I guess Suarez's previous doesn't help him.

Maf,

Suarez had already been banned 7 games for the same offence.

Defoe got booked for his bite, i.e. the ref saw it & took action.

Shawcross was going for the ball and isn't the only player to injure a player.

That offence + his history & warnings was always going to = 10 games.

Shawcross made a bad tackle, it certainly wasn't intended to break Ramsey's leg. The Defoe one certainly merited a longer ban.

Wasn't Barton banned for 12 games?
Wasn't Rio given an 8 month ban for missing a drug test?

The FA are a joke and others do get off too lightly.
But Suarez deserved what he got.

I think the whole rule book needs to be completely rewritten with regards to bans and whatnot as there is always bias that creeps in.

Independent panels should be abolished and there should be set lengths of bans for any offence, and every game should be reviewed to find any offences the referee may have missed or midjudged.

For example they'd review the game afterwards, see the bite, and biting would be in a category no matter who does it that merits a five game ban.

The FA should ideally be run, in terms of the disciplining section, by people who have no interest in football.

How many games did Defoe get banned? How many games Shawcross banned for completely ruining a player's career with his lunge
===

why is everybody so desperate to try and liken the saurez incident to other players and their punishments or lack of?

why can't each case be judged on its own merits?

Meh who cares they do as they please make it up as they go along. They are still making up the list of reasons as we speak from what I gather

And if this "Racist/Xenophobic FA" isn't libellous, i dont know what is.

Wasn't Rio given an 8 month ban for missing a drug test?
-----------------
He did. And Adrian Mutu and Kolo Toure were given shorter bans for actually getting caught taking drugs.

The FA is a racist organisation, though...

What a ridiculous comment TRFC.

There has to be consistency.

Mafia

Good question! Would an Englishman have been dealt with different, I just dont Know.

I think 10 is harsh, i honestly thought the Fa would of followed the Dutch and gone for 7, maybe after the Evra farce when Suarez was warned about his future conduct played apart.

Kolo Toure took diet pills, lets get that straight and Mutu had nothing to do with English football.

Correction about Mutu I didn't realise that happened at Chelsea.

Wasn't Barton banned for 12 games?
--

He publicly said, he was deliberately trying to get a player which can be prosecuted in courts let alone playing field. If any other foreigner done that he would have banned for two years by FA?

Rio? I have seen druggies got done for years and sued...That ex-Chelsea player is an example.

10 game ban sounds right to me, I think that is a sensible decision

Do you think if there was an English in Suarez's place -......... sorry but what does that actually mean??

You're saying they are racist & then asking why Defoe didnt get banned..are you okay ?

What a ridiculous comment TRFC.

There has to be consistency.
======

In law each case is judged on its own merits with a range of punishments available dependent on the severity of the crime.

Are you saying the FA should be different in how they view things?

The FA clearly thought this was an exceptional case to the violent conduct standard 3 game ban and given his previous for the same offence are you surprised at the length of the ban?

Mutu had nothing to do with English football.
----------
Other than the fact that he was employed by an English club?

Of course, this has no relevance at all with the Suarez incident. I just wanted to back up the evidence that the FA is not racist or xenophobic, as they have dished out punishments of severity to their own. Ferdinand, at the time, being one of the best defenders on the planet.

Suarez has been banned, and a good precedent has been set. In the future, I expect and hope that biting incidents receive the same consequences.

Ah, my apologies Fred. Didn't see your comment.

Same old same old with the FA which is why Suarez only has himself to blame imo. He of all people should know how poor the FA is and how bad the media is he does himself no favours. And tbh we can all cry about the FA they will not change even if you win in court they do as they please. But it won't be the last time they screw a player/club over either I just hope we have well a truly learnt our lesson as a club and especially Suarez as a player if hes to remain.

Who is this yeah yeah guy? Asking stupid questions to the OP? stick to the subject idiot..

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Jonjo,

He of all people should know how poor the FA is and how bad the media is he does himself no favours.

=====================

So now its the FA's fault for being so poor that Suarez cant get a lighter ban for biting an opponent?

Bloody hell, i've heard it all now....

PS. If Suarez doesn't bite anyone, the poor FA cannot intervene. Have you ever thought of that?

Referees should review it.

What I'm saying is an independent panel shouldn't decide a ban length, there should be strict rules and regulation and guidelines to adhere to.