I agree. There is only so much that the club and fans can defend him. We can't tolerate this sort of behaviour that puts him in hot water anymore one more chance and I'd if he blows it I'd say cut our ties.
The "Janet & John" explanation of bizarre FA decisions so that United fans will understand. Number One. Rooney strikes a Wigan Athletic player & escapes any sanction. Number Two. Rooney scores a fantastic goal at Upton Park & then tells a cameraman to F Off & gets a ban. Lets make it clear no Liverpool fan, as far as I can tell, is saying that Suarez should not get a ban because daft & as a loyal that we are we know that what he did was wrong & that he deserves it. But 10 matches has no logic behind it at all. Now prove to me that the FA knows how to construct a boozy night out in a brewery, can pick a credible England manager & organise properly an FA Cup competition? Also convince me that this punishment will have any effect on either the player or the game in general?
How hard is it to comprehend that he already got a 7 match ban, it was always going to be more than that as he obviously didn't learn his lesson the first time round - if anything i think a 3 game extension on what he originally got is quite lenient as they could have simply doubled it as it was the exact same offense. All this witch hunt nonsense is not helping anything and the clubs stance of borderline libel comments about it being xenophobic are nothing short of absurd - unless the comments banging around today are taken out of context I'd expect someone people to get dragged before the FA to elaborate on what they have said and expect bans themselves. The sad thing is yet again Suarez has got the entire club and fans looking absolute tools to everyone outside of the Anfield bubble, how many times can you let him drag your club down before you blame him without looking for excuses?
FA rules are is the ref see's it and acts on it, as you might recall in this case he saw it thought it not worthy of more punishment, then the FA will not also act on it unless they see it as a severe violation. Same rule applies, Ref doesn't hear or witness Rooney swearing into the camera so FA can do something about it and they do banning Rooney for three games. Which is the standard for such a violation. So far the FA have been perfect. Held to their rules and enforced them as they are commissioned to do. Two rationals would work: either given the Tooth Fairy's previous biting incident and seven game ban add another three as a minimum to it you come up with 10 or given Mr. Suarez's 8 game ban last year and the FA feels as if they need to make it more in order to "get his attention" add two to the eight and again you have 10. Until tomorrow we will not know how they came up with 10 but it seems about right given the vile nature of his actions and the 7 and then 8 game bans he has already received. Boozy Nights? Call an escort service not the FA. A Credible England Manager? I think your countries problems are more in a lack of skill rather than poor management. Sorry to bring that bad news to you. Organize a proper FA Cup. Seems to me they do it every year pretty well. Anything that big is going to have a couple minor issues at times. The punishment by itself will not have any effect. The idea is to punish him and therefore the Club is also punished to a degree that the Club helps in his rehabilitation. Something LFC seems to have missed the last time he was banned. Evra lied, t-shirts, he doesn't need to shake hands, etc. didn't send the Tooth Fairy the right message in my opinion. This time they started off well, Luis apologizes, the Club says there is no place for that kind of action at LFC, then the Club goes off the deep end again and says the punishment is too severe! Wake up smell the coffee he BIT A PERSON IN A FIT OF RAGE. He has a MAJOR mental problem that will only be helped if the Club makes it clear he needs help. They can't do like they did in the Evra case and enable him to continue his poor actions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22302801 In the hours after Luis Suarez's bite on Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic, Liverpool looked to have learned the lessons from the public relations shambles that accompanied the Uruguayan's last brush with authority. Liverpool - and then manager Kenny Dalglish - were heavily criticised for their defiance and defence of Suarez following the incident which ended with the striker being fined £40,000 and suspended for eight games after being found guilty of racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra. Play media Rodgers criticises Suarez panel On Sunday, in the aftermath of the 2-2 draw against Chelsea at Anfield, boss Brendan Rodgers and managing director Ian Ayre were swift in their condemnation of Suarez and the player issued a statement expressing his own contrition. Rodgers spoke about Liverpool's "incredible values and ethics" with a warning that no-one was bigger than the club. Those inside Anfield received credit for their quick response. Since then, however, Liverpool's statements have gone into reverse gear to such an extent that the media briefing held by Rodgers on Thursday afternoon ended with Suarez cast in the role of target for Football Association persecution as opposed to someone who had bitten - not for the first time - a fellow professional. Liverpool appear so gripped by fear of losing the 26-year-old that they are now in serious danger of repeating some of the mistakes that damaged their image during the Evra saga while also transforming Suarez into a figure who is bigger than the club. No-one would expect Liverpool to cast the £40m-rated Suarez adrift or fail to offer him any support after he was hit with a 10-match ban. Indeed, Rodgers will have hit plenty of the right notes with some fans and the striker's fellow team-mates. And the idea that Liverpool should sacrifice a world-class player and valuable asset to make a moral point was also a nonsense - which other club in the world would do the same? Controversial Luis Suarez December 2011 - Given eight-match suspension and fined £40,000 for racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra. February 2012 - Refuses to shake hands with Evra at Old Trafford and is described as a "disgrace" by Sir Alex Ferguson. October 2012 - Accused of diving by Stoke manager Tony Pulis. November 2012 - Accused of stamping on Dave Jones by Wigan manager Roberto Martinez. January 2013 - Mansfield chief executive Carolyn Radford says Suarez "stole" their FA Cup tie when he scored after using his hand. April 2013 - Banned for 10 games after biting Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic. But Rodgers' statements were made before seeing the FA's report outlining the reasons for the punishment and it may have been the wiser course to keep his counsel until then. Caution should have been the manager's watchword - but it seems he was unable to toe that line. Rodgers could have scoured the written reasons and mounted his argument based on that information instead of choosing to launch a wide-ranging attack on the suspension handed to Suarez and the processes used in arriving at the decision. Instead, Rodgers almost made it sound like Suarez had been the victim of a plot hatched by the game's establishment rather than a repeat offender who has failed to learn from previous sanctions or curb his excesses by sinking his teeth, without provocation, into Ivanovic's arm. Rodgers said the suspension handed out by the FA for his bite on Ivanovic "is against the man rather than the incident". Here, Liverpool's manager misses the point spectacularly. In this case, the man had to be considered when inflicting the punishment. Suarez has been warned about his future conduct before, but Sunday's shocking incident suggests he is either unwilling or unable to heed that message. "The man" has been involved in too many incidents for his previous history to simply be ignored. If this had been Suarez's first biting offence it would have been bad enough, but Rodgers has to accept that he is a repeat offender. So "the man" must be part of the disciplinary equation. Liverpool, and it is understandable they make this point, recall Jermain Defoe biting Javier Mascherano and escaping a heavy ban. He was booked at the time but the rulebook has moved along since then and today it is certain he would be charged under "exceptional circumstances". Suarez's bite on PSV Eindhoven's Otman Bakkal in 2010 was not part of the deliberations this time but he accepted a seven-game ban without complaint so Rodgers' suggestion that "it could have been 12 - six with six suspended" - was effectively plucked from thin air. Play media Is Suarez's 10-game ban too long? Rodgers also brought culture into the argument as he said: "If you look at South American players they do whatever it takes to win. This is the way they have been brought up. To fight for their lives." This may be the case but not too many South American imports to the Premier League have had to admit their guilt for biting another player - so once again this is a subject Rodgers might have been wise to avoid. Liverpool may yet appeal against the ban - they seem aggrieved enough to do so. It is their right if they feel Suarez has been unjustly treated, but the club and their manager must also tread a fine line between backing the player, who it appears they simply cannot contemplate living without, and turning him into a martyr no matter what offences he commits. It would not have suited our purposes in the media had Rodgers restricted his comments on Thursday and waited to read all the written submissions on the case. It might, however, have suited Liverpool's. I would say that spells it out pretty well. I had forgotten just how much "damage" he has done while in England.
Yeah.. Barrett reporting twice that he is considering going now. Whilst Rodgers said he would find it hard to convince him to stay if he wanted to go after all this which will be blown out of proportion I am sure. It is disappointing as day of the game.. Times did an interview in which he spoke about even wanting to stay for the next 4 years at least and would be with us for sure next year. Personally I don't think he will go this summer at all, manly due to the fact he would have to do the ban anywhere he goes and therefore that will impact the fee we get for him. Plus, we had a lot of 'considering his future' after the Evra incident. He came back and I really doubt he would give in so easily this time to the media circus surrounding him and the crap he will continue to get from opposition fans.
To be fair, today he spoke very well about it. As I said, will be one thing he said which people will jump on. Same story has him saying he hasn't given it a second thought about whether Suarez would be kept and how he is planning with Suarez in mind for next season. Just also said if Luis wants to go it would be hard to blame him, more to go along with the clubs view that the ban was unfair really. Mirror though, run with the headline: 'Luis Suarez ban: "I can understand if he felt he couldn’t carry on" in England says Liverpool boss'
I've only just seen the interview with Brendan Rogers which appears to be on a loop on Sky Sports News, that and the horse doping scandal anyway I had to laugh when he mentioned Suarez being from South America and that they are raised to fight for everything with every inch of their being so to speak, so what? Footballers from East London are probably taught to defend themselves against violence and scum so what is it perfectly rational for them to behave erratically because of their background? I fail to see his point, everyone has control of their actions and it wasn't as if Ivanovic did anything to provoke such action anyway The lack of consistency across the board over various seasons is something to highlight yes of course it is but to say he's disappointed by the ban I find bewildering, he's a guy (Suarez) that's committed offence after offence so of course any independent panel will take into account "the man" because that's who he is, the incident in itself was pretty dire and despite being on the higher end of the duration of ban I can't see how he can defend it. Also didn't the FA come out the other day and say they'd offer him help? Yet Rogers wanted a smaller ban and support - I may be wrong about the FA offering official support I just thought I read about it the other day so feel free to correct Will be interesting to read the report later
That's the thing that baffled me the most, I couldn't quite work out why Suarez did what he did, I'd of maybes understood his actions a bit had he been provoked, not saying that it was right for him to do what he done but he did it unprovoked and was baffling to say the least. Nobody on this earth can defend what he did, it was wrong on many levels. Passion or no passion, you simply can't do what he did.
