Luis Suárez

[baitman]

some good points, Brooklyn Red.
it would be nice for the PFA to ask/insist on better guidelines wrt offences/bans so there is a clear, level playing field.
this will help prevent "agenda's" from some dodgy people on the panel who might be social friends of dbf or others.
we also need to have this whole grey area of retrospective punishment standardised. too vague and open to abuse. i dont want to see some **** escape serious punishment for a leg breaker [or similar] just because the ref gives a yellow or red.

[Shackanory]

Don't be silly on the PFA. All they have ever done is put the boot in on Suarez constantly. Pretty pathetic organisation

Atleast Kick It Out seem to be supporting him...sort of.

"Kick It Out chairman Lord Herman Ouseley has suggested the independent panel who decided on Liverpool striker Luis Suarez's 10-match ban were influenced by comments from Prime Minister David Cameron.

The 26-year-old was handed the lengthy suspension for biting Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic during a match on Sunday, but the decision has been criticised for being inconsistent with past punishments.

And Lord Ouseley has indicated Cameron's call to make an example of the Uruguayan may have influenced the commission, while insisting he could have instead pressured the FA to be clearer on this kind of issue.

"It's an independent commission that the FA appoint," he told the Mirror.

"Isn't justice supposed to be administered through proper process? Without the Prime Minister being involved? Without the most senior politician in the country trying to *influence the outcome of what should be an *independent process?

"What the Prime Minister could and should have been saying was that the Football Association have a responsibility to sort out these matters, so that there is a clear process where everyone understands what the penalties are."

Lord Ouseley then compared the Suarez case with Blues defender John Terry's criminal case and FA charge for racial abuse, where the England international was acquitted by the courts, but banned for four games by English football's governing body.

Ouseley insists Cameron was quiet on the issue, adding: "I didn't hear the Prime Minister intervene in John Terry's case, saying: 'The captain of England has shamed England'."

The Kick It Out chairman then added his own support to recent calls for a clear set of rules and punishments for different offences.

"You have got to have a tariff," he said.

"It is a ludicrous *situation, because if you've committed an offence – let's say it's the Suarez one and you've bitten someone – you should know that this is going to be a specific sentence, if found guilty."

[Sarb]

Atleast Kick It Out seem to be supporting him...sort of.

"Kick It Out chairman Lord Herman Ouseley has suggested the independent panel who decided on Liverpool striker Luis Suarez's 10-match ban were influenced by comments from Prime Minister David Cameron.

The 26-year-old was handed the lengthy suspension for biting Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic during a match on Sunday, but the decision has been criticised for being inconsistent with past punishments.

And Lord Ouseley has indicated Cameron's call to make an example of the Uruguayan may have influenced the commission, while insisting he could have instead pressured the FA to be clearer on this kind of issue.

"It's an independent commission that the FA appoint," he told the Mirror.

"Isn't justice supposed to be administered through proper process? Without the Prime Minister being involved? Without the most senior politician in the country trying to *influence the outcome of what should be an *independent process?

"What the Prime Minister could and should have been saying was that the Football Association have a responsibility to sort out these matters, so that there is a clear process where everyone understands what the penalties are."

Lord Ouseley then compared the Suarez case with Blues defender John Terry's criminal case and FA charge for racial abuse, where the England international was acquitted by the courts, but banned for four games by English football's governing body.

Ouseley insists Cameron was quiet on the issue, adding: "I didn't hear the Prime Minister intervene in John Terry's case, saying: 'The captain of England has shamed England'."

The Kick It Out chairman then added his own support to recent calls for a clear set of rules and punishments for different offences.

"You have got to have a tariff," he said.

"It is a ludicrous *situation, because if you've committed an offence – let's say it's the Suarez one and you've bitten someone – you should know that this is going to be a specific sentence, if found guilty."

Kick it Out is only really supporting him due to the ban being more than racism, so it totally undermines the fight against racism. Ouseley is right though, but I have little time for any of these organisations/groups (FA, PFA, Kick it Out). They're all comprised of self-serving pricks who do nothing to look after the people they are supposed to represent

Rodgers is right. Suarez has been punished. No consideration of rehabilitation. And nothing independent about this whole process

[JohnDoe]

Completely disproportionate, xenophobic decision.

[Vermilion]

Luis Suárez ban absurd and unfair, says Liverpool's Pepe Reina.

http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=2630956#post2630956

[Shackanory]

If I didn't know better, I'd say the FA have **** all over Suarez to make LFC look bad before the IPCC ****s them sideways over Hillsborough. One last dig.
Daft, I know, but it was just a thought I had.

[fah-q]

Rodgers

[Mostar]

My biggest problem isnt the length of the ban its the inconsistencies in the punishments

Same here.

There is no denying that he deserved the ban but to base the punishment primarily on who committed the incident rather than incident itself is terrible.

Tony Evans using this for a sly dig again.

Said Rodgers should've given no comment basically.

He is a bitter prick.

He takes digs at LFC and Rodgers at any chance he gets.

Some fan..

[cannotmakeit]

some good points, Brooklyn Red.
it would be nice for the PFA to ask/insist on better guidelines wrt offences/bans so there is a clear, level playing field.
this will help prevent "agenda's" from some dodgy people on the panel who might be social friends of dbf or others.
we also need to have this whole grey area of retrospective punishment standardised. too vague and open to abuse. i dont want to see some **** escape serious punishment for a leg breaker [or similar] just because the ref gives a yellow or red.

you can forget the PFA being on the players side. he is sticking his boot in!

Luis Suarez bite: 10-match ban does not indicate biting is more serious than racism insists PFA chief Gordon Taylor
The Liverpool striker was banned for eight games after abusing Patrice Evra
Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor insists the 10-match ban handed out to Luis Suarez yesterday does not indicate biting is more serious than racial abuse.

Suarez was suspended for eight games last season when an independent disciplinary panel found the Liverpool striker guilty of abusing Patrice Evra at Anfield in October 2011.

The fact Suarez received a greater sanction for sinking his teeth into Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic on Sunday has raised an eyebrow in some quarters.

However, Taylor does not feel the two cases are linked.

"I think if there was any more racist abuse the tariff would increase," said Taylor.

"It is not easy to get justice right. (Suarez) got seven (for biting in Holland), eight (for Evra) and now 10.

"There has been a divided opinion. For some people it is not enough, others think it is too much.

"I take the view if there are points being made on both sides the balance is probably right.

"I actually feel there was needed to be more encouragement for the player to improve his behaviour and maybe the ban could have been longer, say 12 matches, with some of it suspended.

"I don't think there is a suggestion the FA think biting is more serious than racial abuse."

Liverpool will consider the written reasons behind the verdict before deciding whether to appeal against a punishment that, as it stands, rules Suarez out of action until the back end of September.

Taylor is unconvinced by the Reds' present annoyance at the severity of the punishment. However, he is in a tricky position as well given Suarez is one of six contenders to win the PFA Footballer of the Year prize on Sunday and is strongly fancied to be included in the Team of the Year.

"The vote was made by the players and the first criteria is footballing ability," said Taylor.

"This was not normal behaviour.

"Luis Suarez is a great footballer. The job for everybody, not just Liverpool but the PFA, Premier League and FA is to make sure, along the way, we see the right pattern of behaviour.

"Sometimes bad behaviour is excused by intensity. But as so many top players have shown, that doesn't have to be the case.

"If you have bad discipline and you get disciplined for it, that just leads to more frustration. It doesn't help anyone."

Taylor has already offered a course of anger management for Suarez. He certainly does not think a move away from the Premier League would be an answer to the problem.

"There has been all this talk about whether the boy will stay or go but it is something he has to deal with because the ban could be applied in other countries as well," he said.

"I can't see anywhere that would regard this as acceptable."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...r-8587845.html

[RedAndWhite]

Suarez should sue the PFA for not representing him correctly (and for being cunts) - might make them think about who they are supposed to be representing.

[Snigger]

The song Gordon is a moron springs to mind, how many days ban did John Terry get for racist abuse?

[Gibbo]

The song Gordon is a moron springs to mind, how many days ban did John Terry get for racist abuse?

He got 4 matches.

[Neil Young]

Gordon Taylor has no credibility. He could have done something about the way the NOTW pried into the lives of the people he supposedly represents but instead went for a big payday for himself.

[kingfunk]

Any linkys to BR's PC in full?

[Neil Young]

I'm not making any sweeping statements. I'm pointing out how farcical the media reporting is.

Jesus, I take a few months break from this place and nothing changes. Everybody reads anything and everything into every word you say unless you write like a mathematician!

You're far from alone in thinking that.

Brendan might shoot up...

Shocking rumourmongering.

After a day to reflect on this, I feel the PFA should actually step in and sue the FA on behalf of Suarez. I think that the arbitrary nature of this punishment (and of all punishments) is something against which the PFA should fight as all players should have a clear set of standards and disciplinary guidelines so that they can operate on the pitch with certainty and make decisions that impact their careers with an understanding of the consequences.

If the PFA looks at the largest bans in English history, you can see clearly that there is no standard by which the players can operate (other than don't do something stupid). That environment gives the FA leverage to make arbitrary, personal bans that violate the standards of objectivity in discipline. This includes performance enhancing drugs, testing, discipline, etc. Without PFA representation in this process, the representatives of the "owners" stand alone and players have no voice in the game's disciplinary structure.

The rules of football are strange; the players union has nowhere near enough power in my opinion. The PFA should be involved in more than money and when they see one of their members treated this way, they should step in without hesitation.

I'm not sure the club can take legal action against the FA without serious consequences such as the possibility of suspension. It certainly was a grey area legally. I have a vague recollection that the principle may have been tested in the courts but I could be imagining that.