Luis Suarez - Mod Note Post #1, #585 and #602

Comparing to the outside world is pretty smart.

Reekwind

wandatowell wrote: »

You want me to name players who have had to leave the pitch due to being bitten? Thats really silly. I could ask you to name players who have actually bitten other players but what would that prove? Nothing.

No, it proves that biting is not a particularly violent offence. You can of course name players who have been bitten (and the biters) but no one who has been injured by the offence. Which really puts it in perspective when talking about the length of the ban that should be handed down.

Agueroooo

I much prefer to compare it as if this was an interplanetary incident.

Knex*

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Somehow I think his opinion would be the same had Diouf spit at a player, as you say it's because Diouf wasn't good.

Diouf spitting at a fan once = get rid
Suarez biting a player for the 3rd time = meh?

I've being banging the hypocrisy drum since the start of all this. Must have nigh on 10 posts at this stage.

Regardless, involving a non participating, innocent bystander in any act of aggression is always going to be worse than the same act of aggression toward a participator.

Whoever wrote "Oh dear" in response to my previous posts, I find it hard that you can disagree with this. if that indeed is what "Oh dear" was meant to signify.

x43r0

Zico wrote: »

I presume he'll get an international ban and go back to Liverpool like nothing happened.

God willing

bucketybuck

Got to laugh at peoples thinking on this.

"Sure it would be worse if he had broken the defenders leg".

Jeez, you are right, it would have been worse. Guess Luis can nibble away to his hearts content then, at least he didn't break any legs. Hey, why not let him spit at people as well, just to soften them up like. Sure whats the harm, its not like he broke anybodies nose.

super_furry

Looks like FIFA are going to see sense. AS just tweeted........FIFA sources say Suárez' punishment has to reflect reality:"What's the difference between what he did & a head butt, or a deliberate elbow?"

Check out @English_AS's Tweet: https://twitter.com/English_AS/status/481782427611045889

Let the rage and impotent internet fury commence.

Smithwicks Man

Reekwind wrote: »

No, it proves that biting is not a particularly violent offence. You can of course name players who have been bitten (and the biters) but no one who has been injured by the offence. Which really puts it in perspective when talking about the length of the ban that should be handed down.

This post in nonsensical, the length of ban in cases like these isn't, and shouldn't be, determined by the potential injury caused by the incident. By your logic spitting on someone should warrant no ban.

Agueroooo

super_furry wrote: »

Looks like FIFA are going to see sense. AS just tweeted........FIFA sources say Suárez' punishment has to reflect reality:"What's the difference between what he did & a head butt, or a deliberate elbow?"

Let the rage and impotent internet fury commence.

they also said the ban will be International only.

I dont think the Internet could handle if he got away with it cause the ref had it in his report.

Turtyturd

super_furry wrote: »

Looks like FIFA are going to see sense. AS just tweeted........FIFA sources say Suárez' punishment has to reflect reality:"What's the difference between what he did & a head butt, or a deliberate elbow?"

Let the rage and impotent internet fury commence.

If this turns out to be true.

Shanotheslayer

Knex. wrote: »

I've being banging the hypocrisy drum since the start of all this. Must have nigh on 10 posts at this stage.

Regardless, involving a non participating, innocent bystander in any act of aggression is always going to be worse than the same act of aggression toward a participator.

Whoever wrote "Oh dear" in response to my previous posts, I find it hard that you can disagree with this. if that indeed is what "Oh dear" was meant to signify.

It shouldn't matter if the person was participating or not. I'm sure footballers don't go out and think "Jaysus might get bitten today" I assume you're going by the Cantana kick and comparing it to the bite.

Will I Amnt

super_furry wrote: »

Looks like FIFA are going to see sense. AS just tweeted........FIFA sources say Suárez' punishment has to reflect reality:"What's the difference between what he did & a head butt, or a deliberate elbow?"

Check out @English_AS's Tweet: https://twitter.com/English_AS/status/481782427611045889

Let the rage and impotent internet fury commence.

Meh, if that's the punishment then so be it. It will be very lenient but I didn't truly expect too much out of it.

COYVB

Reekwind wrote: »

No, it proves that biting is not a particularly violent offence. You can of course name players who have been bitten (and the biters) but no one who has been injured by the offence. Which really puts it in perspective when talking about the length of the ban that should be handed down.

You can't injure someone by spitting at them either, should that carry a lenient punishment too?

monkey9

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Somehow I think his opinion would be the same had Diouf spit at a player, as you say it's because Diouf wasn't good.

Diouf spitting at a fan once = get rid
Suarez biting a player for the 3rd time = meh?

Well if Suarez had bit a fan, he'd have to go. If he attacked any fan in any way for that matter. Diouf spitting at a fan was actually embarrassing.

Knex*

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

It shouldn't matter if the person was participating or not. I'm sure footballers don't go out and think "Jaysus might get bitten today" I assume you're going by the Cantana kick and comparing it to the bite.

This occasion I was speaking in general.

I had my comparison on the Cantona thing with Suarez earlier.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90990394#post90990394

Anyway, footballers do go out on the pitch expecting physical contact. Supporters don't.

Shanotheslayer

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This post in nonsensical, the length of ban in cases like these isn't, and shouldn't be, determined by the potential injury caused by the incident. By your logic spitting on someone should warrant no ban.

Agree with this. It's the equivalent of saying a playerA punched someone in the face and broke playerBs nose. Then playerC punches playerD and doesn't break his nose. Punishment should be same for player A/C

Birroc

Zico wrote: »

I presume he'll get an international ban and go back to Liverpool like nothing happened until he does it again.

Not a chance. Liverpool and/or the FA will have to do something.

Look, I grew up a Forest fan but there was always something about Liverpool FC. They always had this aura. They seemed like the perfect club with fantastic players and lovely football. Sure they had sad events and hard luck stories but they always had the X-Factor. I was jealous of their supporters. I know times changed and the trophies dried up to an extent but they retained that aura even in the barren years. However for me that has changed. Liverpool have somehow conspired to lose their mojo, their aura, their esteem in recent years for several reasons. They seem tarnished now. I am starting to view them like any other Premiership club business. They should have won the Premiership last year and perhaps reclaimed some of their greatness but they blew it and then proceeded to blame refs, Mourinho, the FA (Suarez and Henderson suspensions) etc. So to me, defending Suarez to the hilt after this just eats away further at the Liverpool legend. I felt sorry for Phil Thompson on Newstalk this morning. He couldn't answer Ivan's questions on whether Suarez should be banned or sold. He shouldn't have to.

Samba

Reekwind wrote: »

No, it proves that biting is not a particularly violent offence. You can of course name players who have been bitten (and the biters) but no one who has been injured by the offence. Which really puts it in perspective when talking about the length of the ban that should be handed down.

Perspective eh?

Human bites have been shown to transmit hepatitis B, hepatitis C, herpes simplex virus (HSV), syphilis, tuberculosis, actinomycosis, and tetanus.

Source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/218901-overview

If you have a doubt about the severity of the repercussions of a human bite, I suggest you go ask your doctor what they think, it's appalling, end of and there's no discussion to be had on this point.

He should be forced to do a blood test immediately to ensure there's not something more sinister at play in all these biting incidents, who the **** bites people when they're frustrated!?

Gbear

COYVB wrote: »

You can't injure someone by spitting at them either, should that carry a lenient punishment too?

There's a physical assault (like nutting someone) and there's disrespecting your opponent or acting generally horrible towards them (like calling their mother a whore).

Spitting would be the latter.

I'd argue that biting straddles both - more serious than purely offensive behaviour but less serious than doing them serious damage.

If spitting was a 5 game ban and headbutting someone (properly) was a 10 game ban, biting ought to be somewhere in between IMO.

Underpaid Mike

gandalf wrote: »

As an Arsenal fan I am relieved that he didn't join us last year and I do think he is doing severe harm to the reputation of Liverpool football club.

Ye would probably be league champions if ye had signed for him
Probably the craziest statement ive ever read on this forum
The man is a troubled genius, but still a genius

wonga77

Not sure if this was posted already so apologies if it has





Tabloid bullsh1t, thay should'nt get away with this kind of nonsense

Agueroooo

Knex*

wonga77 wrote: »

Not sure if this was posted already so apologies if it has





Tabloid bullsh1t, thay should'nt get away with this kind of nonsense

That's just the aids progressing overtime and the cuts infecting etc.

Birroc

I thought this was photoshopped too.

Turtyturd

Was that one of his aids pushing him around in the wheelchair a few weeks back?

Will I Amnt

wonga77 wrote: »

Not sure if this was posted already so apologies if it has





Tabloid bullsh1t, thay should'nt get away with this kind of nonsense

How do you know the one labelled real isn't the one photoshopped?
The person that put that together is obviously on the side of Suarez and has at least got basic Photoshop skills...

egghead.

It really is pathetic how people will defend a person who bites other humans who plays for a football team which is a business to the owners and the player and when all is said and done couldn't give two ****s about these people.

Knex*

egghead. wrote: »

It really is pathetic how people will defend a person who bites other humans who plays for a football team which is a business to the owners and the player and when all is said and done couldn't give two ****s about these people.

Yet another person who falsely accuses people of defending him.

But you keep on that horse, waving the moral flag into our lowly unruly faces.

I have to see a single person say Suarez should not be banned. Not one.

john moloney

I think he should be given a domestic ban as well as an international ban even though it isn't fair on liverpool or Uruguay for that matter but he needs help, psychological help and an international ban just wouldn't suffice in my opinion

Agueroooo

Knex. wrote: »

That's just the aids progressing overtime and the cuts infecting etc.

worse...

x43r0

As someone said in another thread, I couldn't give two flying fúcks what Suarez does playing for Uruguay as long as it doesn't affect Liverpool.

egghead.

Knex. wrote: »

Yet another person who falsely accuses people of defending him.

But you keep on that horse, waving the moral flag into our lowly unruly faces.

I have to see a single person say Suarez should not be banned. Not one.

Ah come on now, it's starts with yes he should be banned
But. But. But.

Was it really that bad, like it's not really a big deal just a nibble.

dolliemix

How Suarez sees opposition jersey

Utopia Parkway

Birroc wrote: »

They should have won the Premiership last year and perhaps reclaimed some of their greatness but they blew it and then proceeded to blame refs, Mourinho, the FA (Suarez and Henderson suspensions) etc.

I can't remember a single Liverpool fan on here blaming refs or the FA for not winning the league last year. There might have been a few annoyed with Mourinho alright for his tactics at Anfield but the rest is just fantasy island stuff.

Knex*

egghead. wrote: »

Ah come on now, it's starts with yes he should be banned
But. But. But.

Was it really that bad, like it's not really a big deal just a nibble.

Nobody really cares though, outside of the Italians and that's manly just because they were knocked out and Suarez wasn't sent off.

The notion of having supreme unshakable morals while being a fan of a Sport, and one that is run by billionaires, FIFA, and crooks at the highest level, is a little much.

What he did is somewhere between "its not that bad", and "He should never play again". Ban the man, lets move on from the faux outrage and all that stuff.

The hype is only there because he's so good.

Muff_Daddy

Samba wrote: »

Perspective eh?



Source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/218901-overview

If you have a doubt about the severity of the repercussions of a human bite, I suggest you go ask your doctor what they think, it's appalling, end of and there's no discussion to be had on this point.

He should be forced to do a blood test immediately to ensure there's not something more sinister at play in all these biting incidents, who the **** bites people when they're frustrated!?

What I would like to know is this. What are the chances of Luis Suarez, or any other professional footballer for that matter in case anyone thinks I'm picking on him, actually transmitting a serious infection onto another player by biting them in a field of play? Is it highly likely, or is it completely minuscule, I'm talking in percentage terms. I believe this is what the poster means when he mentions 'perspective'.

I'm not defending his actions, and I agree completely with the last part of your last sentence, biting someone out of frustration seems alien to me, and he should receive a lengthy ban due to the fact that this is his third such act, and also the man has received three previous long suspensions due to various other misdemeanors and clearly isn't learning his lessons. I would also expect him to see a psychologist as part of any punishment.

But I honestly believe people are in danger of blowing this whole episode out of all sense of reality, and talk of AIDS and Hepatitis are just pure hyperbole. I mean, I stand to be corrected by someone more versed than me in the field, but thats just how I see this.

Agueroooo

FIFA...

Listen
FIFA can confirm that disciplinary proceedings have been opened against the player Luis Suarez of Uruguay following an apparent breach of art. 48 and/or art. 57 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code during the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ match Italy-Uruguay played on 24 June 2014. The player and/or the Uruguayan FA are invited to provide with their position and any documentary evidence they deem relevant until 25 June 2014, 5pm, Brasilia time.
According to art. 77 lit. a of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), the FIFA Disciplinary Committee is responsible for sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials’ attention. Furthermore, according to art. 96 of the FDC, any type of proof may be produced (par. 1), in particular are admissible, reports from referees, declarations from the parties and witnesses, material evidence, audio or video recordings (par. 3).

super_furry

x43r0 wrote: »

As someone said in another thread, I couldn't give two flying fúcks what Suarez does playing for Uruguay as long as it doesn't affect Liverpool.

But but but Arsenal and Nottingham Forest fans don't respect Liverpool anymore!!!!!

Underpaid Mike

Couldnt care less to be honest. He did something pretty vile and I wouldnt like it to happen to me and he will get a ban.
After that I really dont care.
Its on par with someone diving to get someone else sent off in my world.
If people are outraged by this rather than what is going on in Brazil outside of the walls of those football stadiums then need to have a long hard look at themselves.

Lucas Hood

He tried to bite him in the confederations cup.

super_furry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMnb536WuC0

"So far it's been confined to small groups!"

Like professional footballers?!?!

I am pie

Knex. wrote: »

Nobody really cares though, outside of the Italians and that's manly just because they were knocked out and Suarez wasn't sent off.

The notion of having supreme unshakable morals while being a fan of a Sport, and one that is run by billionaires, FIFA, and crooks at the highest level, is a little much.

What he did is somewhere between "its not that bad", and "He should never play again". Ban the man, lets move on from the faux outrage and all that stuff.

The hype is only there because he's so good.

In fairness it's certainly news in the Brazilian and Argentine papers this morning, fair amount of discussion on TV last night. Some defending him from the English media, some calling for a lengthy ban.

super_furry

Lucas Hood wrote: »

He tried to bite him in the confederations cup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBIdcUxdgo0

Look at that first photo, he tried to pull his heart from his chest Kali-Ma style too!!!!

So we're already up to a lifetime ban for nibbling, what does nicking someone's heart get you?

Underpaid Mike

Samba wrote: »

Perspective eh?



Source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/218901-overview

If you have a doubt about the severity of the repercussions of a human bite, I suggest you go ask your doctor what they think, it's appalling, end of and there's no discussion to be had on this point.

He should be forced to do a blood test immediately to ensure there's not something more sinister at play in all these biting incidents, who the **** bites people when they're frustrated!?

Anyone caught sharing a water bottle with another player should also be banned while they are at it. Can spread endless disease. Vile carry on

Royal Irish

Lucas Hood wrote: »

He tried to bite him in the confederations cup.

He's a maniac bill.

jester77

x43r0 wrote: »

As someone said in another thread, I couldn't give two flying fúcks what Suarez does playing for Uruguay as long as it doesn't affect Liverpool.

But if FIFA ban him from football for x games/months, then it will affect Liverpool as he will miss the start of the season again. Or if they try and sell him then the fact that he is missing the start of the season will hit his sale price. Got to feel for Liverpool here, they stood by him last year and he pulls this off again.

Turtyturd

Plot twist...Chelleini is Suarez' grannie.

Knex*

I am pie wrote: »

In fairness it's certainly news in the Brazilian and Argentine papers this morning, fair amount of discussion on TV last night. Some defending him from the English media, some calling for a lengthy ban.

Ah yeah, but that's all from a purely theatrical perspective. That's why there's so much hype and conversation here. Its pure theater.

Most people actually don't care about Chiellini and Italy one jot.

Tasden

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

What I would like to know is this. What are the chances of Luis Suarez, or any other professional footballer for that matter in case anyone thinks I'm picking on him, actually transmitting a serious infection onto another player by biting them in a field of play? Is it highly likely, or is it completely minuscule, I'm talking in percentage terms. I believe this is what the poster means when me mentions 'perspective'.

I'm not defending his actions, and I agree completely with your last sentence, biting someone out of frustration seems alien to me, and he should receive a lengthy ban due to the fact that this is his third such act, and also the man has received three previous long suspensions due to various other misdemeanors and clearly isn't learning his lessons. I would also expect him to see a psychologist as part of any punishment.

But I honestly believe people are in danger of blowing this whole episode out of all sense of reality, and talk of AIDS and Hepatitis are just pure hyperbole. I mean, I stand to be corrected by someone more versed than me in the field, but thats just how I see this.

This is something I was wondering too, I was under the impression that a bite is only really dangerous if it breaks skin, if not I thought it wasn't a big deal (not in the context of rules in football etc, just in a medical sense) ?

GavRedKing

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

Couldnt care less to be honest. He did something pretty vile and I wouldnt like it to happen to me and he will get a ban.
After that I really dont care.
Its on par with someone diving to get someone else sent off in my world.
If people are outraged by this rather than what is going on in Brazil outside of the walls of those football stadiums then need to have a long hard look at themselves.

What happens when you bite someone and go down holding your face like it was the other guys fault?