How long will Suarez's ban be? Mod warning in OP and post#455

niallo27

1 match

Robson99 wrote: »

Cant believe some think that the punishment was severe. Seemed about right considering that this is the third time he has been found guilty of BITING an opponent. Dogs and Rats bite, humans dont. Biting and spitting at an opponent are the lowest of the low in sport.
Lets not forget he has also been found guilty of Racism as well.
As regards the punishment being harsh on Liverpool , well what goes around comes around. Silly T-Shirts and defending him to the last on his two previous encounters while at Lfc has come back to bite them

It hasn't really though. He put liverpool back into the champions league. Something that would have been laughed at if suggested at the start of last season. Liverpool have benefited hugely from having stood by Suarez.

sabat

1 match

Robson99 wrote: »

4 months nowhere near the club now. Egg on the face

So after the last ban, what course of action could have worked out better for Liverpool? BTW that no training aspect of this ban is bollox-there's no way FIFA have that in their power.

Morzadec

7 matches

HigginsJ wrote: »

I'm a United fan.

Think the ban is about fair really. I know most people on here probably couldn't care less what sort of fine/international ban he got (unless you had a few bob on Uruguay to do well) & that it was all about the domestic ban.

I feel Liverpool do get a bit of a raw deal out of this but they bought him under a cloud & have backed him through 2 long bans so probably realised that this was a possibility of happening again in future. Suarez should be ashamed of himself & he owes Liverpool so much for what they have done for him but he continues to let them & their fans down.

I see a lot of people have brought up the Cantona incident & have said it was much worse. I agree it was but it was just a once off. Can you also imagine the reaction to it in today's social media, politically correct, nannified world. He possibly may have never been allowed to play football again. But comparing incidents and bans from modern day to 20 years ago is pointless as they really were different times

Last paragraph is a good point. Hard to compare Suarez incident today to Cantona nearly 20 years ago, the world is just a far different place.

Even the Zidane incident, which doesn't seem that long ago to me, was before the days of Twitter, Facebook, or even widespread internet use (probably was just a outs on th tipping point). All these factors have probably worked against Suarez, but at the sMe time he has to realize the type of world he's living in and the exposure that such an act will get and the response it will provoke

Robson99

martin jackson wrote: »

all the man u ****ed and chelsky fans are delighted with the ban, and if you check you will find that most papers photoshopped the pictures to make it look like he had taken a chunk out of him

Doesnt matter whether he took a mouthful or just got a bit stuck between his teeth. He attacked like a Dog would and has done it with intent . He is an animal and has no morals or respect for fellow human beings

Agueroooo

12 month global ban

Agueroooo wrote: »

Careful now you'll be accused of being sneaky.

No in fairness to him he is entitled to his opinion and I will debate that seperatly. At least he has the balls to say it straight out unlike youself, who reagularly posts in a sneaky way to belittle and insult.

Robson99

niallo27 wrote: »

It hasn't really though. He put liverpool back into the champions league. Something that would have been laughed at if suggested at the start of last season. Liverpool have benefited hugely from having stood by Suarez.

Defending Racism?? That was very big and brave of them. And then defended him after biting Ivanovic. Always the victim springs to mind

K-9

Liverpool didn't defend him vehemently the last time, that's hyperbole. The club obviously worked very hard with him last season, and people can't have it both ways. Lfc generally got commended the way they handled the transfer saga last Summer. Big call for Lfc now though, I don't think its as clear cut as some think that they'll 100 per cent want him to stay now.

Eamo71

Tomorrow in the Daily Mail: Extract from the World Cup Diary of Luis Suarez: "Dog carcass in alley this morning. Tyre tread on burst stomach. The city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "save us!"... and I'll say 'No!'"

K-9

Robson99 wrote: »

Defending Racism?? That was very big and brave of them. And then defended him after biting Ivanovic. Always the victim springs to mind

Ah here.

Agueroooo

M!Ck^ wrote: »

No in fairness to him he is entitled to his opinion and I will debate that seperatly. At least he has the balls to say it straight out unlike youself, who reagularly posts in a sneaky way to belittle and insult.

Just to make it clear in case you accuse me of ignoring you - well I am as I have no confidence you will answer any posts straight, and you will continue to pretend and take up things differently. Post utter tosh and accuse others.

ProF hit the nail on the head and said it more eloquently than I ever could.
Like myself he seems to have the measure of you.

One improve though is you've stop your childish 'Jeff' references.

Pro. F

5 matches

rarnes1 wrote: »

People are defending Suarez as a Liverpool player, not defending the incident. Stop playing dumb.

Here's some posts of downplaying the incident and whataboutery:

BastardPrince wrote: »

i don't see why his ban should be any longer than Marchisio's, i'd prefer a bite to a potential leg breaker or a stamp...

Vanolder:

Exactly--- 10 will even be a bit harsh. In my book diving/simulation/feigning injury is far worse and is destroying the sport- spitting on someone is far worse-- breaking someone's leg is far worse--- but the English media usually lead the way around here. Biting is violent conduct, the fact that he has done it before will get him a game or two more, but it shouldn't be months or years.

BMJD:

I couldn't care less about Chiellini's minor shoulder scratch. He'll live.

I want another 30+ goals for Liverpool next season.

jasoncoylerd

The outpouring of fake anger from man united fans is laughable, theyre shocked and disgusted by this happening at the world cup........its surely a coincidence that its a liverpool player and theyre so "angry"...............never mind the workers in brazil that have died constructing the stadium whilst getting paid peanuts, lets get outraged and hop up on our high horses over a wee nibble lol

There have been plenty more. It's impressive the way you can read and post in these threads but not notice the type of posts you don't want to see.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

Here's some posts of downplaying the incident and whataboutery:

Vanolder:
BMJD:
jasoncoylerd

There have been plenty more. It's impressive the way you can read and post in these threads but not notice the type of posts you don't want to see.

None are defending his bite the other night. Wasn't that my original point, thanks for helping to prove it.

I even said people were downplaying it. You are just arguing for the sake of it

redbaron_99

Think Liverpool would be better off keeping hold of Suarez now. Despite his craziness, he's an awesome player to have. The only downside to keeping him would be if he goes and does something like this again - which would probably get him banned for a year or so. That's a big risk.

And I just don't believe this notion of Barca or Real spending the type of money on him, that they forked out on Bale and Ronaldo.

Ronaldo was 24, world class, unblemished record, improving all the time, great resale value after four years (he'd be 28).
Bale was just 24, world class, unblemished record, improving all the time, great resale value after four years (he'd be 28).

Suarez will be practically 28 before he's allowed play again. World class, yes. Terrible disciplinary record. Probably reaching his peak now. Very little resale value after four years (would be 32).

To think he'd be going for the same money as the other two is lunacy.

Pro. F

5 matches

Eamo71 wrote: »

Tomorrow in the Daily Mail: Extract from the World Cup Diary of Luis Suarez: "Dog carcass in alley this morning. Tyre tread on burst stomach. The city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "save us!"... and I'll say 'No!'"

I don't get the connection, but you get a thanks for quoting Watchmen.

Pro. F

5 matches

rarnes1 wrote: »

None are defending his bite the other night. Wasn't that my original point, thanks for helping to prove it.

I even said people were downplaying it. You are just arguing for the sake of it

So you admit that people have been downplaying the incident and defending Suarez. But you want us all to know that nobody has been defending the incident? That is bullshít word play. You are making an complete tit of yourself.

Agueroooo

12 month global ban

Agueroooo wrote: »

Just to make it clear in case you accuse me of ignoring you - well I am as I have no confidence you will answer any posts straight, and you will continue to pretend and take up things differently. Post utter tosh and accuse others.

ProF hit the nail on the head and said it more eloquently than I ever could.
Like myself he seems to have the measure of you.

One improve though is you've stop your childish 'Jeff' references.

Elequent you aint. I also consider what you post as utter tosh and how you continue to look down on anybody who doesn't agree with you and worm your posts just enough to avoid getting carded. Again you attempt to speak for other posters because of your opinion of me. If Pro F has an opinion of me let him say it, who the **** gives you the right to imply that he has a measure of me

K-9

Pro. F wrote: »

Here's some posts of downplaying the incident and whataboutery:

Vanolder:
BMJD:
jasoncoylerd

There have been plenty more. It's impressive the way you can read and post in these threads but not notice the type of posts you don't want to see.

It's the internet, one of those is reactionary, another a bit tongue in cheek I'd have thought. Initially I didn't think they'd worldwide ban him but it started to dawn on me last night they would.

Pro. F

5 matches

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Elequent you aint. I also consider what you post as utter tosh and how you continue to look down on anybody who doesn't agree with you and worm your posts just enough to avoid getting carded. Again you attempt to speak for other posters because of your opinion of me. If Pro F has an opinion of me let him say it, who the **** gives you the right to imply that he has a measure of me

I already did say it, and it was obviously in line with what Aguerooo is saying. You pretend you can't understand posts when it suits your argument. Aguerooo and others were spot on when they called you on it.

Stainless_Steel

Fair play to Dunphy. Spoke a lot of sense in the last 10 mins.

Pro. F

5 matches

K-9 wrote: »

It's the internet, one of those is reactionary, another a bit tongue in cheek I'd have thought. Initially I didn't think they'd worldwide ban him but it started to dawn on me last night they would.

We all expect some crazy posts in this type of thread. It's just odd when people try to deny that they exist.

I'm still amazed that they went with a absolute ban. I'd love if we saw more bans like that.

CSF

6 month global ban

murphk wrote: »

Not a hope on What point ? The legal issues?

There are no legal issues. Worldwide ban is not a new thing and FIFA have the power to implement them.

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

So you admit that people have been downplaying the incident and defending Suarez. But you want us all to know that nobody has been defending the incident? That is bullshít word play. You are making an complete tit of yourself.

Nobody is defending the incident, ie there's nothing wrong with it.

Some are down playing it, ie, saying it isn't as bad as some are making out.

Not sure how you are so lost.

I'll not stoop to your level with snide remarks.

Turtwig

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Fair play to Dunphy. Spoke a lot of sense in the last 10 mins.

He's talking shyte. Entire panel incredibly naive about how dangerous bites are. Ffs, we put animals down for biting humans and human/ape bites are arguably worse and more serious.

It's RTE's panel trying to be different and edgy to everybody else again. Pity someone can't teach the three OAPs (Giles, Brady and Dunphy) the player's names instead of trying to be radical.

CSF

6 month global ban

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Fair play to Dunphy. Spoke a lot of sense in the last 10 mins.

Dunphy does not speak sense ever. When you find yourself agreeing with Dunphy should be the point where you realise that you were wrong all along.

And I don't even know what he said.

egghead.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Fair play to Dunphy. Spoke a lot of sense in the last 10 mins.

Said this in the other thread.

He was talking absolute ****e.

Pure whataboutery.

Seems no-one can take responsibility for their actions nowadays because someone else done this and that.

Royal Irish

12 month global ban

I hope FIFA 15 add in the ability to bite players when playing with Suarez. Add to the realism and all that.

The Pontiac

Remember Dunphy also played down the infamous Keane-Halland tackle. Enough said.

K-9

Pro. F wrote: »

We all expect some crazy posts in this type of thread. It's just odd when people try to deny that they exist.

I'm still amazed that they went with a absolute ban. I'd love if we saw more bans like that.

I doubt we will. Costa will be an interesting watch in the PL and the rest of the WC that's for sure. I never understood headbutting tbh.

C'mon lads, Dunphy is never the voice of reason.

The real shame lies with the Uruguay FA and the many prominent Uruguayans that came out trying to play it down. Shocking and an absolute disgrace. Defending the indefensible.

K-9

egghead. wrote: »

Said this in the other thread.

He was talking absolute ****e.

Pure whataboutery.

Seems no-one can take responsibility for their actions nowadays because someone else done this and that.

But comparisons will always be made, sure football bodies make them to decide bans. Fifa obviously brought his previous into account. It probably was fair enough, not worth a season, 3 year or lifetime ban!

Royal Irish

12 month global ban

K-9 wrote: »

I doubt we will. Costa will be an interesting watch in the PL and the rest of the WC that's for sure. I never understood headbutting tbh.

I don't think we'll be seeing much of Costa again in this world cup. Unless he has declared for Brazil recently.

egghead.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The real shame lies with the Uruguay FA and the many prominent Uruguayans that came out trying to play it down. Shocking and an absolute disgrace. Defending the indefensible.

Then you have your man on rt e claiming because it's not that big a deal to bite someone in Uruguay we should relax and not be so upset.

niallo27

1 match

Deleted User wrote: »

The real shame lies with the Uruguay FA and the many prominent Uruguayans that came out trying to play it down. Shocking and an absolute disgrace. Defending the indefensible.

There desperate because they want to win. I don't blame them. We got pretty desperate with the Henry handball. They had a big chance of getting to a final with Suarez in the side.

Pro. F

5 matches

rarnes1 wrote: »

Nobody is defending the incident, ie there's nothing wrong with it.

Some are down playing it, ie, saying it isn't as bad as some are making out.

Not sure how you are so lost.

I'll not stoop to your level with snide remarks.

Some are downplaying the incident, saying it isn't as bad as a tackle, or diving or feigning injury. That's not the same as saying it isn't as bad as some are making it out, that's downplaying the incident purely for the sake of defending Suarez.

CSF

6 month global ban

Costa isn't half the talent that Suarez is either. Which takes away from the psychotic genius thing.

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

Some are downplaying the incident, saying it isn't as bad as a tackle, or diving or feigning injury. That's not the same as saying it isn't as bad as some are making it out, that's downplaying the incident purely for the sake of defending Suarez.

My original post

Not many defending it.

Some downplaying it? Perhaps

You just agreed with it again, thanks.

DARK-KNIGHT

niallo27 wrote: »

There desperate because they want to win. I don't blame them. We got pretty desperate with the Henry handball. They had a big chance of getting to a final with Suarez in the side.

how can you compare our unfortune with uruguays player screwing them over.

we went mad as we were hard done by a cheating frenchman, uruguays star man viciously assaulted by biting a man there is no comparison

ush

rarnes1 wrote: »

C'mon lads, Dunphy is never the voice of reason.

True, but he may seem reasonable in comparison to FIFA.

Royal Irish

12 month global ban

CSF wrote: »

Costa isn't half the talent that Suarez is either. Which takes away from the psychotic genius thing.

My eyes roll every time someone refers to Suarez as a genius. Anyone who has a history of biting other players and then bites someone in the biggest and most watched football tournament, is far from a genius.

Even in footballing terms, he is a great striker, his movement off the ball is fantastic, and he is a fantastic finisher. But genius?

fta93

Sadlier made a good comment (lost in the ensuing 'analysis/debate') that his career was ended by a bad injury from a tackle that wasn't a bad one. Interesting giving all the strawman debates about whether you'd rather a bite or a leg breaker.

You don't get that choice. the worst injuries don't come from intentional bad tackles, they come from clumsy tackles, from fair ones, from awkward falls, and from feet planting in the ground (i did my own knee that way). No matter what way you feel about the Suarez one, comparing it to incidents causing bad injuries is clutching at straws. Very difficult to prove a player intentionally did someone, bar the very very obvious ones (Keane, Thatcher's elbow, Shawcross on Ramsey).

K-9

33rd team in the WC. Seriously, nationalism, football and politics makes people do dumb things.

niallo27

1 match

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

how can you compare our unfortune with uruguays player screwing them over.

we went mad as we were hard done by a cheating frenchman, uruguays star man viciously assaulted by biting a man there is no comparison

Are you saying we were right to appeal to be the 33 team in the World Cup.

DARK-KNIGHT

niallo27 wrote: »

Are you saying we were right to appeal to be the 33 team in the World Cup.

no i never said that... next

niallo27

1 match

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

no i never said that... next

I compared both incidents as in the desperation both organisations completely overlooked how crazy their arguments came across.

Will I Amnt

8 matches

fta93 wrote: »

Sadlier made a good comment (lost in the ensuing 'analysis/debate') that his career was ended by a bad injury from a tackle that wasn't a bad one. Interesting giving all the strawman debates about whether you'd rather a bite or a leg breaker.

You don't get that choice. the worst injuries don't come from intentional bad tackles, they come from clumsy tackles, from fair ones, from awkward falls, and from feet planting in the ground (i did my own knee that way). No matter what way you feel about the Suarez one, comparing it to incidents causing bad injuries is clutching at straws. Very difficult to prove a player intentionally did someone, bar the very very obvious ones (Keane, Thatcher's elbow, Shawcross on Ramsey).

I wouldn't lump that Shawcross incident in there with those 2.

DARK-KNIGHT

niallo27 wrote: »

I compared both incidents as in the desperation both organisations completely overlooked how crazy their arguments came across.

the irish argument whilst seeming mad deserved to be looked at ie a replay of game but it was crazy looking to be 33rd team. the uruguayans are mental looking to have essentially a guy who viciously assaulted someone reinstated.

its massively different and you know it is

but both countries were indeed desperate

fta93

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I wouldn't lump that Shawcross incident in there with those 2.

Yeah, you're probably right, especially at the speed its at. Shows how you can't really judge whether anything is meant to intentionally break someone.