Does the punishment always fit the crime with the FA?
Liverpool Football Club think the punishment handed out to Luis Suarez is 'harsh,' and some fans think he got a bit of a hammering for being Luis Suarez. The fact of the matter is he bit another player and all of it was caught on camera; the whole world was watching! The FA don't want to be seen as an 'easy touch,' and ten games is sending out the right message. When a punishment for biting was researched on the FA no results were found; hardly a surprise as it doesn't happen very often!
Last season Joey Barton was handed a twelve game ban but the punishment was for being sent off three times in one game! This is what he said of both punishments on his twitter account.
Think its a fair ban for Suarez. Mine was 2 longer and deservedly so in my eyes. Liverpool and the player, shouldn't appeal. Its a fair ban!
We all know it's not the first time the Liverpool frontman has been in trouble, he was given an eight game ban for racism after a clash with Evra. This is where the FA come unstuck. Both John Terry and Suarez were found guilty and yet the Chelsea Captain got a four game ban! It was basically the same thing!
Now the FA are in a 'no win' situation brought on by themselves!
Rules are not supposed to be broken and yet when they are, punishments are all over the place! How can one player have a ban that is twice as long as another?
Callum McManaman, on his Wigan debut, made a challenge on Newcastle's Massadio Haidara that was to say the least, 'nasty,' and yet the FA did nothing about it! It could have ended the player's career but the governing body hide behind some silly rules.
Eden Hazard was seen clearly kicking a ballboy and the referee sent the Chelsea player off for violent conduct. This was a game seen by millions and yet the FA decided in it's wisdom to take no further action!
The common theme here is inconsistency, some players are getting away with it while others are getting punished!
We can't find the punishment for a kick in the balls.