Well Liverpool, or rather Luis Suare is not going to appeal against his 10 game ban. Is the ban fair, or is it harsh? The debates have been raging long and hard since the incident first happened. There is no doubt that what Suarez did was stupid, but a 10 game ban? I don’t think so. As many have said, the FA have punished the player and not the incident.
Myjoyonline.comLiverpool FC forum: 10-game ban for Luis Suarez – harsh…or fair? LFC fans splitLiverpool EchoNOT surprised at a 10-game ban for Suarez considering he got a seven-match ban from the Dutch FA. He is a great star for LFC but a great lia …
Just like in the “racism” charge, Suarez seems to be singled out for special treatment by the FA. The article below suggests that there is no Liverpool conspiracy going on at the FA, but there is plenty to suggest that there is a Suarez vendetta going on though. Luis Suarez got 8 games for the “racism” charge although not proven guilty, while London club captain and England international John Terry got a four game ban despite clearly being caught bellowing a really despicable and clearly racist rant at Anton Ferdinand.
What Suarez did last Sunday was bad of course, but was what he did that much worse than Jermaine Defoe when he bit Javier Mascherano. Defoe got a yellow card, Suarez a 10 game ban.
BBC SportLiverpool boss: Suarez rap ‘difficult to understand’ after Spurs ace escaped …London24Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers says it is difficult for Luis Suarez to understand the severity of his 10-match ban for biting when Tottenham’s Jermain …
Suarez is not the only player to bite a opponent, Jermaine Defoe was booked for biting Javier Mascherano in the arm a while back.
When you see the two incidents it seems more and more clear that there is one rule for Suarez and a different rule for another, especially if, dare I say the other guilty party plays for England. Shouldn’t the FA step down from their ivory tower and fully explain why one player gets 10 games while another just another a yellow card. No doubt, because the referee, Steven Bennett, in the Tottenham game versus West Ham actually gave Defoe a yellow which meant that because the referee saw the incident and issued a yellow card, there is no need for any retrospective action.
That is a silly rule in itself is daft. What exactly did Bennett give the yellow card for? Was it because he saw the bite or was it because he saw the original tackle and the following “afters” and chose to give them both a yellow. It may not have been for the bite.
There is no way of knowing whether or not the FA would have punished Defoe if he did not get a yellow, but without knowing what the yellow was for, it would seem that no matter what it is given for any other indescretions are covered by this all encompassing card.
Just hope that we still see Suarez at the Fields Of Anfield Road next season and for many more after as well.