So Just How Fair Is Luis Suarez' Ten Game Ban?

 Before I get into exactly what I think of the ten game ban handed out to Luis Suarez today I need to make something clear. This article is NOT in any way, shape or form a defence of Suarez. What he did was wrong and he thoroughly deserves to be fined and banned. The problem with talking about Suarez seems to be that unless you say you want him hung, drawn and quartered you're accused of defending him. When I arrived in work on Monday morning I was met by three Man Utd fans who, let's say, 'asked' for my opinion and told me he should be chucked out of the Premier League. I replied that he was bang out of order and deserves a big fine and ban, but as long as they supported Cantona then they couldn't really say Suarez had to be sold or sacked. And I was immediately told 'I can't believe you're defending him after that!'. Honestly.

 Anything other than demanding the Uruguayan be shot seems to be taken the wrong way, any attempt at a balanced discussion falls flat as soon as the over reaction of the nationwide lynch mob rears it's head. So, again, this is not a defence of Suarez, it's a look at the length of his ban. And for the record I'd like to point out two things. Firstly I predicted on here yesterday a ten game ban. And secondly I'm acutely aware of the fact that had our number seven not bitten anybody there would be no ban and no condemnation, so despite whatever you or I think of the ban, he still has only himself to blame for the whole situation.

 On to the length of the ban itself - ten games. Well, the three man independent panel watched the video footage and came up with a punishment. What they saw in that incident that led them to conclude ten games was the right length of ban I'm not sure. Yes, he bit him, but it wasn't a hard bite and it was never in any way, shape or form going to endanger his opponent. It was petulant, childish and disgusting, but that it was any worse than spitting, or at least seven more games worse than spitting, I just can't agree with.

 If you're undecided on how you feel about the ten game ban I've got a couple of things for you to think about. Against Stoke this season Marounanne Fellaini headbutted, punched and elbowed an opponent in three separate incidents and landed himself with a three game ban. Would you rather be on the receiving end of Suarez' bite or Fellaini's actions? In my opinion most sane people would not choose the Everton man's treatment. This is not me passing judgement on Fellaini, or trying to excuse Suarez, this is me saying if you consider Suarez' bite less harmful then surely you'd have to conclude his ban being over three times the length of the Belgian's simply doesn't make sense.

 My next point I feel is an important one. There have only been two bans in the Premier League era of equal length or more that were handed our for a single on field incident. Joey Barton got twelve matches but that was for an accumulation of three separate acts. Only Paolo Di Canio and David Prutton have been banned for as long as Suarez, both of them for pushing the referee. So I ask you this, aside from pushing the referee, was Suarez' bite of Branislav Ivanovic on Sunday the worst thing you have seen happen on the football pitch in England over the last twenty three years? Remember the leg breaking tackles, the heatbutts, players being left unconscious, the swearing, the racial abuse, was Suarez' bite honestly worse than anything else? I doubt anybody can truly, honestly say it was.

 I disagree with Suarez claiming he didn't deserve anything more than a three game ban, it was an unusual situation but an unsavoury one and certainly not normal behaviour for a professional footballer, and it deserved to receive a stronger than usual punishment. But ten games is too harsh for what it actually was.

 Yes, he has previous, but not this season. Under current rules if a player reaches ten yellow cards he gets a two match ban, but the following season everything starts from scratch again. What a player does one season has no bearing on what happens to him the following season. I'm not saying that this is necessarily right, but it's the rules. I'm all for the FA taking a tougher stance when it is appropriate, but I don't think bringing this in mid-season can be right on any level. 

 There's the Jermaine Defoe factor. He did the same thing to Javier Mascherano in 2006 and got nothing more than a yellow card. This has been brushed over by saying the FA were powerless to do anything as the referee dealt with it at the time, but this isn't true. The FA had the option to view this an an exceptional incident and take further action against the England centre forward but they chose not to. For this reason alone Suarez is within his rights to feel aggrieved at the ten games that have been dished out to him.

 Several people are advising Liverpool and Suarez not to appeal as the ban may end up being increased. This is the same FA who appealed the length of Wayne Rooney's suspension when he kicked a player on England duty. If the FA extended Suarez' ban because he appealed it would be hypocrisy of the highest order. So I expect that to happen.

 What the FA have done in banning Suarez for such a ridiculous amount of time is turned him into a victim. He's the guilty party, even his staunchest supporters were disgusted by what he did and a section of Liverpool fans had even begun to think he should be sold. But by handing out an unjust level of punishment they have given people a reason to support the Uruguayan again, to fight his corner and to get behind him. 

 Banning him is right, banning him for more than three games is right, but banning him for longer than you get for a leg breaking challenge, for longer than you get for spitting, longer than you get for headbutting, longer than you get for racially abusing someone, that's just nonsensical.