Football

[DVL418]

RE: 2012/13 Football Season

(23/04/2013 05:04)wirralbus Wrote:  

(22/04/2013 07:58)DVL418 Wrote:  

(22/04/2013 04:52)wirralbus Wrote:  Is this an occasion where the referee has decided not to see the incident , therefore the FA can decide on the punishment , if the referee had decided he saw it would of just got the standard punishment for violent conduct 3 maybe 4 match ban .

The way that Ian Ayre has decided to cancel his holiday makes you think that this time the management in the US is very unhappy and he may be lucky to survive with Liverpool into the 2013/4 season , its a game of wait and see .

What are you implying by the comment 'where the referee has decided not to see the incident', that he chose to ignore it?

Its obvious from the film clips of the incident that the referee didn't see the bite by Saurez (who I didn't know had form for this disgusting behavior until I read this morning's newspapers) and neither did the liner.

Its all such a shame, as Saurez's football has been superb this season, but his behavior means he will almost certainly be playing elsewhere in September. A player LFC will really miss if he is sold.

I will rephrase it then , if the Referee had seen it , he would have hamstrung the FA .

The FA are always saying that can not deal once the Referee says he saw the offence , in this case he didnt see the offence and the FA can deal as they see fit .

Fair enough. A ridiculous policy by the FA as results in widely varying punishments. Suspect Suarez will be looking at a ban of 10+ games.

In rugby union a club can ban a player pending an official punishment and this is taken into account when calculating the length of the ban.