The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread - #DankeJürgen

[magpie seanie]

I'd be very surprised if he got less than seven matches based on the Dutch precedent, and to be honest I hope he does get such a ban in order to lance this particular boil. But are people seriously suggesting Suarez should try and maximise his own ban? That's a rhetorical question, we know the motivation of those questioning Suarez's comments.

I agree. I can't understand the faux outrage that Suarez had the audacity to say he only warrant a 3 game ban.
Yes Judge I did steal that loaf of bread, can I have the death penalty please.

What about just saying - "yes judge, I did steal that loaf of bread and I'm sorry". Leave it at that.

[deiseach]

I agree. I can't understand the faux outrage that Suarez had the audacity to say he only warrant a 3 game ban.
Yes Judge I did steal that loaf of bread, can I have the death penalty please.

Indeed. No matter what he said or did the usual suspects would have some caveat based purely on who he plays for, so their observations are best ignored.

[brokencrossbar1]

I'd be very surprised if he got less than seven matches based on the Dutch precedent, and to be honest I hope he does get such a ban in order to lance this particular boil. But are people seriously suggesting Suarez should try and maximise his own ban? That's a rhetorical question, we know the motivation of those questioning Suarez's comments.

I agree. I can't understand the faux outrage that Suarez had the audacity to say he only warrant a 3 game ban.
Yes Judge I did steal that loaf of bread, can I have the death penalty please.

What about just saying - "yes judge, I did steal that loaf of bread and I'm sorry". Leave it at that.

My understanding of it is this. He has been charged with violent conduct. The prescribed punishment for someone who accepts this is 3 matches. This can generally only be increased if the player fights the case. It is the same as the loaf of bread analogy.

Scenario 1.
Defendant - Yes judge, I plead guilty to the offence I stole the loaf of bread.
Judge - Ok, then as you did not waste my time and taxpayers money and have shown remorse by accepting that you did it then I will simply fine you £100.

Scenario 2
Defendant - Not Guilty Judge, I did not steal the loaf of bread. 
Judge at the end of the trail when man is found guilty - Well as you wasted my time when I could have been playing golf and have wasted money for legal fees and court costs, and inconvenienced the shopkeeper who had to come to court and had to close his shop for the day and inconvenienced the witness who saw you steal the loaf of bread and the fact that you have shown no remorse I have no alternative but to sentence you to 6 months in jail.

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.

If the precedent for violent behaviour is 3 matches,and I believe it is, then why shouldn't he say that he should only be banned for 3 games? 

[Megaman]

I'd be very surprised if he got less than seven matches based on the Dutch precedent, and to be honest I hope he does get such a ban in order to lance this particular boil. But are people seriously suggesting Suarez should try and maximise his own ban? That's a rhetorical question, we know the motivation of those questioning Suarez's comments.

I agree. I can't understand the faux outrage that Suarez had the audacity to say he only warrant a 3 game ban.
Yes Judge I did steal that loaf of bread, can I have the death penalty please.

What about just saying - "yes judge, I did steal that loaf of bread and I'm sorry". Leave it at that.

My understanding of it is this. He has been charged with violent conduct. The prescribed punishment for someone who accepts this is 3 matches. This can generally only be increased if the player fights the case. It is the same as the loaf of bread analogy.

Scenario 1.
Defendant - Yes judge, I plead guilty to the offence I stole the loaf of bread.
Judge - Ok, then as you did not waste my time and taxpayers money and have shown remorse by accepting that you did it then I will simply fine you £100.

Scenario 2
Defendant - Not Guilty Judge, I did not steal the loaf of bread. 
Judge at the end of the trail when man is found guilty - Well as you wasted my time when I could have been playing golf and have wasted money for legal fees and court costs, and inconvenienced the shopkeeper who had to come to court and had to close his shop for the day and inconvenienced the witness who saw you steal the loaf of bread and the fact that you have shown no remorse I have no alternative but to sentence you to 6 months in jail.

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.

If the precedent for violent behaviour is 3 matches,and I believe it is, then why shouldn't he say that he should only be banned for 3 games?

Scenario 1.1
Defendant - Yes judge, I plead guilty to the offence I stole the loaf of bread, but i think i should only get a £100 fine
Judge - Ok, then as you did not waste my time and taxpayers money and have shown remorse by accepting that you did it, but had the cheek to tell me what i should do, then I will simply fine you £200.

[deiseach]

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.

[Bingo]

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

On a subnote, never realised he wrote for the Mail. 

[johnneycool]

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

On a subnote, never realised he wrote for the Mail. 

Jamie, refreshingly honest about some of the legends and how they forgot about their own past, take a bow Mr Souness.

[deiseach]

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.

[Count 10]

I wouldn't be a fan of either Liverpool or Man Utd and I used to "hate" Gary Neville but I have to say he is 100% here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7Q-rR-l4Y

[brokencrossbar1]

I'd be very surprised if he got less than seven matches based on the Dutch precedent, and to be honest I hope he does get such a ban in order to lance this particular boil. But are people seriously suggesting Suarez should try and maximise his own ban? That's a rhetorical question, we know the motivation of those questioning Suarez's comments.

I agree. I can't understand the faux outrage that Suarez had the audacity to say he only warrant a 3 game ban.
Yes Judge I did steal that loaf of bread, can I have the death penalty please.

What about just saying - "yes judge, I did steal that loaf of bread and I'm sorry". Leave it at that.

My understanding of it is this. He has been charged with violent conduct. The prescribed punishment for someone who accepts this is 3 matches. This can generally only be increased if the player fights the case. It is the same as the loaf of bread analogy.

Scenario 1.
Defendant - Yes judge, I plead guilty to the offence I stole the loaf of bread.
Judge - Ok, then as you did not waste my time and taxpayers money and have shown remorse by accepting that you did it then I will simply fine you £100.

Scenario 2
Defendant - Not Guilty Judge, I did not steal the loaf of bread. 
Judge at the end of the trail when man is found guilty - Well as you wasted my time when I could have been playing golf and have wasted money for legal fees and court costs, and inconvenienced the shopkeeper who had to come to court and had to close his shop for the day and inconvenienced the witness who saw you steal the loaf of bread and the fact that you have shown no remorse I have no alternative but to sentence you to 6 months in jail.

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.

If the precedent for violent behaviour is 3 matches,and I believe it is, then why shouldn't he say that he should only be banned for 3 games?

Scenario 1.1
Defendant - Yes judge, I plead guilty to the offence I stole the loaf of bread, but i think i should only get a £100 fine
Judge - Ok, then as you did not waste my time and taxpayers money and have shown remorse by accepting that you did it, but had the cheek to tell me what i should do, then I will simply fine you £200.

Actually in Scenario 1 that is exactly what happens.A defence solicitor will stand up in court on behalf of his client and say 'Your honour, due to my client's  early guilty plea, thereby saving the tax payer money and not putting the victim through the ordeal of giving evidence, I would urge your  Honour to be as lenient as possible on my client.'  ie,give him the lowest sentence you can.

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.

Deiseach, I agree but the action of throwing one across the boughs at this stage also  puts the pressure on the FA to make the 'right' call in terms of sentencing. They have to be seen to get this absolutely right.  The maximum ban for violent conduct is 3 games.  The only way that can be increased is if there have been previous sendings off 'in the same season' or  it has been disputed or appealed.  At the end of each season a player gets a clean slate in terms of disciplinary matters unless a ban is carrying over from a previous season.  They really should have charged him with bringing the game into disrepute if they wanted to nail him.

[deiseach]

I wouldn't be a fan of either Liverpool or Man Utd and I used to "hate" Gary Neville but I have to say he is 100% here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7Q-rR-l4Y

I'm not surprised by his point of view. We are talking about the guy who slagged off his own brother for diving. Either way, fair play.

[Dinny Breen]

Perspective is everything - biting happens in rugby all the time only last year Dylan Hartley was cited and suspended for 8 weeks for biting Stephen Ferris but there was none this ludicrous reaction.

I think 3 games is too lenient because the intent was there however he did no damage so something like 5 games, a fine and a requirement to see a psychologist as biting can been seen as an indicator in more serious mental health issues.

[rodney trotter]

What made it look worse, was Suarez grabbing Ivanocvic by the arm so he could make sure could get the bite in. He deserves a long ban, head case.

[brokencrossbar1]

Perspective is everything - biting happens in rugby all the time only last year Dylan Hartley was cited and suspended for 8 weeks for biting Stephen Ferris but there was none this ludicrous reaction.

I think 3 games is too lenient because the intent was there however he did no damage so something like 5 games, a fine and a requirement to see a psychologist as biting can been seen as an indicator in more serious mental health issues.

I agree with this. Anything over 5 though should be appealed.  He got games for racist abuse where he fought it. If he got anything close to that for this where he has pleaded guilty then the FA are seen to be placing this above racism.  Even by giving him games this is being placed above racism given the John Terry ban.  They have to be very careful.

[Denn Forever]

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.