Re: Adults who bite.....

by **Syl** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:24 am

Dean wrote:
Melfi wrote:
Syl wrote:

I dont believe that....why would his ban be harsher because of who he is?
Fact is he bites ....he also has previous re racial abuse....he has been treated severly (iyo) because of how he acts not because of who he is.

Doesn't how we behave define who we are though?
I don't mind that he's getting punished "for who he is, instead of what he did" because who he is, is a violent, bad tempered racist prick.

And that is exactly why his punishemnt is harsh. He was sentenced because of who he was, not for the actual offence...

So his previous HAS been taken into account then....rightly so.

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:25 am

Syl wrote:
Dean wrote:
Melfi wrote:

Doesn't how we behave define who we are though?
I don't mind that he's getting punished "for who he is, instead of what he did" because who he is, is a violent, bad tempered racist prick.

And that is exactly why his punishemnt is harsh. He was sentenced because of who he was, not for the actual offence...
So his previous HAS been taken into account then....rightly so.

Wrongly so, that is the exact point.

by **Syl** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:29 am

Thats your opinion Dean, I think a lot of people think he has been let off lightly.

Think about a different scenario, your child is bit at school, the biter is punished. He bites again....should the punishment be the same as the first one or should his past record be taken into consideration before the punishment is made?

by **Melfi** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:29 am

Dean wrote:
Melfi wrote:
Dimples wrote:If Joe Bloggs bit someone in a public place, he would rightly be charged with assault and face criminal proceedings.

Why should it be any different for this clown?

Because footballers are the new priests, they don't have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us, apparently.

He would judged exactly the same way as you or I would, if he was charged by the police...

I guess so, but I'd be out of a job...

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:34 am

Syl wrote:Thats your opinion Dean, I think a lot of people think he has been let off lightly.

Think about a different scenario, your child is bit at school, the biter is punished. He bites again....should the punishment be the same as the first one or should his past record be taken into consideration before the punishment is made?

You don't understand my point. I'm not arguing that he should or should not have had his previous biting taken into account. The fact is, the FA do not take it into account, so as far as this charge matters, it never happened. Whether that is right or wrong is a completely differently topic, the fact is it shouldn't matter when his punishment is dealt out.

The FA have charged him with one offence, and his punishment is extreme for that one offence, going by previous punishments for similar offences. The FA have obviously judged him on his previous offences, which in accordance with their own rules, is wrong, hence the amazement at the ban length.

by **Syl** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:42 am

I do understand your point...and as I have no idea about FA rules if what you say is correct then all I can assume is they DID take his previous into account.

Maybe under the circumstances they realised that had they not they would have been wrong, maybe the FA rules re player punishment should be changed.....because it's blatantly obvious that if they disreguard previous behaviour when dealing with present offences of this nature they would be trivialising what is in fact serious assault.

by **Melfi** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:42 am

Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:Thats your opinion Dean, I think a lot of people think he has been let off lightly.

Think about a different scenario, your child is bit at school, the biter is punished. He bites again....should the punishment be the same as the first one or should his past record be taken into consideration before the punishment is made?

You don't understand my point. I'm not arguing that he should or should not have had his previous biting taken into account. The fact is, the FA do not take it into account, so as far as this charge matters, it never happened. Whether that is right or wrong is a completely differently topic, the fact is it shouldn't matter when his punishment is dealt out.

The FA have charged him with one offence, and his punishment is extreme for that one offence, going by previous punishments for similar offences. The FA have obviously judged him on his previous offences, which in accordance with their own rules, is wrong, hence the amazement at the ban length.

It's not a different toppic at all. It's exactly what the thread is about!! You've decided that it's just about the FA and it's not!! Theres surely a morality issue here too.

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:45 am

Syl wrote:I do understand your point...and as I have no idea about FA rules if what you say is correct then all I can assume is they DID take his previous into account.

Maybe under the circumstances they realised that had they not they would have been wrong, maybe the FA rules re player punishment should be changed.....because it's blatantly obvious that if they disreguard previous behaviour when dealing with present offences of this nature they would be trivialising what is in fact serious assault.

All valid points Syl... My point is, that going by the rules the FA have infront of them, he was treated harshly. As a governing body, they should be consistent in their punishments. if that means changing the rules as you suggest, then thats perfectly acceptable, as long as every plyer has the same hearing, which quite clearly hasn't happened here.

Should Suarez be banned for 10 games for biting a player? Imo definitely yes.

Should Suarez be banned for 10 games for the charge he faced under the current FA rules? Certainly not...

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:47 am

Melfi wrote:
Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:Thats your opinion Dean, I think a lot of people think he has been let off lightly.

Think about a different scenario, your child is bit at school, the biter is punished. He bites again....should the punishment be the same as the first one or should his past record be taken into consideration before the punishment is made?

You don't understand my point. I'm not arguing that he should or should not have had his previous biting taken into account. The fact is, the FA do not take it into account, so as far as this charge matters, it never happened. Whether that is right or wrong is a completely differently topic, the fact is it shouldn't matter when his punishment is dealt out.

The FA have charged him with one offence, and his punishment is extreme for that one offence, going by previous punishments for similar offences. The FA have obviously judged him on his previous offences, which in accordance with their own rules, is wrong, hence the amazement at the ban length.
It's not a different toppic at all. It's exactly what the thread is about!! You've decided that it's just about the FA and it's not!! Theres surely a morality issue here too.

Morality doesn't come into it when the FA are thinking up their punishment.

You could argue whether it should or not, of course...

by **Melfi** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:49 am

Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:I do understand your point...and as I have no idea about FA rules if what you say is correct then all I can assume is they DID take his previous into account.

Maybe under the circumstances they realised that had they not they would have been wrong, maybe the FA rules re player punishment should be changed.....because it's blatantly obvious that if they disreguard previous behaviour when dealing with present offences of this nature they would be trivialising what is in fact serious assault.

All valid points Syl... My point is, that going by the rules the FA have infront of them, he was treated harshly. As a governing body, they should be consistent in their punishments. if that means changing the rules as you suggest, then thats perfectly acceptable, as long as every plyer has the same hearing, which quite clearly hasn't happened here.

Should Suarez be banned for 10 games for biting a player? Imo definitely yes.

Should Suarez be banned for 10 games for the charge he faced under the current FA rules? Certainly not...

After all that you agree with us?!! Adults who bite..... - Page 4 1126905471

by **Syl** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:49 am

I think Suarez should be banned from playing football full stop.

You scoffed when I said he was a role model but of course he is. He had his chance, he abused it, he obviously cant control himself he is a liability.
Get rid.

by **Dimples** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:50 am

Dean wrote:
Dimples wrote:If Joe Bloggs bit someone in a public place, he would rightly be charged with assault and face criminal proceedings.

Why should it be any different for this clown?

Because the laws of football and the laws of the land are two completely different things.

A football stadium is still a public place and I see no reason why footballers should be able to evade being charged and punished because they commit their crimes on the pitch as opposed to elsewhere.

It's simply that football clubs are too spineless to have their players brought to book because their clubs' "reputations" are mistakenly considered sacrosanct.

They merely make themselves look as if they condone violence which in turn looks like hypocrisy when they condemn supporters for behaving like yobs.

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:56 am

Melfi wrote:
Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:I do understand your point...and as I have no idea about FA rules if what you say is correct then all I can assume is they DID take his previous into account.

Maybe under the circumstances they realised that had they not they would have been wrong, maybe the FA rules re player punishment should be changed.....because it's blatantly obvious that if they disreguard previous behaviour when dealing with present offences of this nature they would be trivialising what is in fact serious assault.

All valid points Syl... My point is, that going by the rules the FA have infront of them, he was treated harshly. As a governing body, they should be consistent in their punishments. if that means changing the rules as you suggest, then thats perfectly acceptable, as long as every plyer has the same hearing, which quite clearly hasn't happened here.

Should Suarez be banned for 10 games for biting a player? Imo definitely yes.

Should Suarez be banned for 10 games for the charge he faced under the current FA rules? Certainly not...

After all that you agree with us?!!

I completely agree with you both, Melf! I said so at the beginning of the thread, theres no room for biting in football. I'm arguing the case of his ban from the FA, not the morality of biting in society!

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:57 am

Syl wrote:I think Suarez should be banned from playing football full stop.

You scoffed when I said he was a role model but of course he is. He had his chance, he abused it, he obviously cant control himself he is a liability.
Get rid.

No, i know he is a role model to some, I said he shouldn't be a role model.

I don't believe footballers should be put on a pedestal when they are nothing more than working class lads that can kick a ball around (generally speaking)

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:58 am

Dimples wrote:
Dean wrote:
Dimples wrote:If Joe Bloggs bit someone in a public place, he would rightly be charged with assault and face criminal proceedings.

Why should it be any different for this clown?

Because the laws of football and the laws of the land are two completely different things.

A football stadium is still a public place and I see no reason why footballers should be able to evade being charged and punished because they commit their crimes on the pitch as opposed to elsewhere.

It's simply that football clubs are too spineless to have their players brought to book because their clubs' "reputations" are mistakenly considered sacrosanct.

They merely make themselves look as if they condone violence which in turn looks like hypocrisy when they condemn supporters for behaving like yobs.

Thats a law issue, not a FA issue. No idea what happens regarding the police and on-field antics tbh...

by **Melfi** Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:02 am

Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:I think Suarez should be banned from playing football full stop.

You scoffed when I said he was a role model but of course he is. He had his chance, he abused it, he obviously cant control himself he is a liability.
Get rid.

No, i know he is a role model to some, I said he shouldn't be a role model.

I don't believe footballers should be put on a pedestal when they are nothing more than working class lads that can kick a ball around (generally speaking)

Thats exactly the reason they are role models, kids can relate to them... It's their responsibility to be GOOD role models though, it's part of the job, surely?

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:05 am

Melfi wrote:
Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:I think Suarez should be banned from playing football full stop.

You scoffed when I said he was a role model but of course he is. He had his chance, he abused it, he obviously cant control himself he is a liability.
Get rid.

No, i know he is a role model to some, I said he shouldn't be a role model.

I don't believe footballers should be put on a pedestal when they are nothing more than working class lads that can kick a ball around (generally speaking)

Thats exactly the reason they are role models, kids can relate to them... It's their responsibility to be GOOD role models though, it's part of the job, surely?

Why should it be part of the job? Why should a footballer have to change his lifestyle just because he happens to be good at it?

Why should a footballer be responsible for somebody elses kids??? some people are simply nasty bastards, footballers are too. Why should a nasty footballer be punished because he doesnt want to be a role model to your kids, or my kids?

by Mama kaz Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:05 am

Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:I think Suarez should be banned from playing football full stop.

You scoffed when I said he was a role model but of course he is. He had his chance, he abused it, he obviously cant control himself he is a liability.
Get rid.

No, i know he is a role model to some, I said he shouldn't be a role model.

I don't believe footballers should be put on a pedestal when they are nothing more than working class lads that can kick a ball around (generally speaking)

I tend to agree, role models ought to be nurses, firemen scientists etc... But while football remains the primary interest in this country ( watching or playing) then parents are going to make football players role models... Every footie mad father still sees their new born as the next England star etc... And because of that there has to be an acceptable level of behaviour I guess.

by **Syl** Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:05 am

Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:I think Suarez should be banned from playing football full stop.

You scoffed when I said he was a role model but of course he is. He had his chance, he abused it, he obviously cant control himself he is a liability.
Get rid.

No, i know he is a role model to some, I said he shouldn't be a role model.

I don't believe footballers should be put on a pedestal when they are nothing more than working class lads that can kick a ball around (generally speaking)

They are paid a fortune and with that comes responsibilities.

Yes mostly they are working class lads, they are pivoted into fame and fortune, some make mistakes and if they learn from them well and good....Suarez doesn't learn, he is an arrogant violent bully.
I think his career will soon be over, at least in this country.

by **Dimples** Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:11 am

Dean wrote:
Dimples wrote:
Dean wrote:

Because the laws of football and the laws of the land are two completely different things.

A football stadium is still a public place and I see no reason why footballers should be able to evade being charged and punished because they commit their crimes on the pitch as opposed to elsewhere.

It's simply that football clubs are too spineless to have their players brought to book because their clubs' "reputations" are mistakenly considered sacrosanct.

They merely make themselves look as if they condone violence which in turn looks like hypocrisy when they condemn supporters for behaving like yobs.

Thats a law issue, not a FA issue. No idea what happens regarding the police and on-field antics tbh...

I know but if the FA had any balls at all (no pun intended), they'd have the little scrote charged with assault.

That would give out a far better message than pointless bans and fines.

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:12 am

Syl wrote:
Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:I think Suarez should be banned from playing football full stop.

You scoffed when I said he was a role model but of course he is. He had his chance, he abused it, he obviously cant control himself he is a liability.
Get rid.

No, i know he is a role model to some, I said he shouldn't be a role model.

I don't believe footballers should be put on a pedestal when they are nothing more than working class lads that can kick a ball around (generally speaking)

They are paid a fortune and with that comes responsibilities.

Yes mostly they are working class lads, they are pivoted into fame and fortune, some make mistakes and if they learn from them well and good....Suarez doesn't learn, he is an arrogant violent bully.
I think his career will soon be over, at least in this country.

Bankers are paid a fortune, so are IT experts, so are numerous other people.

Why aren't they held responsible or our kids too?

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:12 am

Dimples wrote:
Dean wrote:
Dimples wrote:

A football stadium is still a public place and I see no reason why footballers should be able to evade being charged and punished because they commit their crimes on the pitch as opposed to elsewhere.

It's simply that football clubs are too spineless to have their players brought to book because their clubs' "reputations" are mistakenly considered sacrosanct.

They merely make themselves look as if they condone violence which in turn looks like hypocrisy when they condemn supporters for behaving like yobs.

Thats a law issue, not a FA issue. No idea what happens regarding the police and on-field antics tbh...

I know but if the FA had any balls at all (no pun intended), they'd have the little scrote charged with assault.

That would give out a far better message than pointless bans and fines.

Nothing stopping Ivanovic pressing charges himself...

by Mama kaz Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:15 am

Dean wrote:
Dimples wrote:
Dean wrote:
Dimples wrote:

A football stadium is still a public place and I see no reason why footballers should be able to evade being charged and punished because they commit their crimes on the pitch as opposed to elsewhere.

It's simply that football clubs are too spineless to have their players brought to book because their clubs' "reputations" are mistakenly considered sacrosanct.

They merely make themselves look as if they condone violence which in turn looks like hypocrisy when they condemn supporters for behaving like yobs.

Thats a law issue, not a FA issue. No idea what happens regarding the police and on-field antics tbh...

I know but if the FA had any balls at all (no pun intended), they'd have the little scrote charged with assault.

That would give out a far better message than pointless bans and fines.

Nothing stopping Ivanovic pressing charges himself...

Good point, has he? Bloody straight I would have!

by **Syl** Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:17 am

Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:
Dean wrote:

No, i know he is a role model to some, I said he shouldn't be a role model.

I don't believe footballers should be put on a pedestal when they are nothing more than working class lads that can kick a ball around (generally speaking)

They are paid a fortune and with that comes responsibilities.

Yes mostly they are working class lads, they are pivoted into fame and fortune, some make mistakes and if they learn from them well and good....Suarez doesn't learn, he is an arrogant violent bully.
I think his career will soon be over, at least in this country.

Bankers are paid a fortune, so are IT experts, so are numerous other people.

Why aren't they held responsible or our kids too?

They are not role models.
The huge payouts they award themselves repulse most people anyway.

Compare like with like...footballers are entertainers, thats what they get paid for, they have a talent and they use it to entertain....if a "star" acts badly he gets dumped by the studio, so.....

by **Dean** Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:19 am

Syl wrote:
Dean wrote:
Syl wrote:

They are paid a fortune and with that comes responsibilities.

Yes mostly they are working class lads, they are pivoted into fame and fortune, some make mistakes and if they learn from them well and good....Suarez doesn't learn, he is an arrogant violent bully.
I think his career will soon be over, at least in this country.

Bankers are paid a fortune, so are IT experts, so are numerous other people.

Why aren't they held responsible or our kids too?

They are not role models.
The huge payouts they award themselves repulse most people anyway.

Compare like with like...footballers are entertainers, thats what they get paid for, they have a talent and they use it to entertain....if a "star" acts badly he gets dumped by the studio, so.....

But why are they not role models? you said with money comes responsibility, so why exclude those and not footballers?

by Sponsored content