Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Luis Suárez

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1,732
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 350 400 440 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 460 500 550 950 1450 1732 template Next
    #6736
    Yes. It'd be disproportionate I think (but I think the whole incident has been blown out of all proportion) but Suárez and the club can't do anything but swallow it.

    How would it look if they challenged it? It would be portrayed as trying to excuse the inexcusable or at the very least motivated by nothing more than naked self-interest. The only sensible option is to take the punishment, keep a low profile and wait for the media circus to move on.
    .
    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

      #6737
      Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
      Suárez is in the wrong. No one is going to challenge any sanction he gets.

      Even if the punishment is ludicrous and does'nt fit the crime in any sense ?

      That's a bad attitude to take imo, and would be wholly wrong.

      The crime can't be appealed, but if the ban is stupidly over the top we have to appeal that. It would be the right and fair thing to do. imo.

      It's what would happen when any justice/punishment is being handed down surely?

      Those handing out punishemnts have a responsibility too, and that is to keep it in context, and not react to media pressure.
      Last edited by Vermilion; 22-04-13, 09:56 PM.

      Comment

        #6738
        Well, of course there's a limit. If the FA wanted him shot then yes, the club might appeal that. But I don't think it will reach the unacceptable. Unfair yes, probably, but not so much that anyone unconnected with Liverpool will say it's totally OTT.
        .
        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

          #6739
          Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
          Well, of course there's a limit. If the FA wanted him shot then yes, the club might appeal that. But I don't think it will reach the unacceptable. Unfair yes, probably, but not so much that anyone unconnected with Liverpool will say it's totally OTT.
          I'll take that as you agreeing with me.

          I was just thinking how utterly unfit for purpose the fa is, and wondered what if they gave him a ban similar to what Ferdinand got for missing a drugs test ?
          Last edited by Vermilion; 22-04-13, 10:00 PM.

          Comment

            #6740
            .
            .
            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

              #6741
              Originally posted by Vermilion View Post
              Even if the punishment is ludicrous and does'nt fit the crime in any sense ?

              That's a bad attitude to take imo, and would be wholly wrong.

              The crime can't be appealed, but if the ban is stupidly over the top we have to appeal that. It would be the right and fair thing to do. imo.

              It's what would happen when any justice/punishment is being handed down surely?

              Those handing out punishemnts have a responsibility too, and that is to keep it in context, and not react to media pressure.


              I have a feeling the ban will be wholly disproportionate. It will be justified by the media in their usual stupid way. FFs Terry got as many game ban for racism as he would get for violent conduct. Then the FA admitted they ****ed up. Suarez deserves a ban and we should accept. Any more than 6 odd games then should appeal the length

              Comment

                #6742
                It should be 6. I can see it being 12 or even something stupid like till 31 December.
                Football without Origi is nothing

                Comment

                  #6743
                  6 would be fair imo.

                  Comment

                    #6744
                    Originally posted by ChesterDave View Post
                    It should be 6. I can see it being 12 or even something stupid like till 31 December.


                    I might be wrong, but don't the bans apply in other countries too?

                    Comment

                      #6745
                      Not if it's a certain number of games. If it's for a period of time then yes, I imagine it would apply elsewhere, assuming FIFA ratify it.
                      .
                      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

                        #6746
                        I think people should be bracing themselves for at least ten games. His previous will probably come into it. He ****ing bit an opponent under little if any provocation. Not only has he made the club look bad, he's a role model and though I have always detested this view in the past, kids look up to him, its a ****ing terrible example to set. Keep him by all means, however he's going to rightly be out for a while. I think we should accept the ban and move on even if we disagree. Bringing other incidents and bad tackles into it is irrelevant. He's bang to rights. Guilty. A stupid cunt. But our stupid cunt.
                        Always borrow money from a pessimist. He won’t expect it back. Oscar Wilde

                        Comment

                          #6747
                          Originally posted by Sarb View Post


                          I have a feeling the ban will be wholly disproportionate. It will be justified by the media in their usual stupid way. FFs Terry got as many game ban for racism as he would get for violent conduct. Then the FA admitted they ****ed up. Suarez deserves a ban and we should accept. Any more than 6 odd games then should appeal the length
                          Originally posted by ChesterDave View Post
                          It should be 6. I can see it being 12 or even something stupid like till 31 December.
                          I agree six would seem reasonable enough. Although he did get seven in Holland.

                          My point isn't whether we or the club think it's reasonable but it's going to have to be a lot more than six or seven or even twelve for it to be worth the intense media scrutiny and negative publicity that appealing it would entail.
                          .
                          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

                            #6748
                            Evra getting in on the act. ****ing toss pot

                            Comment

                              #6749
                              Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
                              I agree six would seem reasonable enough. Although he did get seven in Holland.

                              My point isn't whether we or the club think it's reasonable but it's going to have to be a lot more than six or seven or even twelve for it to be worth the intense media scrutiny and negative publicity that appealing it would entail.
                              And what if they say 25 game ban? A season?

                              There has to be a tipping point where the club have to appeal due to it being manifestly excessive.
                              Football without Origi is nothing

                              Comment

                                #6750
                                I think it will be between 8-12 games. Nobody can have any complaints. Whining about other punishments for other players is pointless; if you don't bite someone then you don't get punished

                                I've slept on it and I still think we should get rid. Not rabidly, but it's my view.
                                Trey Nyoni: countdown to stardom- 2 years 1year 0.5 years

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 350 400 440 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 460 500 550 950 1450 1732 template Next
                                Working...
                                X