Luis Suárez

[Shackanory]

We, however, agreed that this incident had been seen by millions of viewers both domestic and overseas, as well as generating a great deal of interest and debate amongst countless number of people. We agreed that the images of the incident are truly shocking and, whilst we accepted that Mr Suarez’s reputation had been impacted, these unsavoury images would have given a bad image of English football domestically and across the world alike.

So they care more about the image of English football than actually paying attention to whether a player deserves such a ridiculous ban.

[ChesterDave]

61. The FA stated that such an incident has a deleterious effect on the image of the
game of football in this country. It serves to undermine the integrity and
reputation of the sport. Furthermore Mr Suarez’s conduct has damaged the
image of English football across the globe.
62. Mr Suarez contended that, whilst not seeking to diminish his own actions, it is
his reputation that has been damaged. The incident was not the type, which
calls into question the wider reputation of football as most reasonable observers
would have concluded that the fault for the incident lies solely with Mr Suarez
and not the football authorities or governing bodies.

Suarez being reasonable, FA being drama queens

[Aj34]

57. We disagreed with Mr Suarez that this factor is not applicable for us to consider
in this case. We agreed that the incidents of biting an opponent in football are
very rare at the moment and, because of this situation, we need to ensure that it
will remain so. We have the responsibility for the whole game of football in
England, down to the youth football at grassroots level. We believe it is our
duty to discourage any players at any level from acting in such a deplorable
manner or attempting to copy what they had seen on the television


So standard suspensions are not enough for kicks, or elbows or headbutts and from now on will all be given 10 game bans?

They have to give 10 game bans from now then don't they ??

[ChesterDave]

83. Taking these factors into account on the circumstances of the incident, we
concluded that this offence is significantly more serious than that of Ashley
Barnes’ and, accordingly, the punishment should be significantly higher.

YOU JUST SAID YOU CANNOT CONSIDER OTHER INCIDENTS YOU CUNTING DISEASED ****MONKEYS

[Shackanory]

In response to the submission by Mr Suarez, we were in agreement that there have only ever been two previous cases where a Regulatory Commission had been satisfied that an incident on the field of play was truly exceptional when considering a potential increase in sanction. We believe it shows that the Regulatory Commissions do very carefully consider such claims made by The FA that standard punishment is clearly insufficient.

Independent Commission my ****ing arse.

[The_weatherman]

I do find it interesting that the FA are willing to put themselves into a similar situation as with "the racism" case. They are inviting massive pressure onto themselves now and the next time a big club player does something wrong in the heat of the moment will be interesting.

Also regarding the image of english football, how come Suarez only received one match ban for flicking the finger then? Surely that's also harming the image of football? Or when Ferguson lost it the other day towards the refs? Or Giggs shagging his sister in law? They are truly losing the plot IMO.

There will a incident soon where we will be drawing similarities (maybe not a bite, but an elbow, disrespect to a ref, spitting or something) and that will be interesting.

[BootRoom]

61. The FA stated that such an incident has a deleterious effect on the image of the
game of football in this country. It serves to undermine the integrity and
reputation of the sport. Furthermore Mr Suarez’s conduct has damaged the
image of English football across the globe.
62. Mr Suarez contended that, whilst not seeking to diminish his own actions, it is
his reputation that has been damaged. The incident was not the type, which
calls into question the wider reputation of football as most reasonable observers
would have concluded that the fault for the incident lies solely with Mr Suarez
and not the football authorities or governing bodies.

Suarez being reasonable, FA being drama queens

The FA don't give a flying **** about the "image of the game" when a player lashes out at an opponent whilst on England duty; they go out of their way to get bans reduced.

[The_weatherman]

The FA don't give a flying **** about the "image of the game" when a player lashes out at an opponent whilst on England duty; they go out of their way to get bans reduced.

Or if the England Captain gets done for racism, he gets off easier being captain and all.

[Shackanory]

Here's something. The people the FA picked to be part of the INDEPENDENT panel was chaired by Women's FA Premier League Chairman.
Chaired by their own.

[BootRoom]

I do find it interesting that the FA are willing to put themselves into a similar situation as with "the racism" case. They are inviting massive pressure onto themselves now and the next time a big club player does something wrong in the heat of the moment will be interesting.

Also regarding the image of english football, how come Suarez only received one match ban for flicking the finger then? Surely that's also harming the image of football? Or when Ferguson lost it the other day towards the refs? Or Giggs shagging his sister in law? They are truly losing the plot IMO.

There will a incident soon where we will be drawing similarities (maybe not a bite, but an elbow, disrespect to a ref, spitting or something) and that will be interesting.

They will just weasel out of any comparison with other incidents of violent conduct by saying that biting is such an abhorrent crime that special action needs to be taken. How likely is it that another biting incident will crop up any time soon?

[ChesterDave]

68. As referred to earlier (in 32), Mr Suarez had included the Schedule of Previous
Incidents of Violent Conduct and references to the punishments given but we
are aware that the charges for violent conduct offences cover a wide range of
acts committed by the participants.

69. We also noted that all, but one of the offences cited were physical bodily
contacts, as opposed to biting an opponent as in this case, and the Regulatory
Commissions would have to decide on the facts and merits of each case, and
arrived at the appropriate sanctions at the time.

76. Having considered that the standard punishment is clearly insufficient, we then
went on to deliberate what appropriate level of sanction was to be applied.
77. In this regard, we noted that there were no guidelines or precedence for this
type of incident. However, we were mindful that we need to be concentrating
on the circumstances of this incident and comparable violent conduct offences
as a guide and not be tempted to compare with other dissimilar cases.

80. Another such case was of Ashley Barnes, of Brighton & Hove Albion, who was
charged after tripping the Referee in March 2013 at Brighton & Hove Albion’s
match against Bolton Wanderers. On that occasion, the Regulatory Commission
found that the standard punishment was insufficient and decided to award a
further three-match suspension, making a total of six-match suspension (in
addition to one extra match suspension for his second dismissal of the season)

81. We wished to note that the case of Ben Thatcher, of Manchester City, who was
charged with serious foul play in 2006 against Pedro Mendes, of Portsmouth, as
cited by Mr Suarez is dissimilar to the violent conduct offence we were dealing
with for Mr Suarez and, therefore, did not take it into consideration.

83. Taking these factors into account on the circumstances of the incident, we
concluded that this offence is significantly more serious than that of Ashley
Barnes’ and, accordingly, the punishment should be significantly higher.
~~

So elbowing a player in the face is dissimilar to biting them, but biting someone is similar, but significantly worse than tripping them up.

7 games for a trip. 8 games for knocking someone out and forcing them to spend the night in hospital. 10 games for nibbling and not even breaking the skin.

[The_weatherman]

They will just weasel out of any comparison with other incidents of violent conduct by saying that biting is such an abhorrent crime that special action needs to be taken. How likely is it that another biting incident will crop up any time soon?

I said similar, with this highprofile ban they have set the bar very high. We have even got a few reporters now who are saying this is OTT, I think they are opening a pandora's box and this will have consequences, it usually does when you make judgements with your heart and not the head.

[The_weatherman]

76. Having considered that the standard punishment is clearly insufficient, we then
went on to deliberate what appropriate level of sanction was to be applied.

77. In this regard, we noted that there were no guidelines or precedence for this type of incident. However, we were mindful that we need to be concentrating on the circumstances of this incident and comparable violent conduct offences as a guide and not be tempted to compare with other dissimilar cases.

Is that true? How about that Chester player who Rodgers referred to? He got five games IIRC.

[BootRoom]

68. As referred to earlier (in 32), Mr Suarez had included the Schedule of Previous
Incidents of Violent Conduct and references to the punishments given but we
are aware that the charges for violent conduct offences cover a wide range of
acts committed by the participants.

69. We also noted that all, but one of the offences cited were physical bodily
contacts, as opposed to biting an opponent as in this case, and the Regulatory
Commissions would have to decide on the facts and merits of each case, and
arrived at the appropriate sanctions at the time.

76. Having considered that the standard punishment is clearly insufficient, we then
went on to deliberate what appropriate level of sanction was to be applied.
77. In this regard, we noted that there were no guidelines or precedence for this
type of incident. However, we were mindful that we need to be concentrating
on the circumstances of this incident and comparable violent conduct offences
as a guide and not be tempted to compare with other dissimilar cases.

80. Another such case was of Ashley Barnes, of Brighton & Hove Albion, who was
charged after tripping the Referee in March 2013 at Brighton & Hove Albion’s
match against Bolton Wanderers. On that occasion, the Regulatory Commission
found that the standard punishment was insufficient and decided to award a
further three-match suspension, making a total of six-match suspension (in
addition to one extra match suspension for his second dismissal of the season)

81. We wished to note that the case of Ben Thatcher, of Manchester City, who was
charged with serious foul play in 2006 against Pedro Mendes, of Portsmouth, as
cited by Mr Suarez is dissimilar to the violent conduct offence we were dealing
with for Mr Suarez and, therefore, did not take it into consideration.

83. Taking these factors into account on the circumstances of the incident, we
concluded that this offence is significantly more serious than that of Ashley
Barnes’ and, accordingly, the punishment should be significantly higher.
~~

So elbowing a player in the face is dissimilar to biting them, but biting someone is similar, but significantly worse than tripping them up.

7 games for a trip. 8 games for knocking someone out and forcing them to spend the night in hospital. 10 games for nibbling and not even breaking the skin.

****ing hell this is like a spoof report. Have we actually got a legal team working for us, or is it just Ayre on his todd?

[Rich]

This document confirms the assertion that the FA is completely incompetent.

The Independent Regulatory Commission was made up of the Chairman of The FA Women's Premier League, Cambridgeshire FA Director and allegedly a Fulham scout. How, on earth, is that independent? Independent of whom?

What this document also shows is if you have the audacity to challenge the FA then they’ll make an example of you. Clearly, the FA (some ****ing shadowy entity) was very unhappy with Suarez’s stance that the incident merited the standard 3 game ban.