England's New TV Deal Worth $245M To FA Ryman, Isthmian Football League Split Racing Finishes 2nd In GB Attendance Sebastian Coe To Talk To MPs Again Millwall Stadium Controversy Intensifies RFL Explains Decision To Keep Bradford RFU Could Impose Five-Year Rule AFA Reportedly Closer To Agreements MP Warning Of Overusing Wembley CFA Set To Implement 18-Point Plan
Enter amount in full numerical value, without currency symbol or commas (ex: 3000000).
SBD Global/April 25, 2013/International Football
Liverpool 'Shocked' After Suárez Handed 10-Game Ban By FA For Biting Player
Published April 25, 2013
THE RIGHT PUNISHMENT? In London, Jim White opined after issuing a 10-game ban, "nobody can accuse the FA of shirking a tough decision." Indeed, so "draconian is the punishment it has produced a most unexpected consequence: it is possible almost to feel sorry for Suárez." The problem with cases like this "is one of moral equivalence." Head-butts and two-footed tackles "accrue no more than three matches." Is the FA "really suggesting that a playground assault which resulted in nothing more than a moment of astonishment for Ivanovic is worse than a career-threatening assault?" (TELEGRAPH, 4/24). Also in London, Oliver Kay wrote, "This was a moment that the FA's disciplinary system bit back -- and bit harder than just about anyone had imagined." If anything, a 10-match ban "seems extreme." Have "they made an example of Suárez?" The answer is "yes, probably." However, "that is what the FA have always tended to do in high-profile cases when they have felt a need to send out a strong message to the rest of football" (LONDON TIMES, 4/24). Also in London, Jamie Jackson wrote on the GUARDIAN's Talking Sport blog, "What surprises here is that Suárez, Ayre and Liverpool are 'shocked.'" For one player to bite another "is beyond the boundary of what the usual three-match ban for violent conduct caters for, as the FA maintained" (GUARDIAN, 4/24).