Giroud got 3 games for doing nothing.
10 seems lenient tbf.
The fact that that we're talking about a massively incompetent and most likely even more massively corrupt organisation is the most upsetting thing for anyone with even the slightest hope football will ever become non-farcical again. If it ever was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suarez Is Boss
True. It's amazing they don't have it written in stone that 'biting is a x match ban'. Maybe in preparation for Suarez's comeback, they should write down a rule for stabbing someone in the eye and the other 7 million mental acts he's likely to do.
Suarez has to sort his life out. He's mentally deranged and if he keeps doing stupid stuff, keep banning him for long periods. How many times does he need to keep doing this sort of shit. Fucking idiot.
True, but the FA as always is in a mess. I know he has his detractors, but Arseblog's take on it today gets it right, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
The FA couldn't have escaped any criticism for this and it's bringing up a bunch of stuff that happened before. It's like Wenger making a good substitution and then getting hammered because of the 30,000 shit ones he made in the last 15 years. Arseblog says that nobody can complain about the length of the ban, and that's exactly right. The focus should be on Suarez, not the FA who got it right this time. If Suarez and Liverpool feel it's unfair - here's an idea...don't bite someone. That might solve their problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by IBK
Yeah that's it, just don't give them a decision to make by doing brain dead things.
Don't you think that's a tad unreasonable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
It must go against some sort of human right...
Reina weighs in. :lol:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...ion-pepe-reina
And so has Brentan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22295309
:bow:
Shirts being made I imagine.
I get the point that you are making, but the FA has got itself into a right mess with its rule on reviewing incidents that the ref has apparently seen. My opinion (and I understand if people feel otherwise) is that genuinely dangerous incidents are treated more leniently than stuff like this. In terms of Suarez's ban, I think the length of the ban is OTT, and that a 12 match ban, with 6 suspended would have been more appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
The analogy with Wenger is wrong, because it is perfectly fair to look for consistency in any judicial process. Just like if you are judging a manager's performance over a period of time, it would be fair to look at both his good and bad substitute decisions.
I think this one is appropriate again
http://media1.sulia.com/static/user_...7-d0dd9f079930
:lol: