Prestwich_Blue said:FIFA can impose a worldwide ban on all football activities if they feel it's warranted.jollylescott said:I am sure this question has been answered, but do FIFA have the authority to impose a domestic ban? Or are they limited to a ban which simply prevents him from playing internationals?
If the latter was the case then his price tag might go up, with the certainty that it would be only club duties.
kippaxwarrior said:Prestwich_Blue said:FIFA can impose a worldwide ban on all football activities if they feel it's warranted.jollylescott said:I am sure this question has been answered, but do FIFA have the authority to impose a domestic ban? Or are they limited to a ban which simply prevents him from playing internationals?
If the latter was the case then his price tag might go up, with the certainty that it would be only club duties.
Could Liverpool appeal as it happened in and international match if the ban is for all football?
cibaman said:BurnCK said:cibaman said:FIFA can ban him from all football but I would be surprised if they did. Has a player ever been banned from domestic football for foul play committed in an international? If not it would seem like too big a precedent. Biting is a nasty act, repeat biting even more so. But its not as if a player has suffered a career ending injury.
No but FIFA have banned a player worldwide for a domestic incident. Cantona was banned by the FA for 8 months and it was FIFA who turned it into a worldwide ban.
I don't see why it would be any different on this occasion, in fact it should be more likely considering he did it on the World stage. Would FIFA want to tarnish what is their pride and joy, and the pinnacle of football ?
Cantona's ban had a much bigger impact on the club he was playing for at the time, and who had a responsibility for his conduct, than it did on France. In this case the situation is the reverse. A 6-12 month worldwide ban would primarily punish Liverpool rather than Uruguay.
I'm not saying they cant impose a worldwide ban, or that they shouldn't. Just that I don't think they will. I would bet that Henry's lawyers have been on the phone today demanding that FIFA stick to the common practice of restricting the ban to internationals. They'll argue that nobody was seriously injured, that the "normal" penalty for this type of offense is 6 international matches. They might concede that he should get more as a repeat offender but that would mean say 12 international matches, not domestic games as well. And I don't think FIFA will take them on.
No idea. I assume so.kippaxwarrior said:Prestwich_Blue said:FIFA can impose a worldwide ban on all football activities if they feel it's warranted.jollylescott said:I am sure this question has been answered, but do FIFA have the authority to impose a domestic ban? Or are they limited to a ban which simply prevents him from playing internationals?
If the latter was the case then his price tag might go up, with the certainty that it would be only club duties.
Could Liverpool appeal as it happened in and international match if the ban is for all football?
urmston said:jknight said:
I think you're making a judgement on how serious the incident is by the potential consequences. You're right - all these incidents could lead to broken legs etc - far worse injuries than having a nibble on someone's shoulder. The problem is that a deliberate bite is equated with the behaviour of an animal or a petulent child - it's repulsive and in Saurez case he's done it three times when unprovoked. I think for this reason it's judged differently than an incident which (as you say) could actually do more harm
I don't find the bites repulsive. They are pathetic and silly from a grown man, but they have done no damage, a bit like one toddler biting another.
I find a dive for a penalty repulsive. It is cheating pure and simple.
Suarez's bites are probably no more deliberate than many a head butt or stamp.
If Suarez stopped biting and started stamping and head butting like some other players would we stop getting these ridiculous calls for a two year ban?
kippaxwarrior said:Prestwich_Blue said:FIFA can impose a worldwide ban on all football activities if they feel it's warranted.jollylescott said:I am sure this question has been answered, but do FIFA have the authority to impose a domestic ban? Or are they limited to a ban which simply prevents him from playing internationals?
If the latter was the case then his price tag might go up, with the certainty that it would be only club duties.
Could Liverpool appeal as it happened in and international match if the ban is for all football?
Tricky_Trev said:Colin Murray saying a potential 24 game ban would rule him out of the next Euros. Really? Would it now? Haha
jknight said:urmston said:jknight said:I think you're making a judgement on how serious the incident is by the potential consequences. You're right - all these incidents could lead to broken legs etc - far worse injuries than having a nibble on someone's shoulder. The problem is that a deliberate bite is equated with the behaviour of an animal or a petulent child - it's repulsive and in Saurez case he's done it three times when unprovoked. I think for this reason it's judged differently than an incident which (as you say) could actually do more harm
I don't find the bites repulsive. They are pathetic and silly from a grown man, but they have done no damage, a bit like one toddler biting another.
I find a dive for a penalty repulsive. It is cheating pure and simple.
Suarez's bites are probably no more deliberate than many a head butt or stamp.
If Suarez stopped biting and started stamping and head butting like some other players would we stop getting these ridiculous calls for a two year ban?
I can't agree - a bite is repulsive regardless of how much damage is done as a result. I agree a head butt if blatant (not just putting your head to another palyer's as Pepe did) is repulsive too but it can often be hard to prove malicious intent from a stamp - a bite is only ever construed as a deliberate act. I think the general consensus though will be that a bite is completely unacceptable precisely because it is animalistic, petulent and the behaviour of a child. Not to mention this is his third offence.