Luis Suárez

[pondus]

So what are we going to do? I mean us, not the club?

This! We have shown before that we can influence things.

[chadrtc]

There are number of things in this report that don't bare up to much scrutiny, but the absolute worst is the inference that outrage on twitter and in the press somehow managed to increase the ban.

It was much the same reaction after the Eden Hazard ball boy incident, yet it played absolutely no part in the ruling on that case.

The FA have somehow managed to make a young man who bit a fellow professional without provocation the victim in all this... That's quite impressive in its incompetence.

[Gibbo]

Suarez

[Shackanory]

Alex Ferguson showing sympathy to LFC and slagging off the FA in the process? ****ING HELL.

Sir Alex Ferguson has suggested Liverpool will be glad they did not ban Luis Suárez themselves before the Football Association’s 10-game suspension for the striker, with the Scot claiming the governing body cannot be trusted.

Ferguson pointed to how Eric Cantona was prohibited from playing for nine months by the FA for kicking a Crystal Palace fan in 1995 having allegedly first promised Manchester United that a club ban would suffice.

Speaking before Suárez decided on Friday to accept the 10-match tariff for biting Chelsea’s Branislav Ivanovic, Ferguson said: “I think back to Cantona and I have to say that a nine-month ban doesn’t equate to a 10-match, does it? I can understand how Liverpool are aggrieved at it, I must say that. I keep going back to [Cantona] – the FA done us that day, we would never allow that to happen now. I would never have listened to them in the first place saying that if ‘you make your punishment we’ll be happy’.

“We did that, gave him a four-month ban and then they turned round two or three days [later, and said]: ‘Right, we’re charging him.’ We would never allow that to happen again at this club.”

Asked if this was why Liverpool did not choose to levy their own ban on Suárez, Ferguson said: “I’ll bet they’re glad they didn’t. It didn’t work with us, that’s for sure. David Davies [then the FA's spokesman] promised us that, if we did it, there’d be no more action taken – bloody hell. If you think about it – a nine-month ban, its quite incredible, I still can’t get round that.”

[TheElephantMan]

I was incensed at the way Suarez was treated by the FA amid the accusation of racism by Patrice Evra, it was a total stitch-up by Man United, Evra and the FA. I have much less sympathy this time. The initial reaction was ridiculous and the ten match ban is just stupid when compared with punishment dished out for other incidents. I'm still not convinced that any genuine contact was made between Suarez's gnashers and Ivanovic's arm. Biting is pathetic, it's unbelievably embarrassing. Three year old's bite, what the hell was Suarez thinking? It's difficult to issue an ultimatum to someone who could walk into any other team in the world. I hope he realises what a complete tit he made of himself.

[Leyton388]

I've just read this -

"We took into consideration of Mr Suárez's apology, his personal statement, supporting letter from Mr Brendan Rodgers and the letter from [club secretary] Ms Zoe Ward,"

which is from the FA decision.

If that is all that was submitted on behalf of the player, that is staggering.

The central issue with this case is the proportionality of the punishment. Proportionality is a central feature of sports disciplinary disputes and arguments about proportional punishments are a speciality of a number of sports lawyers. If we didn't use one then that's probably added at least 3 games to the ban.

If that is right someone is seriously incompetent. There is zero chance that Chelsea failed Terry in that respect.

[Leyton388]

Alex Ferguson showing sympathy to LFC and slagging off the FA in the process? ****ING HELL.

So, from the horses mouth, we know how the mancs have got away with stuff no other club has, they fix it up with the fa first! ****ing incredible admission by ginsoak there.

[Myo]

I like the idea of a **** the FA chant

Next home game, i reckon:

EVERYONE wears Suarez on the back of their shirts, whether it's the real kit or
a sticky tape with his name on the back of your shirts/jackets and then on the 7th minute of the match, everyone stand up, turn away from the field, so that his name is plastered all over the cameras for all over the world, and for the whole minute use that chant

why not? since the media is saturated and obsessed with everything he does, let's saturate them with our saturated support

[EwarWoo]

Suarez doesn't deserve that level of support, he needs to learn from his experience not be martyred.

FA are cunts, but Suarez isn't innocent.

[Arn]

Suarez doesn't deserve that level of support, he needs to learn from his experience not be martyred.

FA are cunts, but Suarez isn't innocent.

[dom9]

So, from the horses mouth, we know how the mancs have got away with stuff no other club has, they fix it up with the fa first! ****ing incredible admission by ginsoak there.

Or you could interpret it that they have now taken over the FA themselves by filling the important positions with their own people. Which is what has happened.

[Shaggy]

Chris Bascombe @_ChrisBascombe
Amid all noise, sense of empowerment you give 2 random people (& Brian Talbot) when you call them a ‘Commission’ is absolutely fascinating.

Chris Bascombe @_ChrisBascombe
Judging by report's tone, it’s a title infusing its members with a sense of earnestness a Presbyterian minister might find intimidating.

[BobTheCharmer]

Kenny has written a good article which I saw on the mirrors website.

[Shaggy]

Go on Kenny - although you get the feeling he's holding back. A lot.

Kenny Dalglish on Luis Suarez ban: Why the FA panel bit off more than they could chew

27 Apr 2013 07:30

The football governing body's so-called 'independent regulatory commission' is anything but, writes Kenny Dalglish

Alex Livesey

What Luis Suarez did when he bit Branislav Ivanovic was unacceptable. No one is disputing that.

As far as I am aware, no one at Liverpool Football Club is running away from their responsibilities over that.

The club has said that he was wrong. Luis, himself, has admitted that he was wrong, and they were both right and wise to accept the punishment yesterday.

The issue is clearly in the length of the player’s ban and the fact that the FA’s disciplinary system is a horrible mess.

Let’s start with the fact that the FA said before they had appointed the so-called ‘independent’ regulatory commission that Suarez deserved more than the normal three-game ban.

Well, by saying that, they prejudiced the findings of the commission before it has even begun.

They appointed the people to sit on it and they have told them they are there to give him more than three games.

So those three people know they have to give the player more than three games just to justify their existence.

How ‘independent’ does that make the three-man commission?

I wish the FA would just stop playing with words. Because this panel wasn’t truly independent and to say it was is blatantly misleading.

The FA chooses who sits on it to begin with. Does that make it ‘independent’?

And who sits on it? An ex-player, an FA council member and a lawyer already known to the FA.

So there’s an FA council member on an ‘independent’ FA commission. That’s convenient.

And there’s an ex-player, who would probably like to do more work for the FA. That’s convenient, too.

Are they paid, by the way? Are they paid by the FA? Do they do it for free? I don’t know the answer to those questions but I’d like to know.

The point is that the structure of an FA disciplinary procedure like this is inherently unfair.

If you commit a crime in this country, you get the right for your case to be heard by a jury that has no affiliation or responsibility to the people prosecuting you.

That’s not how the FA works it. In fact, their disciplinary system has now become so confused and riddled with anomalies that it is farcical.

They hide behind excuses about the referee saw it or didn’t see it, punished it or didn’t punish it.

So Jermain Defoe bites Javier Mascherano on the arm and gets a yellow card. Nothing more.

Suarez bites Ivanovic and gets 10 games. Why? Because the referee didn’t see it.

He still spoke to him about something and looked like he was warning him but he didn’t see it.

For the benefit of football in this country, there has got to be greater clarification of the rules and more balance in the way offenders are judged.

The most important thing is not the length of the sentence but how they reach it and that information needs to be made public at the time the punishment is announced. That would have alleviated much of the unnecessary discussion about the ban handed down to Suarez.

The FA has been in need of widespread reform for a long time. The need is getting more and more pressing.

These regulatory commissions have to be independent in more than just name.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/kenny-dalglish-luis-suarez-ban-1855378

[Neil Young]

The parts of it I've read beggar belief. It's got a lot more holes in it than Ivanović's arm.