ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
to think that Suarez's 10 match ban is totally justified?(118 Posts)
I am not a football fan but the bite incident was shocking - it was like a toddler having a tantrum but a grown man doing it was just vile.
What pisses me off was that Liverpool FC saying they were surprised and disappointed with it? Wtf? What else do they expect? They should be fined too for not being able to control their player.
He may still be nominated for player of the season because he is so talented!
It's unfortunate for the easy-going Branislav Ivanovic that he was the CB that day. Had the alternative CB been fielded the assault wouldn't have happened. Suarez simply wouldn't have dared!
I have to agree with WhereYouLeftIt and Lovecat and others.
Racism should be punished by a lifetime ban as well.
But rather than get into an argument about is racism worse than physically attacking your colleagues on a regular basis, we should be agreeing that both are wrong and deserve the same punishment.
The problem being that a verbal attack that includes racist language is sometimes more difficult to prove than a physical attack that was caught on camera with the victim shouting in pain and left teeth marks in his arm. He had the physical proof to show them and that will always make punishing the attacker easier because they can't argue that they bit someone by accident or that the bite was misinterpreted.
Lifelong Liverpool fan here and I am disgusted with my club for trying to defend the violent wanker. He should be chucked out and banned from playing football.
As for those saying 'well, racists got less of a ban', the answer is to get rid of them as well imho, not lessen the punishment of a bloody nutter.
He's chewed it over and decided not to appeal
I am somewhat bemused by all the 'it's too harsh' reactions (both here and elsewhere). Seriously? A grown man committed an unprovoked attack on another in the workplace. And he is known to have done it before. I cannot understand why this is not a police matter.
It is particularly shocking because the it is so deliberate. For all people point out about career-ending tackles, these happen in the course of the game when it could be argued that the perpetrator has been neglectful/careless of the victim rather than targetting them; you can't say that about walking up to someone and sinking your teeth in!
Yes agree AF and if you watch the footage of it thats been shown several times in slow motion you see the other player scream in shock and pain right at the second Suarez sinks his teeth into his arm and he isn't even looking at Suarez. If that wasn't a real good old bite l expect to see the other player at the Oscars.
As for managers press conference it actually had me raging at the telly. It was all about Suarez being the victim here . Also he said we are just being good employers looking after our employee which any good employer would if somebody had a problem or made a mistake at work and obviously needed help.
Yeah right - like if we all go into work tomo and all randomly bite a colleague because they push in at the photocopier or whatever, let's see how many of us still have a job this time next week shall we ?
Do we have to have this guy on a football pitch any more? Can't he just be handed a lifetime ban for repeated offences of conduct unbecoming or whatever they call it?
In the clip I just watched, he seems to be laughing and smiling as the other player is lead away. He looks like he found it funny.
He certainly doesn't look like he is sorry or regrets what he did. And the bite itself is horrifically nasty, like a dog locking it's jaw and ratting something to cause maximum damage.
I don't watch football or support a team. I wouldn't know who he was if I met him.
But if he has done this before and a seven match ban wasn't enough to stop him doing it again, ten matches doesn't seem long enough to me.
There is a similarity between the Evra incident and the Ivanovic one: both Evra and Ivanovic were players who were doing a good job (legitimately and within the rules) of marking Suarez and making it more difficult for him to play his game. He doesn't seem able to cope with that. Anyone who closes him down risks some kind of violent or aggressive reaction. And since that happens routinely in football, these incidents are going to happen again.
I don't believe Suarez has learned anything-in the moment, he has such poor insight and impulse control that he just acts out in a disturbing way. Liverpool are going to have to think about that very carefully, since they seem to have decided to keep him for the time being.
The previous biting incident in the Netherlands is a different level of seriousness, I think. Play had stopped, there was a bit of handbags Suarez wasn't even involved in, then he calmly walked up to another player (who wasn't doing anything much) and bit him from behind, breaking the skin. Completely disturbing.
yy. It's the fact that it even occurred to him. Disturbing
I don't care whether it left a mark. In fact, I don't really care if he had missed the player and only bitten his jersey.
The point is that it simply shouldn't occur to an adult to bite someone.
The fact that he has now been caught doing this twice means that he obviously thinks it's in some way acceptable [baffled]
faxthatpam i agree that it was disturbing to watch and it was the whole way he did it as imo its not a usual reactive way to "hit out".
It shouldn't matter if a mark was left, he bit another player. It's just all a joke!
Some halfwit upthread said "it didn't leave a mark" and that was supposed to make it ok
I have no idea if it left a mark or not, but I do know that particular "argument" misses the point by a country mile
Is there evidence that it did not leave a mark? From the footage the bite was sustained, the other guy looked shocked. The previous bite left a red raw weal and bruise.
I'm not a football expert or fan. But if a member if my staff bit someone from a rival company I would sack them straight away.
Rough games are games not violence because if an agreement to abide by rules. That's the basis of bring sporting. Biting people sets up the possibility of intimidating other players or making them reluctant to engage in close tackles. I know footballers often try and use a tackle for a sneaky kick, all deliberate violence should be treated exactly as that not as part if the game.
If it's harsh compared with other offences then the others are wrong. I wouldn't pay money for my son to go and watch him.
Wasnt enough IMO, Rio Ferdinand missed 8 month for missing a drugs test, so biting someone should mean an assault charge. And his manager whining, "He hasnt let us down", nice role model for youngsters.
paid time off? the top players get >above their salary ,a bonus for "coming off the bench">onto the pitch ! a bonus for every goal they score ,some get "turned up for training " bonus, the car ?usually given to him (good rap ,apparently?)it is not their "sign on fee," that"s just the beginning ,oh, and once their "agent" has negotiated the transfer fee , the club will pay any costs the agent throws at them, entirely ,and any the player may have ,and any other costs ,have to move home? ,club pays(he"s worth it), wag needs a new wardrobe? club picks up tab (shes worth it?)read ,if u wish A.sugars book re when he was a football club owner , now there is a guy who loathes agents!the above is a sample only ,there is a lot more,those guys cannot be sacked .would you ? after spending so much on a player >Q contrite speech to camera.
I can't think of another job where you could bite someone or shout racial abuse at someone and still keep your job. They need to really sort out the world of football. A small few really give the game a bad name.
If it didn't "leave a mark" the only reason is because he chose to bite a man strong enough to wrench his head away from his arm
I pity Suarez' gf or wife and children
A man that will do this in the gaze of the public is capable of anything
Not harsh enough imo. As others have said if they'd have done it at work they'd have been sacked, if a child did this in school there'd be consequences, if a person did this to another in public there'd be consequences and in fact if most celebrities did this they'd probably be charged with something. If a woman had come on here saying her husband had done this then it wouldn't be acceptable so just because it happens during sport it shouldn't be any different regardless of whether it left a mark.
The whole way he did it (grabbing his arm) unnerves me.
I think he definitely needs help of some kind, before going back on the pitch.
I think he must be mentally ill if he's been banned for it before.
The thing that shocked me about that bite was the length of it... he bit him and then held on and shook him - as my DS said "like a rabid dog". Frankly it was disturbing to watch.
He needs serious help to see this is not acceptable behaviour - anywhere, but especially during a football match in front of millions of viewers, including very impressionable children.
I think the ban reflects the fact that its a disgusting thing for a grown man to do. He has done it before and received a 7 match ban that time, so 10 matches for a repeat offence seems right to me, even lenient.
I agree the FA needs to look at its rules and inconsistencies, the Defoe incident being a case in point (although he had no previous - unlike Suarez). However, the whole 'picking on Suarez' argument is nonsense. LFC fans are bound to say this. The fact remains he behaved like an animal, had done it before and was very lucky Ivanovitch didn't want to press charges. IMO.
"Ivanovic showed the referee the bite from Suarez, and the ref took no action. Now either the ref decided no action was needed, or he decided to take no action (so the FA would have to take action retrospectively)."
Or more logically the referee didn't see the incident and can't send Suarez off on the basis of Ivanovics word and showing him some marks that he has no way of knowing if they were inflicted by Suarez.
"Also the FA would appear to be saying that biting someone is twice as bad as than lunging in with a tackle that prematurely ends a player's career (Roy Keane on Alfie Inge Haarland - a 5 match ban)"
Well to be fair Keane got an 8 game ban if you're judging it by Suarez. 3 for the red for violent conduct and and addditional 5 following the FA inquiry. If you're going to exclude the 3 games for the red card from Keanes then surely you have to do the same for Suarez?
It's also debatable whether it ended his career but either way it was a disgusting tackle that had the potential to end anyones career.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.