Liverpool Striker Luis Suarez Banned For 10 Games For Biting Branislav Ivanovic

Luis Suarez has been banned for 10 games by The FA for biting Branislav Ivanovic in the match between Liverpool and Chelsea last Sunday.

“Luis Suarez has been suspended for a total of ten matches after an Independent Regulatory Commission today ruled on a charge of violent conduct,” said a statement by The FA. “A three-person Independent Regulatory Commission today upheld The FA’s claim that a suspension of three matches was clearly insufficient and the player will serve a further seven first-team matches in addition to the standard three. The suspension begins with immediate effect.

“The Liverpool forward had accepted a charge of violent conduct but had denied The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction was insufficient for the offense.”

Suarez has until 7am ET on Friday to appeal the additional suspension.

In response to the length of the ban by The FA, Liverpool FC managing director Ian Ayre said: “Both the club and player are shocked and disappointed at the severity of today’s Independent Regulatory Commission decision. We await the written reasons tomorrow before making any further comment.”

Luis Suarez will miss the next matches against Newcastle, Everton and Fulham — plus a possible seven additional matches.

What are your thoughts regarding The FA’s ruling? Is a 10 match ban sufficient, or is it too heavy of a punishment? Share your opinions in the comments section below.

54 thoughts on “Liverpool Striker Luis Suarez Banned For 10 Games For Biting Branislav Ivanovic”

  1. Not shocked by anything the FA does. They have a lot of explaining to do. Defoe did a similar thing some time ago and he wasn’t given such a ban. I’m sure David Cameron’s plea for a lengthy ban played a role in this.

    This effectively means Suarez will never put on a Liverpool shirt again. He will definitely go now.

    1. Jermain Defoe received a yellow card in the match, so The FA can’t overrule the referee’s decision.

      The Gaffer

      1. Therein lies the problem with the FA. If an official sees the incident the punishment is less severe than if the official didn’t see it. Where’s the logic in that?

        I think part of the reson the ban was so hefty is that it is Luis Suarez who has a checkered history and pressure from Cameron.

        If you’re Liverpool you have to sell him. He will only become a liability. Anytime Suarez is involved in any foul, unless it is extremely obvious, decisions will go against Liverpool. He also has a history of getting into trouble. While Liverpool might say they plan on keeping him, I’m sure they are thinking of selling him for a good price (they won’t get one if they come out and say he is for sale). Finally, Suarez may feel it’s time for him to leave England.

        1. Stop whinging this is the second time he has done something like this and should in fact be given a much longer ban. If you chose to defend him then you are as asinine as he is. Suarez should not be allowed on the pitch until he has had some serious help.

      2. I agree with Dave here, it’s nonsense that when a referee took action or saw an incident during a match then that meas that th FA won’t take any action. Still I don’t agree with he decision from the FA over the Suarez bite, I think it should be more than 10 matches.

  2. Before I make my comment…Gaffer, can you put two pages together so that those in favor of the ban can comment on one page and those thinking it is too severe can post on the other. That way everyone can ignore the opposite opinions abd the site may stay civil today.

    That being said, I hope this is the “in favor of the ban” page.

    I actually think he got off light. As “The Guardian” says: “Liverpool were concerned that Suárez’s chequered past and pressure from prime minister David Cameron’s office would increase the severity of his punishment for biting the Chelsea defender.”

    Based on the reasons for their concern, I don’t see how they cannot accept the lenght of the ban..and feel that they got of light.

    1. How is a ten game ban a light suspension?

      Suarez did something really stupid and was banned an appropriate amount of time. It is odd that some people have been much more reckless and escaped with no ban at all.

      1. I believe that the suspension is light because it is not long enough to effect a change in Suarez’ pattern of undisciplined play and lack of respect for the game. He does not show any remorse for his actions…other than the obvious apology to attempt to influence the length of a suspension.

        He has previously bitten a player and been suspended seven games…no change.

        He has racially abused another player and been suspended eight games…no change.

        He has punched a player in the stomach during World Cup qualifying…no change.

        He had a deliberate handball in the World Cup and bragged that it was the save of the tournament…no change.

        He has admitted that he intentionally dives…no change.

        I don’t know what length, if any, will effect a change…but, in my opinion, just progressing from seven to eight to ten games is not enough.

        1. I agree with all you say except the handball incident. The actual deliberate handball I have no problem with because sometimes in football there is such a thing as a good red card.
          The celebrating and bragging after the missed penalty was just foolish.

        2. It is not the FA’s job to change behavior, it is their job to punish retroactively if a punishable incident was not seen, but warrants action. If the incident had been seen, the FA would not have been able to punish Suarez.

          And also, how often do you make character judgments about people in your own life based on the their indiscretions. Who are you to say that he is not remorseful? I have done many things to hurt others, and each time I am remorseful. I don’t ever plan to mess up in the same way again, but don’t we all do stupid things repeatedly? Are we all bad people? Enough with the preaching!

          1. Been there…done that.

            At the same time, we (at least I am not) are not paid millions of pounds and, rightfully or wronfully, considered role models.

            The players are caretakers of the game. They need to treat it with respect. If they don’t they need to be punished accordingly. That’s why players are fined/suspended for drink driving or rape. They are not repecting their privledged standing.

            Suarez continues to disrespect the game and his fellow players. He needs to be punished in order to effect a change…for the good of the game.

            The FA is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the game…as such, they should be able punish in order to effect change.

        3. I think 6 would have been the maximum any reasonable person would have expected, I thought it would have been 4-5 as he had done it before. Very unfair, terrible display of double standards. “Independent” panel, what a joke! Just look at past judgements, just doesn’t make sense.

          1. Sorry mate but what he did is actually considered assault in the world and you could get 6 months in prison so yes he has gotten off lightly. He is lucky the Chelsea player has not filed a complaint with the police because he would then be in real hot water.

        4. When did Suarez racially abuse another person since his punishment for that offence? Until he does it again, you cannot claim he hasn’t changed.

          He hasn’t changed regarding the biting incident since he did it before.

          1. The intent is to point out that there has been no change in his undisciplined play and lack of respect for the game or his fellow players.

  3. 10 games is about right. His past conduct on the pitch has cost him this time and rightly so. Now he needs to be suspended from international football for throwing a punch.

  4. I can See like FA there light because surez its guy he know how to cleate problem evry year.I State to watch by the time was 9 years but I never see a prayer like surez who bite ather prayer on the ground.and is men who is messing English football.

  5. Gaffer do you think if Liverpool had taken the innovative and suspend Suarez themselves for the last 5 games they would have given him the extra 5 games next year?

    Can’t help think if Liverpool had acted differently he might of got off with less games.

    I can only hope they are stupid enough to appeal and it gets increased to 12-15 games.

  6. Should have gotten 20 games, mandatory counseling, and 50k fine.
    Suarez has repeatedly shown a complete lack of character as a human being and while LFC continually spout off about their history and standards, they “kop” out on this incident and whine about the “severity” of the punishment.
    Give me a break, what hypocrites.

  7. Seems about right given his track record. He is a serial biter, racist, hand-ball cheater, flopper…..

    I’m trying to imagine what he could do next season to “top” this. Maybe if he bit Evra?

  8. 10 games seems harsh.

    Objectively speaking, here are some relevant precedents: Robert Huth throws an elbow on senderos (not seen), 3 match ban. Fellaini headbutts Shawcross (not seen), 3 match ban. Joey Barton gets a straight red for an elbow on Tevez, then kicks Aguero and headbutts Kompany, 12 match ban. This incident seems somewhere in between the two, worse than the elbow, not as bad as the all out attacks from Joey Barton. Seems to me that it should be either right in between 3 and 12 (8 match ban, consistent with the Dutch league) or slightly more toward the Huth/Fellaini incidents (6 match ban). 10 matches seems punitive, which doesn’t surprise me from the FA. I break down the Barton ban this way: 3 match ban for the red, 3 match ban for the kick, 3 match ban for the headbutt, and 3 match punitive ban for being Joey Barton. For Suarez, how do they break this down? Is a bite worse than a stamp, headbutt, kick, elbow, or spitting (Popov)? Is it a 3 match ban for the bite (bite treated the same as a stamp, kick, etc) and a punitive 7 match ban? Is it a 6 match ban for the bite (twice as bad as a stamp, kick, etc) and a 4 match punitive ban? Both seem ridiculous if we look at this objectively. Is he a worse person than Joey Barton? Even those who hate him have to admit that they hate him equally as much as they hate Joey Barton :).

    1. How can they ban him for anything less than 7 games which is what he got the first time he did it.

      Given his recent history he got what he deserved.

      1. So we partially agree, but you can’t just ban a player punitively because he’s an a**hole. Let’s say you and a colleague at work overspent on the company credit card and got caught. Your boss gives your colleague a week of unpaid leave, but he gives you two weeks unpaid leave from your job because he just doesn’t like you. You would feel aggrieved, would you not?

    2. Sorry mate but the fouls and incidents you are bringing up all happen in the game. BITING is not a part of the game. Biting in fact is an offense for which you can be imprisoned; biting spreads diseases such as AIDS, Herpes etc. Biting is one of the most anti-social things you can do and rates right up there with spiting. Therefore his punishment is not nearly enough.

  9. If your child committed similar transgressions in life that Suarez commits on the pitch…how long would he/she be grounded? For life?

  10. The irony of all this is that if the ref had done a terrible job of officiating, such as seeing the incident and giving only a yellow, instead of merely doing a bad job of not noticing this incident, Luis Suarez would be free to play for this year and next.

    I am interested to see what kind of t-shirts Liverpool wear this weekend.

  11. I see it as a 6 game ban. The next 4 games would have been pointless so they are banning him for 6 games from the beginning of next season.

    1. That’s why I can’t understand why Liverpool didn’t suspend him first. They aren’t playing for anything and the knew he was getting at least 3 games off the FA.

      They could have scored some good PR points and maybe the FA would have gone a little easier if it looked like the club was trying to deal with the situation.

  12. It will probably be reduced to 6 matches after appeal. It seems sightly harsh but – the last matches this season are mute anyway.

    1. I wouldn’t be so sure about it being reduced if they appeal the ban. Do they really want to risk the ban being increased for a failed appeal.

      Best case scenario for a appeal would be 7!games suspension and the additional 3 games suspended for 18 months. If he messes up again before the 18 months is up he gets those 3 games added to his next suspension.

  13. All other things aside, I am sorry this happened. Along with Bale, Suarez is one of the very few guys who can be just awesome to watch play. Regardless of club, table position, anything else.

    It is a shame he has so little self-control and will largely be remembered for a series of abominable incidents of bad behavior.

  14. 10 games is still not as long a I think it should have been. 12 is what I would have said… but hey the F.A are useless

  15. Effectively handing over the GOLDEN BOOT and POTY to Van Persie, Awesome news.

    P.s Now Liverpool can rightly wear IT WASN’T INTENTION at the back of their next WARM UP KIT

    We’re CHAMP20NS.

  16. Liverpool is never going to sell Suarez over this. Take him out of this team for good and what do you have? That’s right – nothing. This is completely underlined by Liverpool bemoaning the ban. It seems obvious to me that due to his previous (and the furor in the press) the FA decided between their courses of rack of lamb and lemon meringue washed down with some glorious French wine they’d better hand down an inflated ban.

    Suarez is an idiot with problems and a magnificent set of choppers that would make any T Rex jealous, but again it’s a bite not a vicious career ending broken leg. Roy Keane ended Alf-Inge Haaland’s career with a knee capping the IRA would have been proud of and then gloated. What happened? Nothing. Even afterwards when he admitted in his book he went out to get Haaland the FA allowed him into management. That is far more disturbing than any bite.

    So send Suarez to anger management school or more sensibly English lessons, and then to Chelsea to help design a muzzle as they seem to have cornered the fashion market in helmets and face masks. Perhaps he can have a combination of all three – helmet, mask and muzzle – about as hideous as the one Anthony Hopkins wore in Silence of the Lambs where he looked like an angry little pig. Hell it could be used as a punishment. Any player guilty of egregious offences has to wear one for three games or something. I guarantee that would keep players in line more than any match ban threat by the FA.

    The relegation scrap is heating up, so let’s get back to the football.

    1. Roy keane did not end Haalands career. He retired because of problems with his LEFT Knee. Keane injured his right knee in that tackle but let’s not worry about small details like that.

      I ask again how can anyone expect the ban to be less than 7 games like he got before.It’s the second time he’s committed such a horrible act so of course the punishment is going to be increased.

  17. I don’t know what’s worse, the Suarez ban or the apparent ban on any comments from me about him? It’s enough to make me want to bite someone!

      1. I had better learn to type or proofread or return my diploma!!

        I am glad I am retired…I would never be able to find a job in today’s world that requires typing!!

  18. got to love that karma when it comes around and BITES you in the A$$!LFC has their excuse for next year and not a single match has been played.finish mid table no Europe and no silverware the FA banned our best player.

      1. In deed, 2014 will be momentous for Liverpool. February 7, 2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the Beatles arrival in the United States. Does not get much bigger than that!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *