Official 2012/13 Premier League thread

[Ant]

Aren't Liverpool sorting out the anger management?

[Nerf]

"It would probably be less if it wasn't Suarez and that's fine."

Wow.

[Hobo]

Aren't Liverpool sorting out the anger management?

They are, Dr. Steve Peters the clubs consulting sports psychiatrist will be working with him, but it is possible not every club has somebody on hand to deal with the issues. I don't know, I'm just thinking aloud about how the FA could make these things more effective or less arbitrary sounding.

[Jimmy]

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.

Doing charity as some sort of punishment is so many different types of wrong.

[Hobo]

I was kind of thinking a long the lines of community service type thing. I'm almost certain I've heard of that being a thing before.

[Crybaby Bunting]

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.

I thought the deal was that Suarez was a repeat offender for something that's easily proved, but Terry was a first time offender found guilty on the balance of probability? If Terry says something racist again he'd obviously get a much longer ban the next time around.

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.

At the same time, I don't see how NOT giving a player a long term ban would solve the issue either. There's already a precedent for Suarez biting (7 match ban) and naturally the FA HAD to put their foot down and give him at least that for repeat offending.

And I don't see how it's the FA's job to sort the player out, the FA's job is to punish a player for committing an offense and it's the club's responsibility to make sure he doesn't commit offenses in the first place. Stop passing the blame onto someone else because you don't like how your star player is banned for doing a ridiculous thing that is entirely his own fault.

[Jimmy]

I don't think the FA should be in the business of giving people community service. 10 games works, in my eyes. He bit someone during a football match, he should be banned from football matches, not forced to do something else. 10 games is a little over a quarter of a season, that's a huge amount of time to be banned for and seriously affects the club he loves so much and all of his teammates. If that doesn't teach him not to be a massive twat, then there really is something wrong with him.

[Baddar]

"It would probably be less if it wasn't Suarez and that's fine."

Wow.

I think Matt's reply to that elaborated the point Dan was making there, to be honest.

That, or he just thinks Suarez is a twat.

[Crybaby Bunting]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Haaland play the week after the tackle and eventually retire two years later after an injury to the other knee? I really don't see how that tackle back in 1997 has anything to do with the way the FA punishes players in 2013.

[Dan]

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.

I said it's fine. I agree with it

[Hobo]

What I am suggesting is that ban + something that will go towards actually curtailing the player from behaving like this in future. I'm not saying that the FA should not ban players for committing offenses.

[Crybaby Bunting]

But why would the FA need to do that? It's not their responsibility in the slightest.

Are you honestly suggesting that if Suarez goes out and ends someone's career then it's the FA's fault for not giving him counseling and putting the lives of other players at risk?

[brenchill]

10 games?

Should've been killed.

[Hobo]

They are the governing body of football in England, it should be within their best interests to take actions that will stop players from doing things that will damage the sport.

Handing out punishments is only one part of that and it just means a player will not play football for however long his ban goes on for. It doesn't change a players attitude, or give a pro-active solution to stopping a player from being violent or abusive during the game. To me, it seems within the best interests of the sport for those governing it to be active in trying to make sure that players who offend do not offend again or at least are forced to address underlying issues of why the offended in the first place. A ban is a passive solution solution in and of itself (a ban just means player X cannot play for club Y for Z amount of time, it punishes the players conduct but does it address the root problem if a player makes a racist remark or breaks someones jaw or bites someone to just have them sit out a few games?), if there is perceived deeper problem then the FA should be most interested in managing the problem.

Yes, the club can get a player to do anger management etc (QPR's apparent solution to Joey Barton's ban was 'go play in France' essentially brushing him under the carpet). But it would, to me at least, seem a more powerful statement if the governing body were as interested in solving the issues as to why players do things as it slapping bans on them. To me at least, that seems within their remit as the body in charge of all aspects of football in England.

[Jimmy]

Even if so, I think any attempt to try and stop him doing something like that again should be additional to the 10 match ban, not instead of a few matches here or there.

[Baddar]

Regardless of the 10 game ban being discussed, I'm pretty sure Chelsea fans would like to have their two points and be done with it all.

[stokeriño]

Absolutely.

[Pesci]

I think 10 games is too high. I'd probably give a 5 match ban at most for the offence itself, maybe 3 for being a repeat offender if that's the way they approach these things. But yeah, I won't split hairs over the difference between an 8 game ban and a 10 game ban. I do think it's been blown out of proportion and worse things happen in football on a semi-frequent basis, but meh. Only himself to blame etc etc.

At least it'll put most attractive destinations off ever wanting to take him away from us :/

[Summers]

I still find it hilarious people are claiming him BITING someone on a football field isn't a big deal.

[Hobo]

Up until today it was only a yellow card offense!