Football 2012-2013

[kaosmark2]

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting leniency for Suarez, just that proportionally to other bans (inc. his own), the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime.

The Defoe case was definitely wrong. But then, he's an England player...

[Kyelo]

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting leniency for Suarez, just that proportionally to other bans (inc. his own), the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime.

The Defoe case was definitely wrong. But then, he's an England player...

[thetime]

The Defoe case was definitely wrong. But then, he's an England player...

[TheGayTent]

What is differnt about their match day experience?

[pink_triangle]

Does that mean suarez should not get a 10 match ban though? Or that the defoe case was wrong?

[pink_triangle]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22289109

If Dortmund want to keep him, they will probably have to double/triple his wages which they are not going to do as it would end up completely distorting their wage structure. Theres no chance they will let him run his contract down and leave in 2014, his stock is even higher now and he is off in the summer.

They could also find it hard to keep Klopp which could end up being a bigger loss. Again there are big clubs who will offer him far more money than he is on at the moment and with less potential to lose their best players.

[thetime]

However I would probably put the type of bite that Suarez and Defoe did at the lower end of the violent conduct scale. If it was a Mike Tyson bite that would obviously be a different thing.

[pink_triangle]

Are you serious? Have you actully seen suarez bite? Have you seen defoe's bite? Totally different and totally at different scales in my opinion.

Suarez had so much venom in his face and had to be pushed of by ivanocic before suarez would get his teeth of his arm. Was this the case with defoes bite?

[strummer77]

Any system that says defoe 0 match ban, mcmenanan 0 match ban, suarez 10 match ban is clearly a broken system. Im not sure how much ban I would give for biting, best to decide a taririf at the start of the season and then the players know. However I would probably put the type of bite that Suarez and Defoe did at the lower end of the violent conduct scale. If it was a Mike Tyson bite that would obviously be a different thing.

[TheGayTent]

Sorry but I think that's a daft idea. You're both over simplifying things - which I don't think is right. We have plenty of rules and regulations for common occurrences, foul tackles, foul and abusive language etc etc. You can't IMO set a series of punishments for very unusual and rare indiscipline and that weren't seen by the ref at the time - they have to be considered on a case by case basis taking into account previous behaviour and any mitigating circumstances.

Are we really suggesting that the governing body release tariffs before the season for players that commit offences the officials do not see such as:

Biting?

Racist comments?

What else do you propose?

Eye gouging? Spitting at supporters? Mooning? Throwing coins at supporters? Kung fu kicking supporters?

Crazy idea.

Edited April 25, 2013 by TheGayTent

[strummer77]

Sorry but I think that's a daft idea. You're both over simplifying things - which I don't think is right. We have plenty of rules and regulations for common occurrences, foul tackles, foul and abusive language etc etc. You can't IMO set a series of punishments for very unusual and rare indiscipline and that weren't seen by the ref at the time - they have to be considered on a case by case basis taking into account previous behaviour and any mitigating circumstances.

Are we really suggesting that the governing body release tariffs before the season for players that commit offences the officials do not see such as:

Biting?

Racist comments?

What else do you propose?

Eye gouging? Spitting at supporters? Mooning?

Crazy idea.

[pink_triangle]

.Are we really suggesting that the governing body release tariffs before the season for players that commit offences the officials do not see such as:

[Kyelo]

Tariff 1: Dangerous play or foul leading/possibly leading to injury without malicious intent. 3 games

Tariff 2: Repeated dangerous play or foul leading/possibly leading to injury without malicious intent. 4 games

Tariff 3: Dangerous play or foul leading/possibly leading to injury with malicious intent. 5 games

Tariff 4: Repeated dangerous play or foul leading/possibly leading to injury with malicious intent, use of inflammatory or discriminatory terms, anything perceived as assault(kicking, punching, biting, head butting, pushing). 6 - 10 games

* continuous serious offenders can receive maximum offence(10) + 1 for every offence committed.

* where an offence is deemed extremely offensive or dangerous an independent committee can vote to give accused upto 1 season ban.

Yay or nae?

[TheGayTent]

Still open to interpretation.

Which just means people will have differing opinions and thereby we'll be having the same conversation next time this situation or similar occurs.

[strummer77]

Still open to interpretation.

Which just means people will have differing opinions and thereby we'll be having the same conversation next time this situation or similar occurs.

Edited April 25, 2013 by strummer77

[Kowalski]

Any system that says defoe 0 match ban, mcmenanan 0 match ban, suarez 10 match ban is clearly a broken system. Im not sure how much ban I would give for biting, best to decide a taririf at the start of the season and then the players know. However I would probably put the type of bite that Suarez and Defoe did at the lower end of the violent conduct scale. If it was a Mike Tyson bite that would obviously be a different thing.

[pink_triangle]

I don't agree. Suarez had previous.

He practically has his own parking space at Lancaster Gate.

[TheGayTent]

He practically has his own parking space at Lancaster Gate.

[fred quimby]

Bit of a trek from there to Wembley...

[Kyelo]

So speaking of bans...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/25/indonesian-footballer-life-ban-punch-referee

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

Examples include:

Far cheaper tickets

Terracing

Smoking and drinking allowed inside the stadium including in your seat/on the terrace

Better atmospheres

Higher attendances (see above...)

Closer relationship between club/players and supporters

Closer relationship between clubs and local authorities. One advantage of this is often excellent transport deals - things like free travel in the city of the game on the day of the game for match ticket holders.

[Kowalski]

I don't know if things have changed but it was non-alcoholic beer they were selling at Hertha Berlin when I went.

But clearly the Germans are doing a lot of good things which should be applauded.

[TheGayTent]

I've had alcoholic beer at Dortmund, Leverkusen, Kaiserslautern, Frankfurt, and Fortuna.

In all you were allowed to drink in view of the pitch.

I know this changes for UEFA matches, along with the terracing. Illogical but true all the same.

[thetime]

Do chelsea get the credit they deserve? Champions league winners last season and on the verge of another european final.

They dont seem to get much credit for it.

[kaosmark2]

Do chelsea get the credit they deserve? Champions league winners last season and on the verge of another european final.

They dont seem to get much credit for it.