|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jun 26, 2014 15:03:19 GMT
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? Obviously. Same as a foul throw, diving and offside.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordboy on Jun 26, 2014 15:15:00 GMT
Apparently he's not even allowed to train with the club, that's a bit over the top if true. I think FIFA have got this one pretty much spot on though.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordboy on Jun 26, 2014 15:20:10 GMT
Also as much as I hate the scousers, they've got to pay his wages for 2 months while he's suspended for something he did while away from the club, i'd be fuming if I was them.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 15:29:02 GMT
Apparently he's not even allowed to train with the club, that's a bit over the top if true. I think FIFA have got this one pretty much spot on though. 4 month ban for something that's violent conduct? What would you think is justified for an elbow to the face?
|
|
|
Post by barmyarmy on Jun 26, 2014 15:29:13 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? A copper was spat in the face and died from a germ in the spit.... Biting is weird, he has a screw loose but its not going to end anyones career....
|
|
|
Post by berliner on Jun 26, 2014 15:29:41 GMT
Apparently he's not even allowed to train with the club, that's a bit over the top if true. I think FIFA have got this one pretty much spot on though. Think you're the first person I've seen who actually thinks that...everyone is saying it's either not enough and he should be given fifty lashes or its far too harsh.
|
|
|
Post by grumpygit on Jun 26, 2014 15:31:19 GMT
Apparently he's not even allowed to train with the club, that's a bit over the top if true. I think FIFA have got this one pretty much spot on though. They should claim it from the Uraguay FA, he offended while representing them.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 15:32:12 GMT
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? A copper was spat in the face and died from a germ in the spit.... Biting is weird, he has a screw loose but its not going to end anyones career.... Ban players spitting then?
|
|
|
Post by barmyarmy on Jun 26, 2014 15:48:23 GMT
A copper was spat in the face and died from a germ in the spit.... Biting is weird, he has a screw loose but its not going to end anyones career.... Ban players spitting then? Gobbing in someones face is more disgusting than being bitten IMHO
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 15:50:25 GMT
Ban players spitting then? Gobbing in someones face is more disgusting than being bitten IMHO Was Reichart (spelling?) banned for very long for spitting into Voller's perm many years ago?
|
|
|
Post by oxfordboy on Jun 26, 2014 15:52:43 GMT
Apparently he's not even allowed to train with the club, that's a bit over the top if true. I think FIFA have got this one pretty much spot on though. 4 month ban for something that's violent conduct? What would you think is justified for an elbow to the face? But it's the third time he's done it, he's had 2 bans of a lesser length in the past for the exact same offence, so it's not just 4 months for violent conduct is it?
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jun 26, 2014 16:34:51 GMT
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. That's right have you forgotten the other 2 occasions, As I said in a previous post, If he done that to me I would have knocked his bugs bunny teeth out. As regards valencias tackle it was bad but I don't think intentional but laws of the game he was in the wrong. There have been far worse challenges which have received just a 3 game ban, Remember the brizzie r pr*ck who took Alfie that was far worse than Valencias.
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Jun 26, 2014 19:30:54 GMT
Apparently he's not even allowed to train with the club, that's a bit over the top if true. I think FIFA have got this one pretty much spot on though. 4 month ban for something that's violent conduct? What would you think is justified for an elbow to the face? The same if intentional and a repeat offender But as you think actual bodily harm is no worse than diving I expect you think a yellow card would suffice
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 26, 2014 20:43:58 GMT
4 month ban for something that's violent conduct? What would you think is justified for an elbow to the face? The same if intentional and a repeat offender But as you think actual bodily harm is no worse than diving I expect you think a yellow card would suffice Blimey! Sensitive soul aren't we? ABH? What about the other repeat offenders? Bale got booked about 7 times for diving. Why did the punishment not increase each time? Intentional and repeat offender. I think Suarez deserved a ban for what he did. 3 matches for violent conduct, extra 1 or 2 more perhaps because he'd done it before, but 4 months is IMHO excessive. But it's an easy one for FIFA as he's the only biter so they can appear to be tough on discipline without making things tricky by banning players for cheating, elbows, dangerous tackles etc or there'd be no-one left on the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Jun 26, 2014 20:47:54 GMT
The same if intentional and a repeat offender But as you think actual bodily harm is no worse than diving I expect you think a yellow card would suffice Blimey! Sensitive soul aren't we? ABH? What about the other repeat offenders? Bale got booked about 7 times for diving. Why did the punishment not increase each time? Intentional and repeat offender. I think Suarez deserved a ban for what he did. 3 matches for violent conduct, extra 1 or 2 more perhaps because he'd done it before, but 4 months is IMHO excessive. But it's an easy one for FIFA as he's the only biter so they can appear to be tough on discipline without making things tricky by banning players for cheating, elbows, dangerous tackles etc or there'd be no-one left on the pitch. youtu.be/Qh2sWSVRrmo
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jun 26, 2014 21:31:29 GMT
Blimey! Sensitive soul aren't we? ABH? Couple of factual points to throw into the conversation: From a legal guide: " Assault causing actual bodily harm (ABH) is a criminal offence which is governed by Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act. In this case the assault or battery needs to cause harm to the person’s body. The harm is not necessarily serious but it would need to be more than a shove which would remain common assault. Harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient.". So yeah, strictly speaking if it happened in the UK, it could be defined as ABH! Also spitting now carries an automatic six-game international ban. Biting probably is about 50% worse........ The other differences between biting and elbows to the head/shin-breaking tackles is that in the latter case, it's very hard to prove intent. Sometimes those tackles are genuinely sinister (see Keane, Roy - and frankly, I didn't like the look of the Belgian guy's tackle today) but sometimes they're just a result of incompetence and bad timing. And it can be really hard to tell the difference between the two. Noone bites anyone on the shoulder Suarez-style by accident!
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jun 27, 2014 5:31:19 GMT
Blimey! Sensitive soul aren't we? ABH? Couple of factual points to throw into the conversation: From a legal guide: " Assault causing actual bodily harm (ABH) is a criminal offence which is governed by Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act. In this case the assault or battery needs to cause harm to the person’s body. The harm is not necessarily serious but it would need to be more than a shove which would remain common assault. Harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient.". So yeah, strictly speaking if it happened in the UK, it could be defined as ABH! Also spitting now carries an automatic six-game international ban. Biting probably is about 50% worse........ The other differences between biting and elbows to the head/shin-breaking tackles is that in the latter case, it's very hard to prove intent. Sometimes those tackles are genuinely sinister (see Keane, Roy - and frankly, I didn't like the look of the Belgian guy's tackle today) but sometimes they're just a result of incompetence and bad timing. And it can be really hard to tell the difference between the two. Noone bites anyone on the shoulder Suarez-style by accident! Scratches and bruises as well? So there's probably ABH comitted in most games. Sorry, being facetious! My point is, there are plenty of deliberate acts by players outside the laws of the game, repeat offenders, causing or potentially causing far worse injury where the punishment is far less severe. I guess they get away with it as intent is difficult to prove beyond doubt (as you say). Although diving doesn't injure anyone why do the punishments not increase for the repeat offenders of diving? If there's any kind of consistency then surely there ought to be
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Jun 27, 2014 10:19:13 GMT
As much as I don't like Suarez, I think 4 months is a bit extreme for what is essentially violent conduct. If you punch, deliberately kick or headbutt an opponent, it is normally a three game ban. All of these are deliberate attempts to injure an oppnent. Also, spitting usually gets a six game ban. There have been cases where serious harm has been committed as a result of the assualt which has resulted in longer bans (e.g Ben Thatcher was banned for 8 games for a nasty challenge on Pedro Mendes for example), but Chiellini wasn't injured enough that he couldn't continue.
Having said that he received a 7 game ban for biting in the Dutch League, 10 games for biting Ivanovic, so he knows the score and that biting will not be tolerated - so I haven't really got any sympathy for the bloke.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
The problem with Suarez is history and where he did it. FIFA were left with no option but to ban him. Elbowing or high tackles are almost part of the process of playing the game as people can misjudge/mistime things without deliberate malice. Biting isn't and is a rare occurrence. I have no sympathy for the scousers or Uruguay. This is the 3rd time he has done it for heavens sake. Stop playing the victim.
Uruguay and Liverpool should vent their anger at Suarez for being such an impetuous and compulsive sod and not complain about how harsh the punishment is. Maybe even force him to deal with whatever issue he has that makes him do it.
|
|
|
Post by oxt on Jun 27, 2014 13:08:33 GMT
You are forgetting poor old Luis is the victim here... from reading reports out of Uruguay it is the British press' fault, or some how the goal that may or may not of crossed the line in '66, or even the Italian FA's revenge, and possibly a conspiracy created by Brazil!!!
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 27, 2014 21:26:06 GMT
Luis is a victim. Of the fact his teeth got injured when they accidentally came into contact with another human being.
Typical victim mentality.
|
|