Bite, Nibble, Munch and Chomp
- Thread starter Red Astaire
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
... because i don't view biting as worse as other violations which rarely get more than 3 games ... So it doesn't make sense.
Also, FIFA - as per Oliver Kay and other journalists - have basically done something not so hallal by banning him for club games when he's on int'l duty.
FIFA have stated themselves that drug use and match fixing are the actions that require the most severe punishment.
Its your personal view that biting is worse, although its a violent conduct and will be punished from that perspective.
What fucks him and us over, and rightly so, is because this is the 3rd time he's done it.
Had it been a first offence he would have gotten a 2 or 3 game ban.
He deserves whatever he gets but we dont deserve a 14 match ban in the PL.
Thats what bugs me.
It also bugs me the morale outrage from people who've acted far worse in the past but jumps on the media bandwagon.
Mills, Collymore, Piers fucking Morgan, Barton, the list is long with cunts wading in.
The Uruguayan stance is also ridiculous. From his lawyer, national coach to the other players. Deluded idiots.
Its your personal view that biting is worse, although its a violent conduct and will be punished from that perspective.
What fucks him and us over, and rightly so, is because this is the 3rd time he's done it.
Had it been a first offence he would have gotten a 2 or 3 game ban.
He deserves whatever he gets but we dont deserve a 14 match ban in the PL.
Thats what bugs me.
It also bugs me the morale outrage from people who've acted far worse in the past but jumps on the media bandwagon.
Mills, Collymore, Piers fucking Morgan, Barton, the list is long with cunts wading in.
The Uruguayan stance is also ridiculous. From his lawyer, national coach to the other players. Deluded idiots.
You didn't acknowledge the point he made though, you went off on one again about everyone defending him.
You can't compare both...
Drugs are illegal in sport.. and seen as a way to enhance your condition to give you an unfair advantage.. not just in one game but overall..
so quite rightly Rio got banned across the board...
When Cantona did his flying kick he did not get banned across all forms of the game.. I agree with Tiz compared to other offences that are far worse he has been harshly treated punishment wise, but imho its to be expected given the limelight Suarez has in the game..
Ryan, don't patronise me with "I've got news for you" crap. I know it's Suarez' fault, I said it's Suarez' fault. We have rehabilitated him and had a clean season from him. He's gone away with Uruguay and fucked up. Tell me why Liverpool deserve to be hit the hardest? Read the fucking question instead of picking out bits that suit your agenda.
He got a 7 match ban for the Ajax bite (plus 1 match that he had suspended).
Still think this whole "biting" thing is being ridiculously overblown. Looking at various media yesterday and the incident is being treated as a joke by all and sundry including Chiellini. Kids are having their photo taken next to posters of Suarez with his mouth open, Will Ferrell joked about the USA team biting the Germans, and there are hundreds of jokes and pictures doing the rounds. Also, as with the other 2 people Suarez bit, Chiellini was up and running about a minute after the event.
Compare this incident to Roy Keane ending Haaland's career, Shearer kicking Lennon in the head, John Hartson kicking Berkovic in the head, Cantona jumping into the crowd to attack a fan etc, Glenn Hoddle suggesting handicapped kids deserve to be handicapped etc and it pales in comparison.
Suarez is a gobshite and I'd rather we sold him now and he should be made to wear a mouth guard for the rest of his career but biting is far from the worst thing that happens on a pitch most weeks (even if it's the 3rd time he's done it).
Compare this incident to Roy Keane ending Haaland's career, Shearer kicking Lennon in the head, John Hartson kicking Berkovic in the head, Cantona jumping into the crowd to attack a fan etc, Glenn Hoddle suggesting handicapped kids deserve to be handicapped etc and it pales in comparison.
Suarez is a gobshite and I'd rather we sold him now and he should be made to wear a mouth guard for the rest of his career but biting is far from the worst thing that happens on a pitch most weeks (even if it's the 3rd time he's done it).
Context is important. It's no good pointing out bad tackles as being as bad. You might as well point out that there are bad punches in a boxing match. It goes with the territory. Unlike, say, Tyson biting an ear or Suarez biting a shoulder. It's the incongruity that makes Suarez's action so jarring. That and the fact it's downright mental.
Suarez will be angling for a move very soon, citing victimization by the British media as his reason for wanting to leave. It's pretty much inevitable. It's a merry-go-round, and it's on its second cycle. I'd be surprised if he is still a Liverpool player come August.
This is exactly what the lawyers should be looking at. You can't have a rule which forces a club to have to release it's players for international duty, and at the same time punish the club when something happens to the player on international duty.
When players English players get injured, the club gets compensation from the FA. Now the FA would never have conceded that issue if they weren't liable. Either the Uruguayan FA or FIFA should be liable for us. Either they pay us, lift the suspension, or else we go and get a Court ruling that no club anywhere in the world is under any obligation to release it's contracted players for internationals. I'd prefer the latter. But our spineless bitch of a club/lawyer is about as useful as Iago Aspas.
Just to clarify; Ferdinand didn't fail a drugs test, he just missed one.
Whereas Suarez has bitten 3 men. I've seen it on TV, he's definitely done it.
Exactly. Though I'm just defending Suarez, obv.
Quite. This is the most maddening thing about him. He's an utterly shameless character who will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. That's why all the claptrap about how different he is off the pitch is so misleading. Behind all the talk and the frankly pathetic way he carries his daughter around like a moral shield, he's just the same as he is on the pitch. A completely amoral animal. Henry's refusal to sell him last summer must have astonished him, it's probably the only time this sociopath ever failed to get his own way. It'll be sad if he goes now because it'll reaffirm his mad self-belief. A leap down deep into the abyss.
The law is more important. Tyson lost his licence to box in the one state where the incident happened, there's a very good reason why he wasn't banned from all boxing because that interferes with his right to earn a living.
Suarez can use the EU laws on human rights, as suspending him from all football worldwide is simply ridiculous. When you bite someone at work, they don't fire you from ever working again. When you get thrown out of uni, they don't ban you from ever going to university again. It's because those things interfere with your human rights.
The situations where you are not entitled to those rights are extremely rare. Taking anabolic steroids or match-fixing for example. Biting someone? This has got to go to court because FIFA are just asking for it.
Trying to look at this from a somewhat neutral viewpoint.
The ban is harsh especially extending it to club football. Liverpool can feel rightly aggrieved. However, it is his third offense for the exact same thing so the punishment is naturally going to increase.
And it is more than a little odd for an adult to be bitting other menm It is what toddlers do and most grow out of it very early. To do it three times......
Liverpool have two options either back him to the hilt and keep or cash out now.
The problem with backing him is he appears to be completely unhinged. He may do something similar again and the ban will be even higher, which means missing most if not all of a season. He just doesn't seem able to control himself.
Selling him now is probably terrible timing as the latest incident has decreased his value. Whoever buys him has no idea if he is going to do something again and be banned for a large chunk of his contract.
Also from a marketing viewpoint Suarez is becoming a bit of a nightmare. Lots of brands will not take the risk of being linked to him because who knows what he will do next. That does effect his value
The ban is harsh especially extending it to club football. Liverpool can feel rightly aggrieved. However, it is his third offense for the exact same thing so the punishment is naturally going to increase.
And it is more than a little odd for an adult to be bitting other menm It is what toddlers do and most grow out of it very early. To do it three times......
Liverpool have two options either back him to the hilt and keep or cash out now.
The problem with backing him is he appears to be completely unhinged. He may do something similar again and the ban will be even higher, which means missing most if not all of a season. He just doesn't seem able to control himself.
Selling him now is probably terrible timing as the latest incident has decreased his value. Whoever buys him has no idea if he is going to do something again and be banned for a large chunk of his contract.
Also from a marketing viewpoint Suarez is becoming a bit of a nightmare. Lots of brands will not take the risk of being linked to him because who knows what he will do next. That does effect his value
@mark1975
Did it ever occur to you why the punishment can only be pulled out of thin air?
Do Fifa need to list every single possible event no matter how unlikely and set down a punishment?
I can imagine that being a long meeting, with topics such as how to punish players in a range of circumstances like:
A player shits on the pitch - do we take into account a diarrhoea diagnosis? Do we find out what his countries attitude is to shutting in public?
Stabbing a player on the pitch.
Getting a player in mount position and knocking him out.
Etc etc.
There's no fucking mandated punishment because it's so beyond the norm
Did it ever occur to you why the punishment can only be pulled out of thin air?
Do Fifa need to list every single possible event no matter how unlikely and set down a punishment?
I can imagine that being a long meeting, with topics such as how to punish players in a range of circumstances like:
A player shits on the pitch - do we take into account a diarrhoea diagnosis? Do we find out what his countries attitude is to shutting in public?
Stabbing a player on the pitch.
Getting a player in mount position and knocking him out.
Etc etc.
There's no fucking mandated punishment because it's so beyond the norm
He's been angling for a move ever since he signed as far as I'm concerned. He's just been more obvious and public about it in last year. He's a tit. All that shite about it being his dream to play champions league footy for us after he signed his contract a few months ago. I'm ashamed to say I was taken in by it all.
Have you even read what I said? I said there is no precedent. If you two are going to continue to respond, at least have the grace to read the fucking post.
The good thing about this incident is: SCM hits ... WOOO HOOOO.
He is the most marketable player on the planet if done right.
Vinnie Jones got a Hollywood career from his bad boy image. Luis is the most famous player in the world right now.
Not so sure it is the image we want though.
Just out of interest, what's the general ban for a rugby player when he bites? I think it happens often enough in rugby?
One nutter stands with another ...
I said Suarez is wrong, I acknowledged there is no precedent, that doesn't make them extending the punishment to us as "just" or fair, just because no one else has done this before. That's why people are looking for contexts. By Rosco and Ryan's reckoning, he could have been banned for life from every aspect of the game and it would be ok, just because there's no precedent. Like I said, we rehabilitated him last season and got the best football and behaviour from him, for what?
I remember reading about this in respect of international rugby once. As I remember, at that level it's 12 to 24 weeks depending on the severity of the particular incident. In exceptional cases the ban can be for more than 24 weeks. Not sure how different national associations deal with it.
"Missing" a drugs test.
Similar threads
