Official 2012/13 Premier League thread

[stokeriño]

Some of the quotes are just utterly bemusing. There seems to be a bit of a mental disconnect that allows people to say "it was atrocious...but to actually punish him? I CALL FARCE!"

Like so:

Liverpool goalkeeper Pepe Reina has told a Spanish radio station that Luis Suarez's 10-match ban for biting Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic is "absurd and unfair" reports the Guardian.

Reina says the Uruguayan striker is being singled out because of his nationality and previous misdemeanours.

"People in England are treating him different because he is Uruguayan; because he has had a previous episode like this," Reina is reported as saying.

"He knows perfectly well that what he did was wrong but a 10-game ban seems to me absurd, out of proportion and unfair. It seems that the people making the decisions have got it in for Luis a little bit."

Pepe...can you hear yourself talk? :-/

[Summers]

It's madness. The nutcase assaulted someone on a football pitch. He's been punished.

End of story.

[Dynamite]

It's worrying when fellow players wheel out the "because he is Uruguayan" line.

[Szumi]

He continues to be a douche on the field. He committed a crime while on the pitch! 10 games is fair. His ban increases as the quantity of his offenses does as well.

Love ya Suarez, but your ban is because you're a terrible human being. Simple as.

[Hobo]

He is right that English football/football media has a pretty pronounced xenophobic streak though.

He just didn't really pick the best way of making it.

Edit: But wouldn't someone elbowing someone in the face or stamping on them or kicking or headbutting or punching also constitute crimes?

Because if Suarez gets a 10 game ban for biting then Robert Huth should get a 10 game ban for stamping on Suarez a few months ago.

That inconstancy is annoying.

[Summers]

He is right that English football/football media has a pretty pronounced xenophobic steak though.

He just didn't really pick the best way of making it.

Mmmm steak.

[brenchill]

He is right that English football/football media has a pretty pronounced xenophobic steak though.

He just didn't really pick the best way of making it.

Should've gone on hunger strike.

[Hobo]

Xenophobic streak.

[stokeriño]

The inconsistency is very annoying. This is why you criticise those who are allowed to get away with it. It is not why you defend those who are found guilty as being "picked on".

[Hobo]

Obviously.

[Crybaby Bunting]

Edit: But wouldn't someone elbowing someone in the face or stamping on them or kicking or headbutting or punching also constitute crimes?

Gentle reminder that elbowing someone in an off the ball situation would probably get a 5-7 match ban anyway.

You're trying to compare the off the ball bite situation to a two men challenging for a ball and one man deciding to smack the other with his elbow "accidentally".

[9 to 5]

It seems it's only Liverpool fans who are arguing the ban is too long.

[Nerf]

Edit: But wouldn't someone elbowing someone in the face or stamping on them or kicking or headbutting or punching also constitute crimes?

Gentle reminder that elbowing someone in an off the ball situation would probably get a 5-7 match ban anyway.

You're trying to compare the off the ball bite situation to a two men challenging for a ball and one man deciding to smack the other with his elbow "accidentally".

What should Fellaini have gotten for his headbutt then?

I'm not arguing the ban is too long, I'm arguing that the FA are inconsistent. Shocking, I know.

[Crybaby Bunting]

In fairness, Suarez would probably have gotten away with this if the media hadn't blown up about it.

But the media blew up about it because of his past reputation which is entirely his own fault.

[brenchill]

The Fellaini double headbutt saga was worse than Saurez's bite, IMO.

[stokeriño]

In fairness, Suarez would probably have gotten away with this if the media hadn't blown up about it.

This seems akin to saying "it may have been blatant, but if we all swear to pretend like nothing's wrong maybe the footage will erase itself."

[Baddar]

About the possible appeal...

Do Liverpool have to state their case by midday tomorrow, or just confirm that they wish to argue the length of the ban?

The general opinion from PL managers on SSN seems to be that it's right that he's been punished, but would like to hear how exactly they came up with 10 games as the ban length.

[Ant]

He had an 8 game ban in Holland for it (rightly or wrongly) so depending on whether they can use past indiscretions in another country to consider length of the ban, the FA are within their right to extend it for a second offense of the same nature.

[DavidMarrio]

It seems it's only Liverpool fans who are arguing the ban is too long.

I've seen some footballers and pundits argue about the ban being too long who aren't affiliated with Liverpool.

About the possible appeal...

Do Liverpool have to state their case by midday tomorrow, or just confirm that they wish to argue the length of the ban?

The general opinion from PL managers on SSN seems to be that it's right that he's been punished, but would like to hear how exactly they came up with 10 games as the ban length.

That's the only thing I'm interested in, supposedly a former FA compliance officer said the fact that Suarez and the club said 3 games would be enough will have went against them and that was one of the factors for coming up with 10 games. Tbh I wouldn't even bother appealing cause they'll just see it as questioning their authority and they'll probably increase the ban. Can't see them going "Yeh maybe 10 was a bit harsh, we'll lower it"

[Matt]

He had an 8 game ban in Holland for it (rightly or wrongly) so depending on whether they can use past indiscretions in another country to consider length of the ban, the FA are within their right to extend it for a second offense of the same nature.

I'm pretty sure they can use whatever they want to justify their ban.