he played against Suarez last time.
 
ArcspacE said:
If that is the case - why did Suarez receive twice as long of a ban for supposedly doing 'less'?
Click to expand...

didn't suarez admit it though, whereas Terry denied it, one ban was based on what they knew happened and one on what they thought happened hence the differential?
 
galeforce said:
didn't suarez admit it though, whereas Terry denied it, one ban was based on what they knew happened and one on what they thought happened hence the differential?
Click to expand...

I thought they took into consideration more evidence than the player's personal re-collection of events?
 
ArcspacE said:
I thought they took into consideration more evidence than the player's personal re-collection of events?
Click to expand...

i'm sure they did, but the fact that he admitted it meant there was no middle ground, Terry could at least claim to have been found not guilty in a court of law
 
ArcspacE said:
Because the ban is investigated under the FA within the PL - they have no jurisdiction to impose the ban outside of the PL hence cannot and should not take into consideration factors outside the PL
Click to expand...

As several other people have said, bans are carried when a player moves between European leagues. The ban that he received in the Netherlands for biting was not admissible in the case here but his previous conduct in English football was.
 
milo said:
As several other people have said, bans are carried when a player moves between European leagues. The ban that he received in the Netherlands for biting was not admissible in the case here but his previous conduct in English football was.
Click to expand...

As I said - don't recall him biting anyone prior in the PL?

milo said:
The Suarez case was thought to be more clear cut.
Click to expand...

Sure it was. Evra's word vs. factual video evidence

Just to re-affirm - are you suggesting the FA has been fair and objective in their recent disciplinary dealings (starting from beginning of last season)
 
Last edited:
ArcspacE said:
factual video evidence
Click to expand...
If there was stone wall video evidence, then the criminal case would've gone against him.

I think the FA have made mistakes and some bans are inconsistent, but I don't think they are deliberately targeting Suarez for special treatment.

They've apparently said that any incident of racial abuse in future will be dealt with more harshly, and if something like the Defoe biting incident happened again, where the ref saw it and got it wrong, they'd now act upon that.
 
ArcspacE said:
As I said - don't recall him biting anyone prior in the PL?



Sure it was. Evra's word vs. factual video evidence

Just to re-affirm - are you suggesting the FA has been fair and objective in their recent disciplinary dealings (starting from beginning of last season)
Click to expand...

it does not have to be the same offence for previous conduct to be taken into account.

I'd recommend reading the Suarez and Terry judgements. They are published on the FA website, easy to find using Google and answer most of your questions.
 
milo said:
it does not have to be the same offence for previous conduct to be taken into account.
Click to expand...

So what else did they take into account - that YouTube compilation of dirty tackles?


milo said:
I'd recommend reading the Suarez and Terry judgements. They are published on the FA website, easy to find using Google and answer most of your questions.
Click to expand...

I was asking for your personal opinion, not what's written in those PDFs

You sound like a PR spokesman for the FA - as a result I have little interest in debating this further as you agenda is clear as daylight

Good day
 
yes, i read through when they were released, and the suarez was covered in a lot of detail i thought.
i don't know if fair and objective are the right words to use, but consistent is definitely one thing that appears to be lacking.
 
ArcspacE said:
So what else did they take into account - that YouTube compilation of dirty tackles?




I was asking for your personal opinion, not what's written in those PDFs

You sound like a PR spokesman for the FA - as a result I have little interest in debating this further as you agenda is clear as daylight

Good day
Click to expand...

His ten yellow card this season and the previous lengthy ban is the conduct that I would assume the panel took into account. We will find out when the report is published.

I don't have an agenda. Life isn't black and white.
 
Really can't believe people are saying this ban is too long. The FA are not saying biting is worse than racism, I believe he would have got away with a 5 game ban had this been his first offence. But that is clearly not the case. He has a long history of biting, diving, stamping, horrific tackles, racist abuse and dissent. He is a serial offender, hence why the INDEPENDANT COMMISSON have decided to make an example of him, just like they did with Joey Barton. Does anyone think Michael Dawson would have got 12 games for doing what Barton did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back