The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread - #DankeJürgen

[deiseach]

Joey Barton got 12 games suspension for 2 counts of Violent behaviour so if the FA are consistent, he should get 6 games.  If that is all he gets, he should grab it and say thank you.  So far, Liverpool have played it well and lets hope they don't over reach as in the Evra incident.  Unfortunately, Joe Public wants blood and so I'd expect the suspension to be longer rather shorter.

Seeing as we're approaching the end of the season and it's unlikely we'll go up or down, I'd snap their hands off for that. Pun unintended.

[Hound]

My guess is 7, to be the same as the Dutch ban.

[ballinaman]

I think he deserves an extra game ban for this hoody..

[deiseach]

I think he deserves an extra game ban for this hoody..

Judging by the location, he's near Mathew Street so he's just trying to fit in with all the other scalls.

[magpie seanie]

I imagine that the FA have precedents for sentencing.  I would also imagine that his actions in Holland will have limited bearing as they are dealt with under a set of rules from a completely different governing body and the ban for racism should have no bearing on it as it is a completely different type of offence, imagine someone who had stolen a loaf of bread and then was convicted of assault,  the court will look at them separately to a large degree as they are different types of offence.

Very logical, but the uproar should Suarez get less than he got in Holland will be immense. Norf Tyrone pointed out at the time of the John Terry case that the FA have a rule that the findings of a court are considered factual for football purposes, but the FA still found a way to give him a four match ban. It would have been unconscionable for him to get away without penalty, and I think Suarez is in a similar boat.

Do you realise the burden of proof in a court of law is not the same as in an FA hearing?

[EC Unique]

I think he deserves an extra game ban for this hoody..

[nrico2006]

The FA are a joke, and are never consistent with any offence in football.  Hazard got in trouble a while back and got punished a lot differently than the Swindon player who did the same thing, while Rio Ferdinand was treated far more severely for missing a test than other players who had failed a test never mind missed one.  Irrelevant of the FA Rule regarding players getting booked etc and not being open to further punishment, there was no major hoo hahh at the time regarding the Defoe incident.  Suarez is a different case though, and because who he is it is blown all out of proportion.  He shouldn't get anything like 7 games, hope he appeals it if he does. 

[magpie seanie]

And Jamie Carragher makes the case for the defence:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2313752/Luis-Suarez-bites-Branislav-Ivanovic-Suarez-wrong--Jamie-Carragher.html

I know what it is like to have your leg broken by a reckless tackle. Lucas Neill cost me six months of my career in September 2003 when he played for Blackburn. Would I have preferred to have been  bitten? Absolutely.

I suspect that Branislav Ivanovic, who has conducted himself with great credit in the aftermath, would agree. You can get up and carry on after a skirmish. If someone shatters your leg, you wonder whether you will play again.

An appropriate response to the "I'd rather be kicked than bitten/spat at" tripe. Nice one, Jamie lad.

Intent is the key thing being ignored here. You can't argue that a bite wasn't intentional. A leg breaker of a tackle could just have been clumsy and/or mistimed. Of course there's only one side twisting things to suit their agenda though....

[Over the Bar]

Given his previous record of GBH, racism, blatant cheating and bestiality he's bound to get at least 8 games and since Liverpool's season is usually over by Christmas the ban shouldn't start until August.

[laoislad]

Man United won their 20th league title the other night

Over the Bar is a Man United fan.

9 out 10 of his last posts have been on the Liverpool FC Thread

The 1 post that was on the Man United thread was about a Liverpool player

Who do you reckon Over the Bar is obsessed with?

[Gabriel_Hurl]

I still don't know why the rest of you don't keep ignoring that clown - it makes this place a lot more tolerable

[J70]

Are Under the Bar and Over the Bar related?

Seems to be a lot of commonality in their contributions.

[AZOffaly]

OTB is only 1/3rd of the man UTB is.

[trueblue1234]

And Jamie Carragher makes the case for the defence:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2313752/Luis-Suarez-bites-Branislav-Ivanovic-Suarez-wrong--Jamie-Carragher.html

I know what it is like to have your leg broken by a reckless tackle. Lucas Neill cost me six months of my career in September 2003 when he played for Blackburn. Would I have preferred to have been  bitten? Absolutely.

I suspect that Branislav Ivanovic, who has conducted himself with great credit in the aftermath, would agree. You can get up and carry on after a skirmish. If someone shatters your leg, you wonder whether you will play again.

An appropriate response to the "I'd rather be kicked than bitten/spat at" tripe. Nice one, Jamie lad.

Intent is the key thing being ignored here. You can't argue that a bite wasn't intentional. A leg breaker of a tackle could just have been clumsy and/or mistimed. Of course there's only one side twisting things to suit their agenda though....

Of course. Intent can be hard to judge. Unless the perpetrator actually puts the intent in writing. Then it's pretty clear what a scummy act it is.

[hows she cutting]

so what sort of ban will Suarez get?.....