I think if we did challenge the FA punishment system, which is a farce, we would have an ally in Chelsea. Suarez deserves a ban but anything more than 5/6 games is wrong. They let plenty violent incidents go. No one saw Rio on Torres. They let Rio off. We do need to stand up for Suarez too if they proper shaft him. Personally never known a statement like that by the FA
-
-
Bloody van panzy scored a hatrick 2nite too
Comment
-
I hate the whole, if it was dealt with at the time the FA can't take further action, I understand why it's there (so as not to undermine the referees) but it creates a two tier system, recently players McManaman and Aguero have got away with some truly awful tackles.
I mention this because I was reading the report from Defoe-Mascherano incident and found this:
The Football Association will take no action against Tottenham striker Jermain Defoe over the biting incident in Sunday's game with West Ham.
Defoe seemed to bite the arm of Javier Mascherano after he was fouled by the midfielder, with both players booked by referee Steve Bennett.
An FA spokesman said: "We are unable to take any action because the referee has already dealt with the incident.
"Fifa regulations prevent us from taking retrospective action."
Manchester City defender Ben Thatcher was punished by the FA after the event earlier this season when his forearm smash left Portsmouth midfielder Pedro Mendes in hospital.
However, that incident was deemed as exceptional because Mendes suffered serious injury but in most cases, the FA's hands are tied because of Fifa's stance on the issue of retrospective punishment.
Defoe felt his actions had been "blown out of all proportion".
From the Suarez-Ivanovic incident
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22250458The FA said the match officials had not seen it during the game at Anfield and it had been "retrospectively reviewed".
It added that, while the standard punishment for violent conduct was a three-match ban, that was "clearly insufficient in these circumstances".
So in Defoe's case the bite was not exceptional enough to want the FA to bring punishment against Defoe, but in the Suarez case a 3 match ban would be insufficient which presumably make it an exceptional circumstance. Where is the consistency?
Given the negative publicity we got last time I think we just need to quietly accept whatever punishment is handed out, rather than kick up a huge fuss about it for PR reasons, but for me this shows the inconsistency of the FA.The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.Comment
-
I think it can be dangerous to draw similarities between previous bans handed out by the FA; they treat each case on its own merits and go along with the media backlash ... all the while ignoring any previous bans as a benchmark.
The comment about three not being enough, makes me think doubling it would be adequate.
Yup.
Comment
-
The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.Comment
-
Could they go more than the ban for racism? They have no consistency in punishment they dish out. It's borderline discriminatory.Comment
-
Suárez is in the wrong. No one is going to challenge any sanction he gets..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
Comment