NYoung

Maybe they felt they shouldnt punish Terry as much as Suarez as the courts found John Terry not guilty. Who know's how they figure out the length of the ban.

--------
The Suarez incident didn't go to court. We all know if it had, he would also of been found not guilty, due to insufficient evidence...

HRH another one of the many who just talks and talks but doesn't actually know anything about the subject he talks about. Read both reports, then come back, until then, stop making stuff up.

I agree the FA have got this wrong, in terms of trying to justify their decision.

But:

1. Please stop using the word exceptional as justification for claiming that Defoe should have faced punishment.

The word exceptional is used to justify the panel's decision to issue a ban of more than the standard punishment.

It does not mean that it justifies bypassing the FA rule on retrospective action regarding a ref seeing the incident.

The Ben Thatcher incident left Mendes unconscious.

I don't like the rule, and I don't particularly like the FA, but they haven't been inconsistent on this. There has, to my knowledge, only been one incident where they have bypassed the rule.

2. Whilst I agree the ten game ban seems inconsistent and 'unfair', I don't like the way this is being turned into a game of how unfair it all is for LFC.

Ultimately, your player behaved appallingly and is being punished. Lets not forget that.

I didn't like listening to Rodgers talking about 'the tough week' they've had, to be honest.

I think most of us agree Defoe should have got a ban.

Most would probably agree that if you have bitten somebody before and do so again you should get a longer ban.

Sound about right?

Just because mistakes were made before, it doesn't mean the right thing shouldn't be done in future.



Samuel using the legal system as a comparison is silly - plenty of crimes get vastly different punishments. Some people with vile images on their PC get off a custodial sentence while some go to prison. Ditto with perjury, perverting the course of justice, manslaughter, all sorts

I dont think ''fan loyalty' will ever allow agreement on these issues. Some of it simply blind logic IMO

For me the bite deserved more and the fact that it was the second time in a career should have been used and even life bans been considered, to say it wasnt was the most ludicrous thing the FA said in this case.

And whereas I would never advocate biting in football I think the defoe incidence is for me different in thta it was an immediate response to a bad tackle by mascherano, a bit like the head to head posturing Whereas I have watched both of luis incidences and they are not an immediate response to a tackle etc just sheer frustration it seems

I honestly think people need to stop saying he should not have got what he did because defoe didnt. If anything he should have too

"The word exceptional is used to justify the panel's decision to issue a ban of more than the standard punishment."

And also for the FA to intervene even if the ref has seen an incident. Please stop asking people to stop using the FA's own rules.

"I didn't like listening to Rodgers talking about 'the tough week' they've had, to be honest."

Of course you didn't, you're a unt. Doesn't mean we haven't had a tough week though. I'm glad it annoyed you.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
HRH another one of the many who just talks and talks but doesn't actually know anything about the subject he talks about. Read both reports, then come back, until then, stop making stuff up.

----------



Are you going to cry?

It's boring seeing all the LFC fans bringing up the Defoe incident time and time again,

comment by HRH King Ledley I (U15236) posted 1 minute ago
I think most of us agree Defoe should have got a ban.

Most would probably agree that if you have bitten somebody before and do so again you should get a longer ban.

Sound about right?
-----------------------------------------
Nearly right. The first bite was in a different country out of the FA's jurisdiction, hence they couldn't use it. They also couldn't use the racial abuse incident, as it was unrelated. Knowing this and Liverpool's chances of a successful appeal had they used it, they decided just to give ten games anyhow. An extra seven games for being a player who plays at the top in front of millions doesn't hold weight for me but that was their feeble excuse.

The point the looters seem to be missing is we aren't discussing whether Terry or Suarez are unts or whether Defoe has a more feeble bite than Suarez.
It's whether the FA are judging players on the whim of a media witchhunt.
The spurs supporters seem to follow the clown Levy in their lack of logic,illustrated by the ridiculous pursuit of the Olympic Stadium and come across equally as disturbed as the human phallus that is Daniel Levy

The FA look at PRIOR events, they look at the bite and the length of the ban as a BASIS for the upcoming ban

And whereas I would never advocate biting in football I think the defoe incidence is for me different in thta it was an immediate response to a bad tackle by mascherano, a bit like the head to head posturing
--

Watch the incident again and talk man..that was a perfect tackle. Mascherano got the ball..

Look at this priiick after the incident he is suggesting he dived..

http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1846095.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Defoe-bites-Javier-Mascherano-1846095.jpg

It's ok to take a chunk of arm if someone tackles in a football match.

Maf, again the ref gave Defoe a yellow, blame the FA not Spurs as a club

Can't condone what Defoe did, it was disgusting,

WHU are no saints when it comes to the fans or the players

Redreason

"And whereas I would never advocate biting in football I think the defoe incidence is for me different in thta it was an immediate response to a bad tackle by mascherano, a bit like the head to head posturing Whereas I have watched both of luis incidences and they are not an immediate response to a tackle etc just sheer frustration it seems"

Ivanovich & Suarez had been going at it the entire match, and even came to blows in the tunnel. This doesn't justify Suarez's actions. Bit compare the reaction to one bad tackle, or an hour of provocation, on both sides.

And it was a foul, tackle from behind is not allowed, he got the ball but the player first

It's boring seeing all the LFC fans bringing up the Defoe incident time and time again,
---
Nothing wrong to bring up that sportsmanship incident..

Nothing wrong to bring up that sportsmanship incident

If you only made sense

WHU are no saints when it comes to the fans or the players
---

Wow, what WHU fans got to do with that priick's disgusting incident..

No one is defending it

Blame the FA for not acting, hence this article is about it not your usual Spurs hating

Thudd

"The FA look at PRIOR events, they look at the bite and the length of the ban as a BASIS for the upcoming ban"

Yet The FA state that they didn't account for Suarez's previous when considering the ban.

maf I watched the video before I commented

Mascherano got a yellow card for the tackle

As I said I dont advocate it and think defoe got off lightly, yet looking at the 2 suarez incidences (again watched them before I commented) he simply just bites with no obvious reasoning

even zidane gave a reason for his headbutt

posted 3 minutes ago

The spurs supporters seem to follow the clown Levy in their lack of logic,illustrated by the ridiculous pursuit of the Olympic Stadium and come across equally as disturbed as the human phallus that is Daniel Levy

-----------------------



Got to love some City fans.

Defoe's bite is worse than Suarez's bite by a long way, right in front of the ref, but again Suarez has prior

Most would probably agree that if you have bitten somebody before and do so again you should get a longer ban.

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

Absolutely, which is why it was so baffling that they made no mention of it and went out of their way to say they considered this case in isolation, when we all know that they're telling porky pies, and for the life of me I can't understand why. All it does is make them look like a bunch of inconsistent bandwagon jumpers all over again.

This is the same FA who campaigned to have a ban for lashing out at an opponent reduced because he was one of their own and it suited the FA to defend their man in this case.

That isn't a "United get special treatment" argument, it's a "Why do the FA so persistently play a firm hand when it's the easy option but go lenient when it's in relation to one of their own?"

Suarez is an idiot who deserved everything he got but the FA are still a shambles of an organisation.

If I was a player and I saw the two Suarez bites and the punch against Chile I would be winding him up all game, I know it's not on but it happens

You watch the MOTD2 stuff and you'll see they're both at it all game, just Suarez reacted to it