Official 2012/13 Premier League thread

[Hobo]

Suarez gets a 10 game ban,

Ian Ayre is "shocked and disappointed" at the length of the ban.

[stokeriño]

10 is what I expected. The FA would not have wanted to give less than the 7 he got last time, for the sake of their own image if nothing else.

[Nerf]

I suppose they had to add a couple of games to make up for the few they forgot to give Fellaini a few months ago...

[Hobo]

I was expecting around 8.

I do have to wonder if the clubs quick actions to fine Suarez, have him publicly apologize and call Ivanovic to apologize were considered at all? I'm not really sure how much just banning someone for 10 games is really addressing the issue though.

I'd tend to agree with this:

@robbohuyton Suarez should be banned. But is it really too much to ask that FA establishes some rules so it doesn't appear every decision is arbitrary?

[Nerf]

They do have to set their precedent that nibbling on someone's arm is worse than racism and headbutting. Dunno why I expected logic from the FA at this point.

[stokeriño]

Why should they be considered?

The punishment is for the act, not an assessment of how swiftly his club's PR machine can shift itself in the aftermath.

(As for precedent, we know the FA is inconsistent as all hell. They want nothing to do with hideous bone crunchings and similar but lap it up the moment an 'unsympathetic' name ala Suarez or Terry pops up to grant them easy point-scoring with the tabloids.)

[DavidMarrio]

I suppose if you take into account "failure to change because of the previous biting incident" which Stokers pointed out then 10 makes sense but I thought 7-8 would have been fair.

I'm sure the FA just pick a random number and go "yeh that'll do". They need to change the way they give out suspensions though because it that is a 10 game ban yet racism is only a 8 game ban then things need to change. But alas we are talking about the FA here.

[Matt]

With any luck that'll be the last we see of the cretin.

[Nerf]

Haven't you used up all your hate on Manchester and Turkey already?

[Starvinho]

10 is absolutely spot on in my opinion. Had to be more than the 7 he got in Holland and another 3 on top on that seemed about right.

[Matt]

I've got some reserved for Suarez. Biting someone is about as low as you can sink, in my book.

[Szumi]

Funny, Matt, I didn't know we were posting in the Football League thread.

All sarcastic jokes aside, yeah the FA is inconsistent, but 10 games seems fair to me. It's a build-up, not just the action. He's had a lot of consistent behavorial issues in his career, and in England. So if it continues, the punishment becomes harsher. Sucks because he's so important to Liverpool, but none of the games will matter for the rest of this season. Suarez needs to stop being a twat if he wants to play. I love him as a player, and I most certainly don't want to see him leave the club, but he must stop being a complete and total fuckhead.

[Dan]

It'd probably less if it wasn't Suarez which is fine imo.

[Ant]

Are the FA allowed to take into consideration past penalties made by different footballing bodies when deciding punishment?

Not having a pop at it. I think it's deserved.

[Dynamite]

I read that Suarez hasn't ever got a red card for Liverpool? Does that make his cumulative ban tally some sort of record? 8 for the racism, 10 for this and I'm sure there's been suspensions for too many yellows or something.

[Hobo]

Why should they be considered?

The punishment is for the act, not an assessment of how swiftly his club's PR machine can shift itself in the aftermath.

(As for precedent, we know the FA is inconsistent as all hell. They want nothing to do with hideous bone crunchings and similar but lap it up the moment an 'unsympathetic' name ala Suarez or Terry pops up to grant them easy point-scoring with the tabloids.)

I think it should be considered because it shows he has been punished by the club and has shown remorse for his actions. Why should those not be considered?

Purely because I think it is interesting these other FA bans were being quoted in my twitter feed:

Joey Barton (12, violent conduct).

David Prutton (10, pushing a referee).

Luis Suarez (10, biting).

Paul Davis (9, breaking another players jaw).

Luis Suarez (8, racism).

John Terry (4, racism).

[Matt]

It'd probably less if it wasn't Suarez which is fine imo.

Of course it would... because other players haven't previously shown themselves to be the epitome of unprofessionalism. If this had been his first offence of any kind, he'd have probably got 5/6 games, but the fact that he's done this before (albeit in another country) and has previously brought the game into disrepute. Much like Barton, he's showing himself to be a habitual offender and he needs to be taught a lesson... a 3 match ban won't do that.

[DavidMarrio]

I'm more mad about the inconsistency of the FA rather then the ban itself thinking about it.

Repeat offence (although I'm not entirely sure the FA are meant to take into account decisions made previously by FA's in other countries), intent and the fact that he has bitten someone which would be violent conduct I can see why its 10.

But when things like Roy Keane admitting to wanting to hurt Haland only getting an 8 game ban (originally only 3 because of violent conduct but an extra 5 because of bringing the game into disrepute), the Suarez racism incident being an 8 game ban, David Prutton getting a 10 game ban for pushing a ref a few years ago. Just makes me question the organisation and its consistency in dealing with incidents.

Again, just pointing out I'm not saying he shouldn't have gotten 10

[stokeriño]

Why should they be considered?

The punishment is for the act, not an assessment of how swiftly his club's PR machine can shift itself in the aftermath.

(As for precedent, we know the FA is inconsistent as all hell. They want nothing to do with hideous bone crunchings and similar but lap it up the moment an 'unsympathetic' name ala Suarez or Terry pops up to grant them easy point-scoring with the tabloids.)

I think it should be considered because it shows he has been punished by the club and has shown remorse for his actions. Why should those not be considered?

A club's decision to fine a player's wages might come into consideration if the FA were going to fine him wages. They weren't, so it's irrelevant. If the club took away his car keys too, ought that to be taken into account? What if they banned him from watching his favourite TV show for a month? Not to mention that thinking along these lines would only serve up further avenues for arbitrary inconsistency in punishments.

And, forgive me for being cynical, but the manner in which virtually all players 'apologise' for misdemeanours these days stinks of Orders From Above ("You will post this on Twitter now and these are the words you shall use") and shouldn't be considered proof of remorse by anyone.

[Hobo]

I don't really see how dishing out lengthy bans alone really solves the issue at hand either. A ban plus some sort of mandatory anger management or charity work or something else that will be of practical benefit to the player.