THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION this afternoon published the written reasons behind Luis Suarez’s 10-match ban for his bite on Branislav Ivanovic.

To save you reading the whole 21 pages, we’ve done it for you. Here are the important bits:

1. The FA argued that Suarez may have been trying to provoke Ivanovic.

“It was entirely possible – indeed it may have been one intention [of Mr Suarez] – that the attack would provoke a violent response from Mr Ivanovic which would have resulted in the latter being dismissed from the field of play.”

Jon Super/AP/Press Association Images

2. The panel found that the incident was “truly exceptional”

“We also found that the deliberate, purposeful, unprovoked, off the ball attack of this nature truly exceptional.”

3. The FA tried to argue that it was more serious because Suarez had stayed on the pitch and scored the equaliser

“Whilst we could understand and sympathised with The FA’s submission that Mr Suarez not being dismissed after the incident had an impact on the game, we believed that this outcome could not be classed as a contributor towards the circumstances of this incident being truly exceptional.”

4. The panel were worried about copycat incidents among younger players

“We agreed that the incidents of biting an opponent in football are very rare at the moment and, because of this situation, we need to ensure that it will remain so. We have the responsibility for the whole game of football in England, down to the youth football at grassroots level. We believe it is our duty to discourage any players at any level from acting in such a deplorable manner or attempting to copy what they had seen on the television.”

Peter Byrne/PA Archive/Press Association Images

5. They were influenced by the fact that the incident trended on Twitter

“Within a few hours of the match, reference to the incident was both headline news around the country and the top trend on twitter worldwide.”

6. And they were worried about the damage done to English football’s image

“Whilst we accepted that Mr Suarez’s reputation had been impacted, these unsavoury images would have given a bad image of English football domestically and across the world alike.”

7. The panel ruled that the bite was “significantly more serious” than an incident involving Brighton’s Ashley Barnes, who was banned for seven games for tripping the referee

“Accordingly, the punishment should be significantly higher.”

Peter Byrne/PA Wire/Press Association Images

8. Suarez’s argument that he only deserved a three-match ban backfired

“When these were read in conjunction with Mr Suarez’s denial of the standard punishment that would otherwise apply for violent conduct is clearly insufficient, it seemed to us that Mr Suarez has not fully appreciated the gravity and seriousness of this truly exceptional incident.”

9. The panel insisted on sending a “strong message” as well as punishing Suarez

“The purpose of our decision should not only be a punishment to Mr Suarez for the offence committed, but must also be sending a strong message that such deplorable behaviours do not have a place in football.”

You can read the written decision in full here >

‘I really want to learn from what has happened’: Suarez won’t appeal 10-match ban