Nothing makes my blood boil as much as people playing the race card
I don't think it's excessive per se, in fact it's probably abou right. What does irritate me, and I believe I may have said this when Suarez got his racism ban, is that potentially career ending tackles still seem to hover between the 3 and 5 match area. I'd like to see them given the same kind of scrutiny. But the Suarez thing is separate to that.
The differences compound to make Suarez's case even stronger. As was explained; that they didn't see Defoe's bite as not worthy of more than the 3 game suspension means Suarez's tripled (!) sentence makes even less sense.
.
Err for the millionth time Suarez's bite in itself is far worse than Defoe's. Then you have all the mitigating factors like Suarez being a repeat offending ****. And finally whether Defoe's punishment was right or wrong really doesn't matter when the decision is how long the poor persecuted Uruguayan gets banned for, not can we look at someone who may have gotten off lightly and use that as a barometer.The differences compound to make Suarez's case even stronger. As was explained; that they didn't see Defoe's bite as not worthy of more than the 3 game suspension means Suarez's tripled (!) sentence makes even less sense.
You've argued that the previous history is reason enough to triple the ban length. What is ironic is that Suarez's 7 games previous (1 which was suspended) was 7 because he had a suspended sentence previously which added onto the bite charge - which itself was just a 4 match ban.
The reality is no one here can calculate exactly, and on which rules, the FA came to 10 and yet claim that 10 is 'just right'.
Indeed, an appeal would surely have only increased the length. I'm also glad that this can finally be put to bed.
