Topic: FA charge Luis Suarez

[thekremlin]

Just been on Sky News. FA have formally charged Suarez with violent conduct and consider that if he's found guilty the standard 3 game ban will be insufficient for the offence.

Now there's a surprise.

[Red Eyed]

Can't complain.

edit: unless it is increased... misread that

[MolbyLovesGravlax]

24th of April. Sky better get the cocaine in to get all their parade of experts ready for 48 hour wall to wall coverage...

[S7ARZ]

The FA has charged Liverpool forward Luis Suarez with violent conduct.

The charge follows an incident with Chelsea’s Branislav Ivanovic in yesterday’s fixture at Anfield [21 April 2013].

The incident was not seen by the match officials and has therefore been retrospectively reviewed

It is alleged that the conduct of Suarez constitutes violent conduct and it is The FA’s contention that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances.

Suarez has until 6pm on Tuesday 23 April to respond to the charge, thereafter an Independent Regulatory Commission will be convened this Wednesday, 24 April.

http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/luis-suarez-charge-liverpool-chelsea-ivanovic.aspx#bhjkaviSWcGgGYbQ.99

[Feorax]

Apparently hearing set for the 24th April. Why bother? We aren't going to contest it and the FA won't give a shit about any mitigation. Just let us know the number of matches and be done with it.

[Didi_ram]

So what are we looking at ?
5-6 games maybe ? More ?
He aint playing this season, that's sure.

[Melbred]

Out for the season should be sufficient. Knowing them though, they'll drag in onto the new season.

[thekremlin]

Shall we start a sweepstake? I'll go for 6 games.

[cox3100]

not surprised really,the way the media have been pushing this it was inevitable.

can see them really going to town with this,wouldnt be surpised to be 10 games +,after all this is the spineless inept fucking English FA.


saw some c*nt on sky news earlier saying he should be banned until he until he has shown he has grown up(or something similar)

[Barefoot Doctor]

Out for the season should be sufficient. Knowing them though, they'll drag in onto the new season.

Think it'll go into the first few matches of next season, and deservedly so.

[DefJack]

In what way is a bite that leaves no mark worse than a potential leg breaking challenge.

If it's anymore than 3 games we should contest it, the FA shouldn't be basing sentences on the amount of hyperbolic vitriolic media attention the incident receives.

[Upinsmoke]

They'll drag it into next season in the hope it will force us into selling him.

[Melbred]

I'm guessing 8 games, they would just love for us to have another shit start to the season.

[JohnHobbes]

Apparently hearing set for the 24th April. Why bother? We aren't going to contest it and the FA won't give a shit about any mitigation. Just let us know the number of matches and be done with it.

As I posted on the other thread, Fellaini apologising (immediately) after the game meant that him violently attacking opponents three times was only worthy of a three game ban. So Suarez apologising immediately better mean they also give him a reduced sentence or they're taking the piss.

No surprise they've done this quickly, they want to make a big deal of it. They just better not give him a unduly harsh sentence as part of that PR campaign.

[G8S7]

3 Matches ban and in worst case add one match. But remeber it's Suarez.

[rob1408]

Inevitable really, I'm not a fan of the FA but they didn't really have much choice.  Eight games is my bet.

[cox3100]

Shall we start a sweepstake? I'll go for 6 games.

double that and you might be about right with these c*nts

[DefJack]

Think it'll go into the first few matches of next season, and deservedly so.

Why would a ban like that be deserved, anything over the three games should be based purely on the injury inflicted, as was the case of Thatcher/mendes.

Anything over 3-4 games is a joke

[Eeyore]

Appeal and let him munch on some toffees in a fortnight.

[MolbyLovesGravlax]

Out for the season should be sufficient. Knowing them though, they'll drag in onto the new season.

I'd expect to start next season without him. Hopefully we buy well in the summer and have a team and a style to get wins without Suarez, so he is more of a cherry on top, rather than the flour, the eggs and the sugar. Imagine how great it would be if we are actually trying to work out who we would need to drop after a few wins to fit him back in.

[Mercer]

I'd snatch their hand off for a 3 game ban.

I.d say it's more than likely going to be 5, maybe 6.

[ashleyrose-66]

Just wondering why this...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ypPMMvc33FY?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ypPMMvc33FY?fs=1</a>


Was deemed worthy of a 3 match ban by The FA, and yet the Suarez incident is deemed far worse and a 3 match ban would be insignificant?

I'm not defending Suarez, he deserves a ban for what he did yesterday, but I cannot understand The FA's angle on it based on the numerous incidents above.  And that's just one example.

[Armand9]

The FA has charged Liverpool forward Luis Suarez with violent conduct.

The charge follows an incident with Chelsea’s Branislav Ivanovic in yesterday’s fixture at Anfield [21 April 2013].

The incident was not seen by the match officials and has therefore been retrospectively reviewed

It is alleged that the conduct of Suarez constitutes violent conduct and it is The FA’s contention that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances.

Suarez has until 6pm on Tuesday 23 April to respond to the charge, thereafter an Independent Regulatory Commission will be convened this Wednesday, 24 April.

http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/luis-suarez-charge-liverpool-chelsea-ivanovic.aspx#bhjkaviSWcGgGYbQ.99

I'm gonna repost what I said earlier as it seems pertinent:


22nd Oct 2006 Defoe bites a player - receives YELLOW card
23rd Oct 2006 FA no retrospective action as ref has dealt with it and FA do NOT see the case as exceptional
15th November 2006 England friendly against Holland, Defoe on the bench

The FA has clearly demonstrated in this case that they view the biting of a player as non-exceptional violent conduct, refusing to take restrospective action and clearly see no problem with a player guilty of this offence representing the national team within 3 weeks of biting a player.

So I'm fine with Suarez receiving a ban for violent conduct, of course he should, but don't expect me to swallow the FA's bulshit, double-standards and hypocrisy. This is the same governing body, the same laws of the game, exactly the same offence.

What changed? The name of the player.

[TheGOAT]

The FA’s contention that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances.

Suarez has until 6pm on Tuesday 23 April to respond to the charge, thereafter an Independent Regulatory Commission will be convened this Wednesday, 24 April.

Whats the point in giving him time to respond when they've already decided he's getting banned for ages? Horrible c*nts.

[Hazell]

The one time I wish the referee was incompetent and had given him a yellow card or something.

[peelyon]

Am I Over thinking it that they can't get too close to his previous 8 game ban as it might 'devalue' the 'stance' on racism? 

At the moment I'm thinking a long the lines of 6 games.

[Red number seven]

Am expecting no fewer than 6, no more than 8.

Given it's Luis, clearly the FA are more than capable of considering it worse than Paul Davis breaking Glen Cockerill's jaw and equivalent to Cantona twatting a supporter and banning him for months.

We'll see. Personally, I don't believe it is particularly worse than other examples of violent conduct and it should be a 3 matcher. Evidently, it won't be.

[Melbred]

Are the making up the rules as they go along, when they say 3 games won't be sufficient for the offence? Or is it stated as "exceptional circumstances" or something where they will have the power to ban him for as long as they want?

[PowderKeg]

7 games.

One for each tooth mark.

[Pistolero]

4 games...Bitters must be fuckin made up

[Zeb]

6 games, a mandatory defanging and must wear a muzzle in case he gums someone after that. He did wrong, he deserves to be punished and he deserves a bit of help in getting things right so this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Daft sod. Wish we had more like him though.

[Pidalow]

5 match ban minimum imo

[MolbyLovesGravlax]

I'll just recycle my joke from the old thread, earth day and all that...

Hopefully the ban will end in time for him to play in Sterling's testimonial...

[Thog]

I am not excusing Suarez's actions in anyway but anything more than a 4 match ban is a disgrace based on what other players have been sanctioned for similar offences.

[eirwen]

Oh well. Expected.

[Melbred]

If it's at the FA's discretion, they'll use his previous biting offence as a gauge (even though they shouldn't) and will give him at least 8 games.

[Akalasa]

I just hope that the fact that Suarez apologised almost immediately after the match will help to lower the ban a bit. Hoping for 4/5 game ban, expecting 8.

[Gazza-LFC]

Think we should be very prepared for a incredibly long ban, they will make a example of him really wouldn't be surprised if was more than 10.

[Red number seven]

course he should, but don't expect me to swallow the FA's bulshit, double-standards and hypocrisy. This is the same governing body, the same laws of the game, exactly the same offence.

That should come as no surprise. A foreign national with limited English uses the word "negro/-ito" with no evidence gets double the ban of the England captain being caught on camera calling a fellow pro a "f-ing black t-at" with enough evidence to convince the CPS to run with it?

What changed? The name nationality of the player.

...and they have the audacity to call Luis racist!

[finchy1972]

Won't be any less than the 7 he had in holland I reckon