Suarez - banned for 4 months (page 74)

[without a dream]

Re: Suarez

FIFA can impose a worldwide ban on all football activities if they feel it's warranted.

Could Liverpool appeal as it happened in and international match if the ban is for all football?

If he got a worldwide ban I'd imagine that Liverpool will kick up a proper stink. They will argue that they are being punished for something he did whilst not representing them. Another excuse to play the victim card.
However, Liverpool have had more than enough opportunity to seek proper help for Suarez, so I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.
It's going to be very interesting to see what happens next.

It will make horrendous PR if the Scousers kick off were he to get a domestic ban. Not that that's bothered them in the past...

 

[mcmanus]

Re: Suarez

He clearly has mental issues, how many times now? Its inexcusable. Listen Woy, just stop playing Smalling .....

 

[urmston]

Re: Suarez

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.

We go easy on the animalistic, petulant behaviour of children because it is harmless just like Suarez's bites.

Suarez's bites cause a lot less damage than other violent on-pitch actions, and they are certainly no more deliberate and offensive than incidents of racist abuse.

His bites are unusual, but that's not a reason to punish him more severely than those guilty of really violent fouls or racist behaviour.

 

[Impeccable One]

Re: Suarez

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.

We go easy on the animalistic, petulant behaviour of children because it is harmless just like Suarez's bites.

Suarez's bites cause a lot less damage than other violent on-pitch actions, and they are certainly no more deliberate and offensive than incidents of racist abuse.

His bites are unusual, but that's not a reason to punish him more severely than those guilty of really violent fouls or racist behaviour.

We go easy on kids because they are in a learning stage, just the same as when they become inquisitive in regards their genitalia, but as an adult this type of behavior is socially unacceptable and in some cases illegal.

Urmston, you are in the minority here !

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Re: Suarez

He clearly has mental issues

I agree, and yet he's nearly up to 3,000 posts.
Surely we should have seen the signs?
Diving worse than biting?
What the actual fuck...

 

[cibaman]

Re: Suarez

FIFA can impose a worldwide ban on all football activities if they feel it's warranted.

Could Liverpool appeal as it happened in and international match if the ban is for all football?

No idea. I assume so.

I'd have expected an international-only ban if it had been an isolated event but it's the third time he's done it now, twice in domestic competitions, so they may make an example of him. FIFA were looking at a worldwide ban for Anelka over his 'quenelle' gesture.

In that case FIFA were concerned that Anelka (ditto Cantona) could avoid the ban by obtaining a transfer and plying his trade elsewhere. If Suarez is given a ban affecting only international matches he cant get round it by playing for a different country. They don't need to make it a worldwide ban in this case in order to give teeth to the "normal" ban that only affects internationals.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Re: Suarez

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.

We go easy on the animalistic, petulant behaviour of children because it is harmless just like Suarez's bites.

Suarez's bites cause a lot less damage than other violent on-pitch actions, and they are certainly no more deliberate and offensive than incidents of racist abuse.

His bites are unusual, but that's not a reason to punish him more severely than those guilty of really violent fouls or racist behaviour.

I understand your argument but, as Impeccable and others have said, his actions cannot be compared to children in developmental stages.

Also, human bites can be very dangerous (often more so than the lower animal variety) and potentially as bad as other violent actions.

 

[Deleted member 58619]

Re: Suarez

Suarez's action was a lot less serious than many we see many times a season. We get stampings, head butts, elbows in the face, shocking two footed tackles, punches thrown in fights etc and these things attract a level of punishment which is far less than many seem to want for Suarez's nursery school type bite.

Even a dive to try to get a penalty is much more serious an offence in my opinion.

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

Approximately 10%-15% of human bite wounds become infected because of multiple factors. The bacterial inoculum of human bite wounds is rich in oral flora, containing as many as 100 million organisms per milliliter that represent as many as 190 different species. Many of these are anaerobes that flourish in the low redox environment of tartar that lies between human teeth or in areas of gingivitis. Moreover, most of these injuries occur on the hands, and hand wounds of any cause have a higher infection rate than do similar wounds in other anatomic locations. (See Pathophysiology and Etiology.)

These infections are often far advanced by the time they receive appropriate care. Patients often wait until infection is well established before seeking medical treatment. Wounds that are reevaluated are frequently more extensive than estimated on initial examination by the inexperienced observer and are frequently managed inadequately. (See Prognosis, Presentation, Treatment, and Medication.)

Human bites have been shown to transmit hepatitis B, hepatitis C, herpes simplex virus (HSV), syphilis, tuberculosis, actinomycosis, and tetanus.

Evidence suggests that it is biologically possible to transmit the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through human bites, although this is quite unlikely. (See Pathophysiology, Presentation, and Workup.)

 

[Paulmcfc2703]

Re: Suarez

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.

We go easy on the animalistic, petulant behaviour of children because it is harmless just like Suarez's bites.

Suarez's bites cause a lot less damage than other violent on-pitch actions, and they are certainly no more deliberate and offensive than incidents of racist abuse.

His bites are unusual, but that's not a reason to punish him more severely than those guilty of really violent fouls or racist behaviour.

This is the 3rd time he has done it. He's already been given a 7 & 10 game ban for it. What do you think his punishment should be? A one game ban so he doesn't play in the World Cup again or maybe a 4 game international ban so he misses 3 other friendlies before Christmas. Either way these are just not adequate.

He has already been charged once for racist behaviour which gave him an 8 game ban. What do you think he will get if he does it another 2 times?

 

[TommoCTID]

Re: Suarez