King Jela 20,361 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 10 games. Outstanding! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather 71,874 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Why are Liverpool 'shocked' and 'dissapoined'?Did they not know he got 7 games before the first time he bit someone on the pitch?Idiots. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Jela 20,361 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Shawcross breaks a leg, 3 games. Suarez = 10 games. A bit of a joke.Meh. The Shawcross tackle was fair. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather 71,874 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Suarez could have passed HIV to another human being...disgusting tbh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatPirateHooker 141 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Suarez could have passed HIV to another human being...disgusting tbh.Except he doesn't have HIV and didn't break the skin...10 match ban is about right imo. Right wee twat of a human being. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather 71,874 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Except he doesn't have HIV and didn't break the skin...10 match ban is about right imo. Right wee twat of a human being.He broke the skin alright, as for HIV who knows, but he looks ill to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 What was wrong with the Shawcross tackle? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 10 games sounds right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.E.C. 18,759 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 2 games less for racism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs1982 22 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Ben Thatcher only got an 8 game ban for nearly decapitating Pedro Mendes. The FA just seem to pluck random numbers out of the air when it comes to bans. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnymate1690 624 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Last page Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Shawcross breaks a leg, 3 games. Suarez = 10 games. A bit of a joke.Shawcross played the ball. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.E.C. 18,759 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I can see this getting appealed. It'll probably be decreased to 7 - same length as his Ajax ban. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FernandoR20 2,133 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Ivanovic should of been banned instead, for putting his arm into Suarez's teeth! Could of knocked his teeth out!Disgrace. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGM_72 3,631 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Ivanovic should of been banned instead, for putting his arm into Suarez's teeth! Could of knocked his teeth out!Disgrace.Must be hard for defenders to avoid latching their arms onto that set of gnashers anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Well if he got 7 the first time in Holland and he aint learned then he should hardly get less this time round should he?Not to mention the fact he is a prolific offender on the football pitch.Did you not realise that offences under another association are irrelevant? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather 71,874 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I can see this getting appealed. It'll probably be decreased to 7 - same length as his Ajax ban.Why would he get the same length ban that he got before?Should he not recieve more since he has commited the same offence yet again while having a very poor record overall? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather 71,874 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Did you not realise that offences under another association are irrelevant?It will obviously come into their thinking... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKingObv 10,642 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 It will obviously come into their thinking...No, it shouldn't, and if it has, that is a clear reason why Liverpool are entitled to appeal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.E.C. 18,759 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Why would he get the same length ban that he got before?Should he not recieve more since he has commited the same offence yet again while having a very poor record overall?If it happened in Holland again, yes it should be increased. Playing in another league is no excuse for him though. Overall, the ban is definitely justified, however the FA must be questioned regarding the bannings they are dishing out for seperate incidents, I.e. Racism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather 71,874 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 No, it shouldn't, and if it has, that is a clear reason why Liverpool are entitled to appeal.Why? He has a poor record in this country never mind his antics at other levels.Do you not agree with the ban? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather 71,874 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 If it happened in Holland again, yes it should be increased. Playing in another league is no excuse for him though. Overall, the ban is definitely justified, however the FA must be questioned regarding the bannings they are dishing out for seperate incidents, I.e. Racism.I agree.The racism issue is handeled very poorly. They will look at what he has done in this country and think he's not learned his lesson thus the 10 game ban which is 100% correct imo.I also think right or wrong they will have been aware of his antics in Holland and with the International team and think he's clearly not bothered about his actions. His football ability is top quality but he is a thug on the park and deserves everything he gets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Why? He has a poor record in this country never mind his antics at other levels.Do you not agree with the ban?Your original thoughts were that he deserved ten games because of his previous five match ban from the Dutch FA, plus his previous disciplinary in England. If that was the reasoning behind it, the FA were wrong.I think it's incredibly harsh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I can see this getting appealed. It'll probably be decreased to 7 - same length as his Ajax ban.The Dutch FA hit him with five games after Ajax gave him two. In Holland the clubs are first to mete out punishments for poor discipline. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.