|
Post by sihath on Jun 25, 2014 15:00:07 GMT
I agree with you. Why should someone who repeatedly bites get a longer ban than someone who repeatedly tries to injure an opponent in any other way? Footballers behave in all kinds of offensive ways, swearing at referees, shouting abuse in their faces, diving, trying to con their opponents. The reaction to Suarez is because biting is such an odd thing to do. None of the 3 players he bit suffered any long term effects. They continued the games, didn't suffer any long term injury. But some are saying ban him for life. Over-reaction? Just a bit. He's a repeat offender - that's why there's such an outcry. You can dismiss a one-off incident as an oddity. Three identical incidents is a pattern of behaviour. He did it once, got banned, moved clubs. Did it a second time, got banned, had some counselling. He's had it explained to him a million and one ways - by his manager and teammates, the fans, the media (especially the media) - that biting an opponent is viewed as unacceptable behaviour, for which there will be serious repercussions. And yet he's gone and done it again anyway on the biggest stage there is in football. Now I do feel sorry for the guy. He clearly has some pretty deep-rooted psychological problems. He needs help. Serious, professional help. But I'm really not sure I want to be watching him in the Premiership next season, getting constantly heckled while waiting for him to explode again. It will be grotesque theatre that won't really do anyone any good. In the meantime, FIFA need to do the right thing and make sure that he doesn't play again this tournament (as they should with anyone who commits any act of wanton violence, whatever it is). Without him, Uruguay are going to get mullered by Colombia because they're genuinely not very good (whilst Colombia are, and look like a genuine threat to Brazil. Should they make it past Chile). There are plenty of repeat offenders. How many times has Bale been booked for cheating? How many times has Rooney/Terry/loads of others screamed abuse at a referee because they didn't get things their own way? Why aren't they hounded in the same way? Are their offences acceptable, are you saying that screaming abuse at refs is OK? That diving is OK? They're not. I'm not saying biting is acceptable, it's not. But neither is plenty of other stuff.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jun 25, 2014 16:11:21 GMT
There are plenty of repeat offenders. How many times has Bale been booked for cheating? How many times has Rooney/Terry/loads of others screamed abuse at a referee because they didn't get things their own way? Why aren't they hounded in the same way? Are their offences acceptable, are you saying that screaming abuse at refs is OK? That diving is OK? They're not. I'm not saying biting is acceptable, it's not. But neither is plenty of other stuff. I'm saying that biting is worse than screaming at refs or diving, yes. ABH > Intimidation and/or minor fraud in my book.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jun 25, 2014 17:42:26 GMT
Now I do feel sorry for the guy. He clearly has some pretty deep-rooted psychological problems. He needs help. Serious, professional help. But I'm really not sure I want to be watching him in the Premiership next season, getting constantly heckled while waiting for him to explode again. It will be grotesque theatre that won't really do anyone any good. In the meantime, FIFA need to do the right thing and make sure that he doesn't play again this tournament (as they should with anyone who commits any act of wanton violence, whatever it is). Without him, Uruguay are going to get mullered by Colombia because they're genuinely not very good (whilst Colombia are, and look like a genuine threat to Brazil. Should they make it past Chile). I agree with all the quote, except the bit in bold. I think you underestimate Uruguay in the first place, and in the second, Uruguay can (and should) salvage the dream; here's how. Oscar Washington Tabarez comes out and says "He did it, he's sorry and we'll take whatever sanction FIFA gives us". Then La Celeste will come out fighting as a team; and as a team with la garra charrua they won't lose to Colombia. I hope.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jun 25, 2014 18:24:01 GMT
I agree with all the quote, except the bit in bold. I think you underestimate Uruguay in the first place, and in the second, Uruguay can (and should) salvage the dream; here's how. Oscar Washington Tabarez comes out and says "He did it, he's sorry and we'll take whatever sanction FIFA gives us". Then La Celeste will come out fighting as a team; and as a team with la garra charrua they won't lose to Colombia. I hope. [pauses to look up what "la garra charrua" means......OK, carry on]I just base my thinking on what I've seen this tournament - and I don't think I'm bringing in any national bias here. They lost to a committed, but limited Costa Rica side. They beat a poor England through two pieces of Suarez magic. They beat a poor Italy via a set piece, which was one of only two chances they created all game. They've defended well in 2 out of 3 games (something you can't say about many teams this year). But with Forlan now looking past it, they're down to two genuine attacking threats - and now we assume soon down to one. Colombia meanwhile have looked vibrant, and full of options and energy and ideas. Maybe your lot can defend like heroes and nick it 1-0 or on pens.........but Colombia are going to start big favourites, and with good cause.
|
|
|
Post by brokeandobscure on Jun 25, 2014 18:57:31 GMT
A friend of my missus has just pointed out that if Suarez was a dog he'd have been put down by now.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jun 25, 2014 19:52:49 GMT
They've defended well in 2 out of 3 games (something you can't say about many teams this year). But with Forlan now looking past it, they're down to two genuine attacking threats - and now we assume soon down to one. Colombia meanwhile have looked vibrant, and full of options and energy and ideas. Maybe your lot can defend like heroes and nick it 1-0 or on pens.........but Colombia are going to start big favourites, and with good cause. Fair points, and I don't see any national bias. Forlan proved he can't play the supporting attacker role against Costa Rica, no pace; and Cavani proved he's not Suarez (despite his hungry look). I'm hoping El Maestro will play Abel Hernandez from the start. Colombia are as you say, but they haven't played a top side yet. The plan will be to defend like heroes, as usual; and playing big favourites has never been a problem. Let it rip. BTW, Tabarez doesn't look like he's going to let Saurez fall without a fight. I think he's wrong but that's la garra. Let's see. (I'm hoping my national bias is within reason)
|
|
|
Post by Hicko on Jun 26, 2014 6:21:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jun 26, 2014 6:37:22 GMT
If Suarez has his goals wiped, England qualify
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 6:52:20 GMT
That's a thought....so the plane could have left its engine running after all
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 7:07:25 GMT
There are plenty of repeat offenders. How many times has Bale been booked for cheating? How many times has Rooney/Terry/loads of others screamed abuse at a referee because they didn't get things their own way? Why aren't they hounded in the same way? Are their offences acceptable, are you saying that screaming abuse at refs is OK? That diving is OK? They're not. I'm not saying biting is acceptable, it's not. But neither is plenty of other stuff. I'm saying that biting is worse than screaming at refs or diving, yes. ABH > Intimidation and/or minor fraud in my book. I'd ban Suarez for longer for diving than I would for biting. Hypothetical situation: Would Italy have preferred to go through to the next round but with Suarez biting one of their players, or get knocked out because Suarez dived to win a crucial penalty?
|
|
|
Post by m on Jun 26, 2014 7:42:40 GMT
I'm saying that biting is worse than screaming at refs or diving, yes. ABH > Intimidation and/or minor fraud in my book. I'd ban Suarez for longer for diving than I would for biting. Hypothetical situation: Would Italy have preferred to go through to the next round but with Suarez biting one of their players, or get knocked out because Suarez dived to win a crucial penalty? That's daft. The biting and diving are incidental to that situation. Would Italy have preferred to go out this round with Suarez biting one of their players, or go through after Suarez had been carded for a dive?
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 7:56:00 GMT
I'd ban Suarez for longer for diving than I would for biting. Hypothetical situation: Would Italy have preferred to go through to the next round but with Suarez biting one of their players, or get knocked out because Suarez dived to win a crucial penalty? That's daft. The biting and diving are incidental to that situation. Would Italy have preferred to go out this round with Suarez biting one of their players, or go through after Suarez had been carded for a dive? Fair point However I still think his diving is a bigger problem than his biting. I think there's been a big over reaction to it. It's wrong, it's weird and he should get a ban. But Danny Murphy suggesting he should be jailed is utterly ridiculous. Just wondering why there wasn't the same kind of reaction to Valencia's red card challenge last night. He's done that before, he could so easily have broken the French guy's leg. But no calls for him to be jailed. Suarez's actions were bad, but no worse than plenty of other things that go on in football every single game. It's just that it's so unusual that people are getting worked up about it.
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Jun 26, 2014 9:35:31 GMT
Its unusual that you dont see attacking an opponent as worse than cheating.
Physically attacking someone is illegal.
Biting isnt just weird, its disgusting and dangerous. What if he has an infectious disease?
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 9:47:27 GMT
Its unusual that you dont see attacking an opponent as worse than cheating. Physically attacking someone is illegal. Biting isnt just weird, its disgusting and dangerous. What if he has an infectious disease? When you say illegal, are we talking about the laws of the game or in "real life"?
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Jun 26, 2014 9:49:44 GMT
Which one is it legal in?
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 10:02:46 GMT
Which one is it legal in? Neither. I'm trying to understand your point. Biting someone is illegal in football and in real life. Diving is illegal in football but legal in real life (although you'd get some funny looks) A perfectly controlled sliding tackle is legal in football, but probably illegal in real life (try it on a random shopper in a town centre in front of a policeman and I'm sure you'd have your collar felt)
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 14:12:15 GMT
9 match international ban and 4 month ban from ALL football activity.
Harsh.
Perhaps the authorities will clamp down hard on deliberately injuring opponents in any other way?
I doubt it though.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jun 26, 2014 14:21:54 GMT
9 match international ban and 4 month ban from ALL football activity. Harsh.Perhaps the authorities will clamp down hard on deliberately injuring opponents in any other way? I doubt it though. Should have been 2 years fro all football!
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 14:27:26 GMT
9 match international ban and 4 month ban from ALL football activity. Harsh.Perhaps the authorities will clamp down hard on deliberately injuring opponents in any other way? I doubt it though. Should have been 2 years fro all football! What would you give as a ban for players who deliberately elbow an opponent? Or deliberately stamp on an opponent, or endanger an opponent with a reckless tackle?
|
|
|
Post by Hicko on Jun 26, 2014 14:28:08 GMT
very harsh in my opinion.
it will probably be appealed and maybe go down to 2/3 months.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jun 26, 2014 14:32:31 GMT
very harsh in my opinion. it will probably be appealed and maybe go down to 2/3 months. Total bollox when he bit chelsae man (cant spell his name) he got a 10 game ban He gets a 9 game ban and possibly only 1 international game. Ifsomeone bit me like that I would have knocked his bugs bunny teeth out!
|
|
|
Post by John Lennon on Jun 26, 2014 14:36:09 GMT
Considering its his 3rd offence, I think the punishment is right, and fully deserved.
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Jun 26, 2014 14:36:24 GMT
It's a 9 match international ban, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jun 26, 2014 14:43:39 GMT
It's a 9 match international ban, isn't it? I stand corrected junior thanx
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jun 26, 2014 14:44:17 GMT
So Suarez does something that can cause minor superficial damage at worst and gets a 9 match ban; Valencia makes a potentially career-ending challenge last night and gets a one-match ban.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 14:49:29 GMT
So Suarez does something that can cause minor superficial damage at worst and gets a 9 match ban; Valencia makes a potentially career-ending challenge last night and gets a one-match ban. And Valencia has done that kind of thing before. Football authorities being inconsistent, who'd have thought it? Clamp down on the elbows and the stamping as well.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jun 26, 2014 14:53:08 GMT
So Suarez does something that can cause minor superficial damage at worst and gets a 9 match ban; Valencia makes a potentially career-ending challenge last night and gets a one-match ban. Big argument there did his foot slip of the ball as his foot was on the top of the ball....Or did he feign the tackle for the ball to deliberately to take the fella out period. If however you bit someone would you not expec to get a smack in the mouth!
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Jun 26, 2014 14:58:31 GMT
So Suarez does something that can cause minor superficial damage at worst and gets a 9 match ban; Valencia makes a potentially career-ending challenge last night and gets a one-match ban. And Valencia has done that kind of thing before. Football authorities being inconsistent, who'd have thought it? Clamp down on the elbows and the stamping as well. So going on this theory, spitting in someone's face - no harm caused, that should just be play-on yes? Less serious than a deliberate trip which gains a yellow card?
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 14:58:52 GMT
So Suarez does something that can cause minor superficial damage at worst and gets a 9 match ban; Valencia makes a potentially career-ending challenge last night and gets a one-match ban. Big argument there did his foot slip of the ball as his foot was on the top of the ball....Or did he feign the tackle for the ball to deliberately to take the fella out period. If however you bit someone would you not expec to get a smack in the mouth! Both Valencia's feet were off the ground, he was not in control of the tackle, that's why he didn't take the ball cleanly, if he hadn't jumped in he could have won the ball. The French guy was very lucky not to be badly injured. But he's not a pantomime villain so the media don't see the need to make a fuss. There will be far worse tackles in this World Cup, that cause far more injury, and as deliberate as Suarez, that will not get anywhere near the same punishment.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 15:00:51 GMT
And Valencia has done that kind of thing before. Football authorities being inconsistent, who'd have thought it? Clamp down on the elbows and the stamping as well. So going on this theory, spitting in someone's face - no harm caused, that should just be play-on yes? Less serious than a deliberate trip which gains a yellow card? No. Spitting is covered by the laws of the game. Unsporting behaviour (or something similar). Same as the bite is covered by the laws of the game(violent conduct). Except they've given suarez a much bigger ban that you'd normally get for violent conduct.
|
|