The Suarez ban...

[Willi]

What is the logic here? He plays for Uru and is under their supervision, but gets 9 game sussi for country and 13 game sussi for Pool and dem nuh have nutten fi do with WCup???

I could understand a 1 year or 2 year Intl ban, or a 3 month total sussi that would make it 9 game ban for both club and country.

Why Liverpool have to suffer more?

Note, I am all for him being banned, but mi nuh proppastand the logic.

[Willi]

Maradona as usual;

However, Suarez appears to have the unwavering support of his country while Diego Maradona, the Argentina legend, has also defended him, saying: "The Fifa sanction is shameful, they have no sensitivity towards the fans, they might as well handcuff him and throw him in Guantanamo."

[Lazie]

Maradona as usual;

However, Suarez appears to have the unwavering support of his country while Diego Maradona, the Argentina legend, has also defended him, saying: "The Fifa sanction is shameful, they have no sensitivity towards the fans, they might as well handcuff him and throw him in Guantanamo."

Diego may have been high when he said this, but it would be a good punishment "might as well handcuff him and throw him in Guantanamo"

[Sir X]

Paul see the logic...kisssteeth, nothing more than to drive down his club value.If they banned him from international football for 4 years, even two his value would have shot up by 20 % but no dem affi throw in di club ban.

Man can see dat , instead man a bawl bout principle of football, etc etc etc , like dem Holier than thou?.....Fifa a di biggest con inna diss, Liverpool betta appeal dat fassst and beg FIFA fi gi im at least 24 months to 4years international ban, Pool affi maximise im sale price, for di (PRINCIPLE)


Kissteeth.....5 th columnist me say, read dis bredda , long time always wid some talk outta both side a im ass arguement...how yuh mean it aguh guh hurt pool but ? and 23 million fine wid you , but im muss get club ban , yuh a wha taliban ?

[OJ]

initially i thought the ban was unfair to pool and it should only be international games. Then I realized it was not logical as a player could retire from intl ball and box down a man an seh cho.. mi a deal with club... so Fifa have no choice.. I think he should argue from the point of view of biting being a psychological illness and when he gets angry or anxious he bites and use that to get off.... apparently no joking now there is such an illness.

[Peter R]

I understand the argument you make and yes, it is unfair to LFC.

The problem is that FIFA is making this up as they go along and clearly they have no policy or guidelines that have been thought through, discussed with various stakeholders as to how sanctions should be applied... even what the sanctions should be, for particular transgressions.

It appears they are taking the approach that say IAAF takes, that is, you are caught cheating (taking banned substances) you get a blanket suspension. While a banned substance is not exactly the same as a biting etc., they obviously have adopted the "principle" that the transgression (whatever it be) will result in a ban from participating in any competition.

In principle I don't have a problem with that thinking, but what is "unfair" is the application of such on a seemingly arbitrary basis, as NO POLICY is in place, at least, that I have heard of with respect to 1) what bans are to be applied 2)how they are to be implemented and 3) for identifiable transgressions.

So, yes, in thinking this through LFC has been totally hard done by in this whole fiasco, and NOT just because of Suarez necessarily, but also by FIFA's inability to have policies (and practices like using replays to check the legitimacy of goals) in place to maintain integrity in the sport.

[Gamma]

the INTENTION is to punish SUAREZ. SUAREZ must account to his club for his behaviour. suh mi seet!

people stocks rise during world cup because of their performances, players value to clubs go up, regardless of whether it is an intended consequence that is how it is, ergo......

[Peter R]

I understand that.

At the same time, FIFA should, IMO, have clearer policies in place with respect to discipline so that clubs understand how same would affect them.

It remains therefore to be seen, in the absence of guiding policy, how FIFA will deal with some future transgression... a spitting, a punch etc., and the repercussions for the guilty player's club. The playing field needs to be level, that's all I'm saying.

[Islandman]

True, and Liverpool had some idea what they were dealing with when they signed him. They got the reward, now they have to face up to the risk they took.

[Karl]

It is not a without precedent...

In any case, the hold FIFA has on football authorities right across the globe and its ability to 'shake' governments arise from its requirement that the supreme laws on all things football are under its total control.

Remember it got Brazil to change laws or institute changes to laws to further FIFA's interest. It was do as FIFA wishes or else! ...so it is with all the FAs. Many...particularly within Europe wish to break FIFA's shackles but it is not easy!

Some refer to FIFA as a world Fiefdom.

[Peter R]

The risk they took they understood to the extent of behaviour while playing for THE CLUB.

Did the club understand that there were consequences inimical to the club while the player is on international duty??

[Karl]

The risk they took they understood to the extent of behaviour while playing for THE CLUB.

Did the club understand that there were consequences inimical to the club while the player is on international duty??

Clubs have been discussing and cussing about such for years!!! ...Clubs have even tried to have rules passed to ensure compensation for any losses they incur by occurrence at these type tournaments.

No luck for the clubs! or

[Islandman]

I see your point. Still it is hard to imagine a situation where you can do ANYTHING in an international game and expect to go back to your club and continue to make your millions. There Must be some consequences to your career if the offense is bad enough.

[Gamma]

you benefit...your stocks can go up to the benefit of the club and your stocks can go down. this can happen anywhere, in a night club....no one can tell me that marlon kings run ins with the law did not hurt his career and his clubs.

the "while on national duty" argument is farcical. what if he did it in a night club and had to go to prison?

[Peter R]

Gamma, my point is not contrary to what you are saying; I am saying FIFA needs to spell it out loud and clear so everyone understands what the consequences are...