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!
He didn't leave a mark?! Ha! What a ridiculous comment.
I would also like to point out that fans have been banned for up to 3 years for making racist remarks so I would say that Suarez and Terry got off very lightly.
Agree with MaryZ about biting being taboo in adult society.
"John Terry got a 4 game ban for racism."
Indeed, Collaborate. A 4 game ban for saying words - words which a court of law had decided he wasn't guilty of saying. Suarez has been given a 10 match ban for a violent action which he has admitted carrying out and for which he'd undoubtedly be found guilty of in law should Branislav Ivanovic change his mind and decide to press charges.
Suarez has form for biting - this is not the first incident. Unlike Terry's alleged racist words, Suarez's assault was unprovoked, even arguably premeditated. Suarez even had the gall to fake injury after being pushed away by his victim!
Words, however offensive, don't have the potential to cause physical pain, aren't unhygienic and don't carry the chance of transmitting potentially fatal disease. Biting does.
AFAIAC, given Suarez's form for biting and his overall behaviour and tendency to aggression on the pitch a ten match ban is the least he deserves. It should have been accompanied with points deduction for Liverpool and Chelsea being awarded three points for the match which they'd almost certainly have won had the referee not dismissed Ivanovic's complaint and allowed Suarez to remain on the pitch.
Failing that, deport him. Nasty little man.
It's also unsporting and bringing the game into disrepute. Being able to play the game well is not the same as representing your club.
If he can't play with out behaving like an animal he shouldn't be playing at all.
The game of football is a joke. Fans and players are just thugs.
(Before people start jumping up and down crying "Racist!" the comment "deport him" was tongue in cheek. "Nasty little man", however, wasn't).
"The game of football is a joke. Fans and players are just thugs."
Really? All of them?
That may be a slight sweeping generalisation that all fans and players are thugs.
although would it not solve all the fighting over the one ball if they all had one each?
Erm, think the FA do have it in for him....What ban did Defoe get for biting, oh yeah none!
And the Terry comparisons are relevant, racist comments but shorter ban, refused to shake someone's hand no action....same crimes diff punishment.
Not defending the bite of course, but the punishment is ridiculous in football terms, whether the law would say differently doesn't matter as the FA has different rules (which they ignore for Suarez)
I'm a football fan, have had a season ticket for 23 years and I find it very offensive to be labelled as a thug. Only about 5% of fans, if that, could be labelled as such. Don't be so ignorant.
"And the Terry comparisons are relevant, racist comments but shorter ban, refused to shake someone's hand no action....same crimes diff punishment."
No, shellshock, I'm not having that, saying offensive words or refusing to shake a hand (whose, btw, Bernstein's? If so, that's even further removed, that wasn't on the pitch. Ferdinand's refusal to shake with Terry and Cole was though, what was the punishment there, if we're comparing?), are not the same crimes as committing a physical assault.
I agree with you however that the FA have different rules to a court - clearly the FA thinks it's superior.
Personally, I find high, two-footed challenges far more shocking. They have the potential to end careers.
I don't think Suarez is an entitled prick, either. But I don't know him.
TSO I mean relevant in the discussion that the FA treat Suarez differently...not relevant to the bite in particular
shellshock. The FA gave a 4 to the man found not guilty in an English law court as they thought he was guilty. He denied this however. He allegedly uttered words under provocation.
They gave a 10 to the man who has admitted violence without provocation and has done it before.
If the FA have treated Suarez differently it's because they are two completely different types of incident under two completely different sets of circumstances.
If you're saying the FA have acted as they have "because it's Suarez", you're 100% right. Except that it's not because of who or what he is, but what he's done and how he did it.
shellshock7 did you read the report of the racism hearing? Just the way they referred to Suarez , it was blatant that they felt he was some sort of second class citizen. It was repugnant.
I think we will have to agree to disagree....re the biting there is no defence, I agree with a ban and he has been fined and going to anger management....I just think the length of the ban is wrong. I disagree with the other points abt the other charges
Sorry pressed to soon....I am
Not comparing the length of Terry's ban for racism with Suarezs ban for biting....I am comparing Terry's ban for racism with Suarezs ban for racism. Also you would find him repugnant if you believe Evra....if you don't you will have a different view altogether...
And we can see how serious the racism against Evra was and how it affected him by him celebrating winning the league by biting a fake arm...lets see how the FA deal with that one...hmmmm
I personally don't think he should be on the pitch.
Any man that randomly bites people and racially abuses others is not stable enough to be on the pitch. Unfortunately young people look up to him.
He deserves everything he gets and more. Totally spoils the game.
I mean seriously what man bites people?
Shellshock surely he needs a longer ban because evidently his previous shorter ones haven't really taught him anything.
I'll have to come back to respond to those posts later, shellshock, work calls now.
I'll leave you with food for thought - anger management? Suarez doesn't act in anger, he acts with premeditated aggression. There's a huge difference imho.
Until later, have a good day.
I do agree he has probs, again no defence but they had been fighting at half time so it wasn't completely random (tho completely disgusting). And I wouldn't have the issue with the FA if the treatment was the same across the board...again Defoe got no ban, the ref saw the incident, so i understand why the 3 match ban for violent conduct couldnt be given, but no reason the extra 7 game punishment couldn't be.
I'm at work now too so will catch up later, just want to reiterate I am not defending him, i just think the FA is a joke
Very OTT in my opinion and quite damaging too as the message seems to be that biting is worse than racism?!
There is no consistency in the game, it's so variable match to match and offense to offense. Sadly a lot depends on who the player is- I'm not saying that Suarez shouldn't have got 10 match ban but it has to be the same no matter who the player is and agree there's no way it would have happened to a Man U player.
It's seems the FA is gunning for Suarez at the Minute shame they can't focus their attention to serious issues in the game ie increase in football violence between fans or the corruption at Blackburn Rovers but the FA has a knack of ignoring the real issues
As a mum who has a football obsessed boy if he's not playing he's watching it, I think it's an absolute disgrace and I don't think a ten game ban is anywhere near enough. if my child had bit someone during a game I'm sure he would rightly be dropped from his club without a second thought but this "adult" keeps on getting away with it.
He should watch this on a repeated loop - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6UWNA-WQgI
Join the discussion
Please login first.