Liverpool also noted the chants about the Uruguayan sung by Manchester United supporters at Fulham on the same night this week. "I think where they [the FA] have to be more supportive is the reaction from people – and the antagonism of the crowds – towards Luis,'' said Dalglish. "That is the great problem."
In the wake of the case, Dalglish asked the FA to publish "guidelines" on what words are unacceptable in football. In his unsuccessful defence, Suárez cited "cultural differences", arguing that it was a descriptive, not racial epithet. "It would be helpful to everyone if someone gave us some guidelines about what you can and cannot say,'' said Dalglish. It is safe to assume that "negro", regardless of its usage in Latin America, would be on any list of proscribed words in England.
The whole sorry saga has been made more problematical by the commission's delay in publishing its reasonings, which Dalglish accidentally called "the written retort" yesterday. The presence of a verdict but no explanation has created a cauldron of uncertainty, bubbling with poisonous conspiracy theories and bile from sections of two great clubs' extensive supports.
If the racially abused Evra must always be remembered as the one who has suffered most, damage has also been inflicted on the relationship between United and Liverpool. Both clubs had been working hard behind the scenes to improve relations, including a possible joint overseas venture, but the Suárez-Evra maelstrom has set back that rapprochement.
In supporting Suárez in the immediate aftermath of the verdict, Liverpool issued a strong statement, accusing the commission of pre-judging him and attacking Evra's integrity. Dalglish defended the wording. "The statement couldn't have caused anybody any trouble,'' he insisted. United were hardly impressed.
Clearly, the commission made a major mistake in not releasing the verdict and "written reasons" simultaneously, leaving Dalglish and many others bemused. "In another walk of life, they would have waited [to announce the outcome] until they had it [reasons] ready. It might be weeks."
Dalglish was keen to strike a conciliatory tone, almost calling for calm amid the frenzied polemicising. "If everybody waited until the statement is written and shown on the FA website, you will have a better idea of why they came to their reasoning,'' he argued.
In the search for enlightenment, the "written reasons" will be pored over as if they were the Rosetta Stone. People will want to know how the tariff of eight games was reached. They will want to know if a precedent has been set which could apply to John Terry, the England captain, if he is charged by the FA with racially abusing Anton Ferdinand. Will the commission provide a lexicon of acceptable and unacceptable words?
So many questions need answering. Is the delay designed to ensure that when Liverpool appeal (within 14 days of receiving the written reasons), Suárez's ban takes in Old Trafford on Feb 11? Is there any legitimacy to Liverpool's hope that any of Evra's comments come under FA scrutiny? Did the commission note that Suárez's grandfather was black?
From the Boston base of the club's owners to the Kop, Dalglish enjoys incredible backing. For those arguing he is too powerful, that the club miss the steadying presence of an executive like Peter Robinson in the past, it needs mentioning that Dalglish is aware of his responsibilities to Liverpool's image. He just wants to support a popular player who he feels has suffered an injustice.
Yet the fact remains that Suárez has been found guilty of racially abusing Evra. The fact also remains that the tribalism tainting relations between Liverpool and United, and Anfield's long-standing scepticism towards the FA, has turned the manageable blaze of a disciplinary case into a towering inferno.