Luis Suárez

[baitman]

ta.

a bit quick for you, mate

[McDermotX]

Most they can impose is two weeks I believe.

Come in handy that....

[Chazza]

LUIS SUAREZ – WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO THE LIVERPOOL STRIKER?

By CHRISTOPHER DAVIES

IS BITING AN OPPONENT IN THE LAWS OF THE GAME?
Not specifically. Thankfully it is so rare the International Football Association Board, FIFA’s law-making body, have not seen fit to include biting in Law 12 (fouls and misconduct) but it would come under violent conduct and if a referee saw a player bite an opponent it would be a red card offence

BUT SPITTING WAS MADE A SENDING-OFF OFFENCE, WASN’T IT?
Yes, the offence was included in the Laws in the wake of AIDS. In Law, “a player, substitute or substituted player is sent-off if he spits at an opponent or any other person.” While the chances of infection through saliva or biting are minimal it is obviously a health risk. This is why players with blood wounds, usually the head, must have the wound covered and if there is blood on the jersey it must be changed. In 1999, the Football Association banned Patrick Vieira for six games after the Arsenal midfielder spat at West Ham’s Neil Ruddock. At Euro 2004 Alexander Frei of Switzerland was banned for three games for spitting on the neck of Steven Gerrard during England’s 3-0 win.

WHAT POWERS DO THE FA HAVE IF A PLAYER IS FOUND GUILTY OF BITING AN OPPONENT?
Without being pedantic, it is an Independent Regulatory Commission appointed by the FA that is responsible for any punishment. Basically, there is no limit to the sanction they can hand out.

BUT WHAT IS A LIKELY PUNISHMENT?
It goes in a player’s favour if he apologises and the club are seen to be pro-active with internal action...

THIS DIDN’T REALLY HELP ERIC CANTONA...
True, Manchester United banned him until the end of the season, four months, after his kung-fu kick at a Crystal Palace fan and the disciplinary commission extended this, handing Cantona an eight-month suspension. The FA weren’t too happy, but strange as it may seem, they have no hands-on control over such bans. A difference is that what Cantona did was against the law of the land while what Luis Suarez did is a football matter (so far).

SO FAR?
Anyone who is aware that a crime has been committed can report it. It is not essential for them to have been personally affected by the crime. Since 2011 the same procedure has been followed in criminal cases in every canton. The police investigate what has happened. At the end of the investigation, the public prosecutor's office that has jurisdiction over the case decides whether there is enough evidence to bring charges. This is what happened with John Terry.

OK...BUT WHAT IS SUAREZ’S LIKELY BAN IF FOUND GUILTY?
He has “previous” and was suspended for seven games for a similar offence while he was an Ajax player which may be a yardstick for our FA. The governing body will be keen that the disciplinary commission ensures any sanction acts as a deterrent.

NO ACTION WAS TAKEN AGAINST JERMAIN DEFOE FOR ALLEGEDLY BITING JAVIER MASCHERANO SEVEN YEARS AGO...
The video evidence, while damning, may not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Defoe bit the Liverpool player. Referee Steve Bennett cautioned Mascherano for a foul on Defoe who reacted, so under the FA regulations the incident was dealt with and they were powerless to take any further action.

BUT IF THE POLICE...
This is unlikely especially as Ivanovic told Merseyside Police he does not wish to make a complaint. But still a possibility.

ALL RIGHT, BUT DUNCAN FERGUSON WAS GIVEN A THREE-MONTH JAIL SENTENCE AFTER HEAD-BUTTING JOHN McSTAY OF RAITH ROVERS WHEN HE WAS WITH RANGERS...
Ferguson was neither sent-off nor cautioned for the offence by the match referee. However, the Scottish Football Association took action after viewing a video recording of the assault. The striker was on probation for a previous offence at the time of his latest indiscretion which broke the terms of his bail.

LIVERPOOL HAVE FINED SUAREZ “AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT” – WHY DON’T THEY MAKE IT PUBLIC?
Football still operates in a secret world and many feel supporters, who are told by clubs how important they are, should not be kept in the dark. Under Professional Footballers Association rules a two-week fine is the maximum apart from exceptional circumstances.

HOW EXCEPTIONAL DOES IT HAVE TO BE?
Manchester City wanted to fine Carlos Tevez four weeks’ wages after he was found guilty of five breaches of contract after refusing to warm up against Bayern Munich. The PFA refused to back the four-week fine and City, who were not best pleased, had to reduce it to two weeks.

VOTING FOR THE FOOTBALL WRITERS’ ASSOCIATION’S FOOTBALLER OF THE YEAR OPENS ON APRIL 25. DOES LUIS SUAREZ HAVE ANY CHANCE OF WINNING THE AWARD NOW?
It will make for a lively discussion at the FWALive event later that day.

http://www.footballwriters.co.uk/news/luis-suarez-what-could-happen-to-the-liverpool-striker/

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

He's obviously got some issues, he let out all his frustrations on Ivanovic because he was the closest to him and he's was not getting a lot of luck yesterday, probably added to the mini dry spell he was on IMO.

I don't by into the stuff that has been on the radio, that he bit him because he wants out! Not for a second, there was too much emotion in it for me he well and truly burst and released his frustration.

But if he changed his game would probably lose something, crazy man at times, genius for the majority.

[Lee]

Did I read earlier that the FA are meeting today to discuss what action they're going to take?

[Alex]

Yes you did, Lee.

[Lee]

Yes you did, Lee.

Whatever the outcome let's just hope it's dealt with quickly.

The club have acted well throughout this. Hopefully Suarez will be punished (for want of a better phrase) before the weekend and we can then get on with the rest of the season.

[Sarb]

Well surely that just means you pay him no attention.

I agree, I couldn't give a flying **** what Rio says or thinks, but I would defend his right to have an opinion and give it if he wants. Smashing someone in the head is undoubtedly a c*nts trick, and if Suarez had been around at the time (and indeed if ****ter was too) then his own indiscretions wouldn't automatically bar him from commenting on Rio imo. But the same thing works in reverse too.

Ultimately the fault does not lie with any of these self-serving media whores, journalists or anyone else for this incident. If Suarez hadn't been suck a cock then none of this would be happening. Nobody else is at fault, and by doing what he did he has opened to floodgates for every person with an agenda, or not, to comment. If we as fans want to support him then we will just have to put up with it. Simple as that imo.

I agree with what you're saying. This is all on Suarez. I said at the time he is a total idiot for what he did. He has some serious issues. A world class player but nowhere near a world class temprament. It's the club, the fans that suffer. We back him daily on twitter etc and slate journo's who have a go at him. He then goes and does something like this. I hope there is some serious work done on his discipline in the coming few months as he is in the last chance saloon now with the club I believe.

Of course everyone has a right to an opinion. I just find blatant hypocrisy extremely annoying. If it was me and say I'd missed a drugs test, had a near escape over a ban for doing a sly attack on someone, I'd have a bit of shame and not stick the boot in on others. Maybe that's just me.

[dom9]

http://www.footballwriters.co.uk/new...rpool-striker/

Interesting, but this bit is wrong on 2 counts:

NO ACTION WAS TAKEN AGAINST JERMAIN DEFOE FOR ALLEGEDLY BITING JAVIER MASCHERANO SEVEN YEARS AGO...
The video evidence, while damning, may not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Defoe bit the Liverpool player. Referee Steve Bennett cautioned Mascherano for a foul on Defoe who reacted, so under the FA regulations the incident was dealt with and they were powerless to take any further action.

Mascherano was playing for West Ham, no?

The FA operate on a lower burden of proof than ' guilt beyond reasonable doubt'.

[Scratch]

No point in the club giving him a 4 match ban, as the FA would see this as an easy out for us, it being the end of season and nothing to play for.

Much easier for the club to wait and seee what happens in this case. We've publically apologised, player has been reprimanded and fined and that is all we need to do for now.

[Chazza]

Interesting, but this bit is wrong on 2 counts:



Mascherano was playing for West Ham, no?

The FA operate on a lower burden of proof than ' guilt beyond reasonable doubt'.

Correct.

[Bender]

ta.

a bit quick for you, mate

so many haters

[Sarb]

No point in the club giving him a 4 match ban, as the FA would see this as an easy out for us, it being the end of season and nothing to play for.

Much easier for the club to wait and seee what happens in this case. We've publically apologised, player has been reprimanded and fined and that is all we need to do for now.

Knowing the FA, we'd suspend Suarez for 4 games and they'd stick 8 on top. Think the club have come out of it pretty well. May as well wait for the FA now and then take the punishment

[Bender]

imo the club doesn't come out of this in any good way at all

[McDermotX]