to think that Suarez's 10 match ban is totally justified?

(118 Posts)
CoolCadbury Wed 24-Apr-13 22:35:44

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!

Entitled prick.

Maryz Thu 25-Apr-13 07:34:45

I don't think it was enough.

Biting is very different from shoving, pushing or even punching. It should be totally taboo in a civilised society.

There is an Irish guy called Trevor Brennan who was banned from rugby for life after punching someone in the stands (who had shouted out insults about his mother, btw). He was banned from playing, coaching or having anything at all to do with rugby for life.

imo a second offence of biting is much worse than a single loss of temper.

normaleggy Thu 25-Apr-13 07:36:18

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.

BrevilleTron Thu 25-Apr-13 07:37:16

Agree with MaryZ about biting being taboo in adult society.

TSO Thu 25-Apr-13 07:38:28

"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.

IntheFrame Thu 25-Apr-13 07:41:30

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.

TSO Thu 25-Apr-13 07:42:22

(Before people start jumping up and down crying "Racist!" the comment "deport him" was tongue in cheek. "Nasty little man", however, wasn't).

TSO Thu 25-Apr-13 07:43:27

"The game of football is a joke. Fans and players are just thugs."

hmm

Really? All of them? hmm

BrevilleTron Thu 25-Apr-13 07:47:08

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? grin

TSO Thu 25-Apr-13 07:50:44

grin @BrevilleTron.

shellshock7 Thu 25-Apr-13 07:52:36

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)

normaleggy Thu 25-Apr-13 07:54:36

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.

TSO Thu 25-Apr-13 07:58:56

"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.

dollywobbles Thu 25-Apr-13 08:04:23

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.

shellshock7 Thu 25-Apr-13 08:07:06

TSO I mean relevant in the discussion that the FA treat Suarez differently...not relevant to the bite in particular

TSO Thu 25-Apr-13 08:15:31

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.

dollywobbles Thu 25-Apr-13 08:16:11

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.

shellshock7 Thu 25-Apr-13 08:38:13

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

shellshock7 Thu 25-Apr-13 08:41:56

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...

shellshock7 Thu 25-Apr-13 08:45:44

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 smile

IRCL Thu 25-Apr-13 08:51:56

YANBU OP.

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?

Prick.

Shellshock surely he needs a longer ban because evidently his previous shorter ones haven't really taught him anything.

TSO Thu 25-Apr-13 08:53:30

I'll have to come back to respond to those posts later, shellshock, work calls now. smile

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. smile

shellshock7 Thu 25-Apr-13 08:58:30

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

Wishfulmakeupping Thu 25-Apr-13 08:58:42

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

FortyFacedFuckers Thu 25-Apr-13 09:00:23

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.

youlooklikeaclown Thu 25-Apr-13 09:37:51

He should watch this on a repeated loop - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6UWNA-WQgI

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now