David Prutton 10-Match Ban

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Yes I am saying exactly that, football is a contact sport and broken legs happen in mistimed and malicious challenges, poor tackles come sadly with the game, being bitten by a petulant child does not, it sets an awful example to people watching and its been done before and that punishment obviously did not work so a stronger sentence is required.

 

Well, if we ever have a fight you're welcome to bite my arm without puncturing its whilst I snap your tibia. As your recouperating you can lie there in the knowledge that you got one up on me as you committed the worse offence.

 

Seriously, you're mental.

Edited 25 April, 2013 by Dibden Purlieu Saint

[Barry Sanchez]

Well, if we ever have a fight you're welcome to bite my arm without puncturing its whilst I snap your tibia. As your recouperating you can lie there in the knowledge that you got one up on me.

 

Seriously, you're mental.

 

Have you seen the damage biting does? I refer you to an incident that happened here a few years ago (The funky box, Liverpool), trust me you would not want that.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Have you seen the damage biting does? I refer you to an incident that happened here a few years ago (The funky box, Liverpool), trust me you would not want that.

 

We're talking about Suarez's incident though, where he didn't break the skin of Ivanovic's arm? I'm not saying I'd prefer to have my face bitten off.

[Barry Sanchez]

No we are talking about biting and trust me it does an awful lot of damage, by not punishing him people (they will) will think its a small time thing when in reality its not, you think its small time because I presume from your comments you have never seen or heard the screams and blood from someone being bitten and I can assure you its not pleasant in the slightest.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

No we are talking about biting and trust me it does an awful lot of damage, by not punishing him people (they will) will think its a small time thing when in reality its not, you think its small time because I presume from your comments you have never seen or heard the screams and blood from someone being bitten and I can assure you its not pleasant in the slightest.

 

I think if kids start going around biting others it's more a reflection on their upbringing than Suarez.

[SW5 SAINT]

What do you think the courts would have handed down? He bit him, didn't draw blood. That is very minor. Joey Barton was charged with Assault and got a 6 game ban with 6 suspended, had previous as bad as Suarez.

 

Do you not think biting someone amounts to assault?

[Barry Sanchez]

I think if kids start going around biting others it's more a reflection on their upbringing than Suarez.

To a degree, it also means they are being kids and being impressionable and they have seen their hero get away with it or have a mild ban.

[scotty]

I feel that part of the banning as a suspended sentence for repeat bad behavior would be a far more effective punishment. than a straight 10 match ban. Having the threat there may help psychologically to sort out Suarez's behavior than the suffering being out of the game for such a long period may effect him long term.

 

Why are you so concerned with suarez's welfare and psychological needs? He wasn't the one who got bitten.

[Barry Sanchez]

I think if kids start going around biting others it's more a reflection on their upbringing than Suarez.

 

But you by not severely punishing an act like this are accepting as a mild form of disobedience.

[niceandfriendly]

Showed this to a few sports (but not football) fans who hadn't heard about the incident. They all reacted in the same way "will he be banned forever", "that's his career over then?" etc. A little too far perhaps but certainly from the outside this is seen as a quite shocking incident, and 10 games seems very lenient.

 

You could argue that 10 games is about right, but you couldn't argue that's it's too much. Everyone agrees apart from officials at Liverpool and DPS.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I must have missed the Defoe yellow card thread after he bit a fellow professional. Perhaps someone can explain the massive difference between yellow and 10 games because im struggling

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Showed this to a few sports (but not football) fans who hadn't heard about the incident. They all reacted in the same way "will he be banned forever", "that's his career over then?" etc. A little too far perhaps but certainly from the outside this is seen as a quite shocking incident, and 10 games seems very lenient.

 

You could argue that 10 games is about right, but you couldn't argue that's it's too much. Everyone agrees apart from officials at Liverpool and DPS.

 

You obviously didn't see Football365 after the ban came out then.

 

Seriously, am I the only one that sees this as disproportionate? I knew Barry would disagree, but that's cos he gets his jollies hitting against the knap, but the rest of you. I despair, I really do.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Do you not think biting someone amounts to assault?

 

Nope, not in this. I would say legally it is a battery to the person (on a par legally with slapping someone). If it was assault he would be charged.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

To a degree, it also means they are being kids and being impressionable and they have seen their hero get away with it or have a mild ban.

 

I reckon 5 game ban and 5 game suspended, and a large fine. That's not mild.

[scotty]

You obviously didn't see Football365 after the ban came out then.

 

Seriously, am I the only one that sees this as disproportionate? I knew Barry would disagree, but that's cos he gets his jollies hitting against the knap, but the rest of you. I despair, I really do.

 

What did you make of the Paul Davies/Glenn Cockerill "incident", then? Disproportionate punishment, heat of the moment, nothing to worry about?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

What did you make of the Paul Davies/Glenn Cockerill "incident", then? Disproportionate punishment, heat of the moment, nothing to worry about?

 

The one where Cockerill got his jaw broken? What did he get, 14 games? Sounds about right to me if that was the number due to the fact he BROKE HIS JAW. Suarez caused no injury whatsoever.

 

Edit: Davies got 9 games. Suarez got 10. Utterly mental.

Edited 25 April, 2013 by Dibden Purlieu Saint

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

What did you make of the Paul Davies/Glenn Cockerill "incident", then? Disproportionate punishment, heat of the moment, nothing to worry about?

 

The other bans mentioned I agree with, this one I don't as no injury was caused.

[ART]

Why are you so concerned with Suarez's welfare and psychological needs? He wasn't the one who got bitten.

I'm pleased to see that Pochettino, when asked about the 10 match ban is likewise concerned in what is causing Suarez to behave this way. Suarez is a really talented player but obviously has deep seated problems and the ban outright will only make things worse.

[scotty]

The one where Cockerill got his jaw broken? What did he get, 14 games? Sounds about right to me if that was the number due to the fact he BROKE HIS JAW. Suarez caused no injury whatsoever.

 

I meant that it was a deliberate act of assault, outside of what you might expect in the course of play. A bad tackle's a bad tackle, but it could be interpreted as being in the course of play. Biting another player, or walking up behind them and flooring them with a right hook is outside the course of play.

 

And your idea of 5 games suspended for Suarez falls down flatter than Cockerill when you take into account that he's done it before. Why didn't he get a suspended as well as the ban previously? Everyone at the FA seems to be bleating about "making sure it doesn't happen again", well its already happened again hasn't it? He's done it twice, why would anyone believe he wont do it again?

[VectisSaint]

Seriously, am I the only one that sees this as disproportionate?

Yep, seems like it is only you. Says more about you really, that you cannot see why this is so different to other cases, and why biting (even with no apparent damage), like spitting, is so much worse than some activities where actual damage is involved. I guess you just don't see any social issues with biting or spitting. In a decent society these things are far worse in many ways than punching or kicking someone.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I meant that it was a deliberate act of assault, outside of what you might expect in the course of play. A bad tackle's a bad tackle, but it could be interpreted as being in the course of play. Biting another player, or walking up behind them and flooring them with a right hook is outside the course of play.

 

And your idea of 5 games suspended for Suarez falls down flatter than Cockerill when you take into account that he's done it before. Why didn't he get a suspended as well as the ban previously? Everyone at the FA seems to be bleating about "making sure it doesn't happen again", well its already happened again hasn't it? He's done it twice, why would anyone believe he wont do it again?

 

Because of the suspended sentence. If he did it again the 5 games would be added to the next punishment. How can anyone guarantee he won't do it again now? I don't get your argument.

[Hamilton Saint]

Interesting how some law-and-order types are quick to criticise the legal system because - in their opinion - thugs and punks are treated too "leniently", but then attack another system of correction (the F.A.) for being too harsh (and not, for example, considering mitigating circumstances).

 

Each incident should be considered on its own merits. The past behaviour and character of the culprit needs to be taken into account. It is often unhelpful to compare one case with another.

 

Ultimately, though, you have to accept the view that the system is operating in good faith and doing its best to police things in a fair and consistent manner. And dealing with some individuals who are immature, self-centred and constantly breaking the rules and looking to get an illegal advantage.

[Dig Dig]

I meant that it was a deliberate act of assault, outside of what you might expect in the course of play. A bad tackle's a bad tackle, but it could be interpreted as being in the course of play. Biting another player, or walking up behind them and flooring them with a right hook is outside the course of play.

 

And your idea of 5 games suspended for Suarez falls down flatter than Cockerill when you take into account that he's done it before. Why didn't he get a suspended as well as the ban previously? Everyone at the FA seems to be bleating about "making sure it doesn't happen again", well its already happened again hasn't it? He's done it twice, why would anyone believe he wont do it again?

 

Suarez bite him but not hard enough to cause any damage at all. If someone slaps someone or pushes someones face away on a football pitch, they are red carded and that's that. No one starts comparing it to a full right hook to the jaw and starts calling it assault. Why are people not acknowledging that as far as bites go, it has to be the tamest I've seen. If someone did that to me at footy I would just laugh and think the person was a right weirdo but certainly wouldn't feel like I'd been assaulted.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Yep, seems like it is only you. Says more about you really, that you cannot see why this is so different to other cases, and why biting (even with no apparent damage), like spitting, is so much worse than some activities where actual damage is involved. I guess you just don't see any social issues with biting or spitting. In a decent society these things are far worse in many ways than punching or kicking someone.

 

That's untrue, by saying I'd hand out a ban worse than a red card including a large fine I am showing it's not acceptable. What I don't agree with is your ascertion that biting is a worse offence than racism, breaking someones jaw in anger or attacking a team mate leaving him unconcious with a detached retina. That's all.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Suarez bite him but not hard enough to cause any damage at all. If someone slaps someone or pushes someones face away on a football pitch, they are red carded and that's that. No one starts comparing it to a full right hook to the jaw and starts calling it assault. Why are people not acknowledging that as far as bites go, it has to be the tamest I've seen. If someone did that to me at footy I would just laugh and think the person was a right weirdo but certainly wouldn't feel like I'd been assaulted.

 

Exactly. People don't seem to care about the severity of the offence.

 

What I find strange is legally this equates to a battery of a person, yet the Cockerill attack amounts to GBH. Obviously GBH is far more serious, yet not in this case.

[Hamilton Saint]

Suarez bite him but not hard enough to cause any damage at all. If someone slaps someone or pushes someones face away on a football pitch, they are red carded and that's that. No one starts comparing it to a full right hook to the jaw and starts calling it assault. Why are people not acknowledging that as far as bites go, it has to be the tamest I've seen. If someone did that to me at footy I would just laugh and think the person was a right weirdo but certainly wouldn't feel like I'd been assaulted.

 

Committing assault is not a matter of degree. Grab a policeman - that's assault; you don't have to punch them in the jaw. It's the aggressive motive that matters, not the severity of the effect on the victim.

[benjii]

I think DPS may be a bit of a div.

[Dig Dig]

Committing assault is not a matter of degree. Grab a policeman - that's assault; you don't have to punch them in the jaw. It's the aggressive motive that matters, not the severity of the effect on the victim.

 

There are degrees. Battery (which is what you describe), ABH and GBH, all defined by the severity of injury caused to the victim. Call 999 and claim someone has bitten you and left no lasting mark or damage and see what response you get.

 

Also, I guess you consider every sending off for "violent conduct" in football to amount to assault and therefore all worthy of a 10 game ban, using your logic?

[Hamilton Saint]

There are degrees. Battery (which is what you describe), ABH and GBH, all defined by the severity of injury caused to the victim. Call 999 and claim someone has bitten you and left no lasting mark or damage and see what response you get.

 

Also, I guess you consider every sending off for "violent conduct" in football to amount to assault and therefore all worthy of a 10 game ban, using your logic?

 

Did you read my post? I said "Each incident should be considered on its own merits. The past behaviour and character of the culprit needs to be taken into account. It is often unhelpful to compare one case with another."

[Dig Dig]

I quoted your post I replied to and that's not what you wrote

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I think DPS may be a bit of a div.

 

That's your opinion I suppose. I don't think you understand and so you're resorting to throwing out insults. Childish behaviour, similar to biting actually.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I quoted your post I replied to and that's not what you wrote

 

In other news I don't think other posters recognise the significance of us agreeing and arguing out of the same corner

[Dig Dig]

In other news I don't think other posters recognise the significance of us agreeing and arguing out of the same corner

 

A momentous day for SWF! But I think you should start criticising our summer transfer activity early this year so that normal service can be resumed

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

A momentous day for SWF! But I think you should start criticising our summer transfer activity early this year so that normal service can be resumed

 

I'll do it especially for you!

[scotty]

The other bans mentioned I agree with, this one I don't as no injury was caused.

 

Futile argument. If somebody got into their car plssed as a rat then drove to London and back without injuring anyone, would that be ok? Is the end result really the only thing of importance you can see in this?? He bit somebody, ffs. That really could not have been accidental.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Futile argument. If somebody got into their car plssed as a rat then drove to London and back without injuring anyone, would that be ok? Is the end result really the only thing of importance you can see in this?? He bit somebody, ffs. That really could not have been accidental.

 

I have never said it wasn't intentional? Sorry, I'm struggling to understand your point. My point is that the injury and the punishment is out of proportion with previous bans handed out by the FA. You're saying with that analogy that people should get the same punishment no matter the severity of the injury?

 

What's your argument?

[Appy]

I hear The9 thinks Suarez was doing a clearance with his teeth.

[eurosaint]

Nasty incident although it was always going to be overblown because of the high profile of the perpetrator !

Considering the precedent with Defoe, I consider the penalty to be disproportionately severe !

However, in order to avoid a repeat I would have given a 5 match ban but with 10 matches suspended !

I don't imagine that he will do it again but if he did he would know in advance that he is fckucked !

[Barry Sanchez]

I'm pleased to see that Pochettino, when asked about the 10 match ban is likewise concerned in what is causing Suarez to behave this way. Suarez is a really talented player but obviously has deep seated problems and the ban outright will only make things worse.

 

So you dont punish as it will make things worse? You punish to

 

1) To show society that whatever has been done shall not be tolerated.

2) To set an example.

3) To show the victim that he/she matters.

 

 

Rehabilitation is another part of punishment and they do go hand in hand but he has to be forthcoming and willing, is Saurez?

[oldskoolsi]

Already there have been reports of kids biting others in the playground as copy-cat behaviour.

.

 

I suspect there have been thousands of caes of biting in the playground before and after the incident completely unrelated to Suarez. I agree he should have got a big ban but I don't think you can blame him for children biting each other.

[toe_punt]

I think the ban is about right for Suarez as it was Prutton. But there is the racism issues which the fines are just a complete farce, and there is no consistency in their decisions.

 

Why is it that racism is considered almost as bad a crime as murder in the U.K these days?

 

It seems that, no matter what the conversation, people fall over themselves to be first to play the race card.

 

Curious.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Why is it that racism is considered almost as bad a crime as murder in the U.K these days?

 

It seems that, no matter what the conversation, people fall over themselves to be first to play the race card.

 

Curious.

 

As serious as murder?! Lol you hysterical tart.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Unsurprising really...

 

BBC pundit Robbie Savage thinks the*10-match ban handed out to Liverpool's Luis Suarez

*for biting Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic is "harsh".

The former Welsh international said he would rather receive a bite from an opponent than a career-threatening injury.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

A few more for those who don't believe anyone else thinks it's harsh...

 

http://www.thesportreview.com/tsr/2013/04/luis-suarez-10-game-ban-harsh-danny-murphy/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/video/23481/8669497/suarez-10-match-ban-harsh

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22287289

 

http://m.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/story.html?aid=18799603

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/10015790/How-can-Luis-Suarez-be-punished-more-harshly-for-nibbling-someones-arm-than-others-get-for-breaking-legs.html

[AussieDog]

[musesaint]

Personally I'm shocked by Liverpool's pathetic defence of the defenceless

 

When Prutton got his ban many did not like it ....but at least the Saints didn't attempt to question the FA's right to determine the punishment.

 

Shame on Liverpool's management ...or should I say MORE shame on Liverpool's management ?

[Saint Garrett]

Thing is though it is harsh compared to the bans dealt out to others. But I do think it's about right and he can have no arguments.

 

Personally think the system needs looking at especially this whole "ref saw it so I can't do anything". Undermining refs, then they get dropped to l1 for a few weeks.

[hutch]

Given his previous sentence of 7 games for an identical offence, he and they must have known he was looking at an absolute minimum of 8. Disproportionate? Hardly.

 

They've offered to reduce it to 5 provided he agrees to attend hunger management therapy classes.

[Dellman]

I don't think he has been punished at all, he will earn (no, receive) £3million before he kicks a ball again, it's Liverpool that are punished, he has a long holiday. that's not right.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The FA have not taken any offense committed 2 seasons prior and in another country into account before in any other disciplinary action. I'm sure if they feel the case is exceptional then they should do, however they set a president with Defoe that biting wasn't exceptional. Therefor I feel that the FA are making this up as they go along and can quite understand Liverpool's issue with this.