[Addick]

Arseblog has addressed it once again. On his Arsecast the other week, he discussed the FA's Footballing Double Jeopardy. Although it was mentioned as a FIFA directive, I believe it is the FA's prerogative to not review plays that the match-official has already addressed even if it was not addressed properly/correctly.

Originally Posted by Arseblog

Suarze 10 Game Ban Highlights The FA's Inadequacies... Again
25 April 2013
Arseblog.com

Anyway, all the talk this morning is of Luiz Suarez and the 10 game ban he’s been issued by the FA for gnawing on Branislav Ivanovic. If it seems harsh the very obvious answer is that in order for a player to escape a 10 game ban, he ought not to bite an opponent – especially not when he’s had previous with the FA over being racist.

There’s simply no condoning what he did, you can’t find any excuses for it, and on the face of it a 10 game ban isn’t that unreasonable. He bit a man, for goodness sake. A professional footballer, earning as much money as he does, representing his club, acted like a toddler. If he’s got issues and problems with anger, that’s his look out. Liverpool knew he was capable of being all bitey when they bought him, and after a 7 game ban in Holland for the same thing, they can’t get away with acting shocked and surprised over the antics or the outcome.

What makes the whole thing such a contentious issue is that when it comes to the FA, and their completely arbitrary disciplinary system, it doesn’t make sense when compared with other bans. Suarez himself was given an 8 game for being racist, is nibbling an opponent 2 games worse than that? And why was Suarez’s racism twice as bad as John Terry’s who only got 4 games? They might say repeated utterances of the word he used against Evra, but racism is racism – and if there was some linguistic confusion over the Suarez affair, the impact of calling your England teammates brother a ‘####ing black ####’ can’t be obscured in any way.

Complete Post