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

tok9

Keno wrote: »

Instead of appealing the ban they should ask for trial by combat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7m5VcpMCtU

mike65

9 matches

Giorgio Chiellini supports Suarez and says ban is excessive Liverpool Echo 12:11
Luis Suarez ban: Giorgio Chiellini feels Uruguayan's punishment is TOO EXCESSIVE Mirror.co.uk 12:11
Giorgio Chiellini: Luis Suárez’s four-month ban is ‘excessive’ The Sport Review 12:08
Giorgio Chiellini offers Luis Suarez sympathy This is Anfield 12:08

Rayne Wooney

FIFA would choose Adebayo Akinfenwa as their champion for trial by combat, he is the strongest man in all of FIFA 14

I think Suarez would lose

SantryRed

6 matches

mike65 wrote: »

Giorgio Chiellini supports Suarez and says ban is excessive Liverpool Echo 12:11
Luis Suarez ban: Giorgio Chiellini feels Uruguayan's punishment is TOO EXCESSIVE Mirror.co.uk 12:11
Giorgio Chiellini: Luis Suárez’s four-month ban is ‘excessive’ The Sport Review 12:08
Giorgio Chiellini offers Luis Suarez sympathy This is Anfield 12:08

Fantastic contribution there Mike.

mike65

9 matches

Well it beats yours!

Just showing that even the bitten is a big man (albeit he knows the damage is done to Suarez so can afford to be generous)

K-9

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

a past which does not include biting three different opponents but.

Apparently 2 bites was no bother at all for them, 3 seems to be their line.

RasTa

3 matches

Well that just says he should be allowed to train with his team mates, nothing like the tabloid crap you posted.

DARK-KNIGHT

mike65 wrote: »

Well it beats yours!

Just showing that even the bitten is a big man (albeit he knows the damage is done to Suarez so can afford to be generous)

chellini is very foolish imo suarez hasnt even apologised to him. he also cheated trying to get chiellini sent off. no sympathy for poor luis enjoy your break....

TimeToShine

7 matches

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Poor old suarez.

Its such a pity he wont play out the rest of the world cup since he really was lighting up the tournament.

Reminds me a lot of the Zidane incident, in that both had missed good goal opportunities just before their moments of madness.

I know its wrong wrong wrong, but I'd love to see FIFA turn around and let him play the rest of the tournament....

I wont try to 'justify' that statement, I'd just love to see it happen as he is by some distance the most exciting player in the tournament IMHO.

it makes the World Cup less interesting that he is gone. Realistically, Uruguay have no chance without him, whereas with him I reckon they could cause some major upsets.

This has been a fantastic tournament so far, but the last thing we need is for the same old teams to reach the semi's - Brazil, Germany, France, Holland, Germany. If that happens, its really anticlimatic. Brazil win for the umpteenth time......so what......Messi fires a mediocre Argentina team to win....so what.......boring boring Germany........We need teams that can take these on.....Uruguay with Suarez is one of the view that can.....

Aside from the "poor old Suarez" part I Have to agree.

From an entertainment point of view this WC will suffer because of this. A real shame. I find Suarez far more entertaining than Messi which I am not proud of.

Godge

Mr Alan wrote: »

People aren't trivialising it, it was a ****ing scummy idiotic thing to do, like spitting or stamping or loafing, the problem is FIFA as far as I can see has NEVER banned a player from all football for any of those offences, until now.

Nobody else has ever bitten three people on a pitch before, the third after his employers assured the world (Rodgers at the PFA dinner being one example) that the man had changed and there would be no repeat.

An unprecedented act gets an unprecedented punishment. Not a surprise.

smileyj1987

4 matches

Godge wrote: »

Nobody else has ever bitten three people on a pitch before, the third after his employers assured the world (Rodgers at the PFA dinner being one example) that the man had changed and there would be no repeat.

An unprecedented act gets an unprecedented punishment. Not a surprise.

I think the ban is stupid and is opening up the biggest can of worms possible . FIFA should stick to international football . The leagues should be run the fa's of each country and FIFA shouldn't be allowed to meddle in them unless it's a case of massive corruption .
Let's say aguero or RVP lash out at a player on the field and throw that player a thump . The next game is against a big rival . What's to stop the club they are playing against going to FIFA and saying we want this ban to be passed on to the players domestic league .

gandalf

Over 10 matches

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

chellini is very foolish imo suarez hasnt even apologised to him. he also cheated trying to get chiellini sent off. no sympathy for poor luis enjoy your break....

I would suspect his motives are to stop abuse he is probably getting from fans of Luis and not his "outrage" at the punishment meted out to Suarez.

Ordinary man

I find it crazy that suarez didn't even try to issue some kind of apology after the game or even after getting banned. He doesn't seem to even have acknowledged that it was wrong to do that.

Tombo2001

5 matches

TimeToShine wrote: »

Aside from the "poor old Suarez" part I Have to agree.

From an entertainment point of view this WC will suffer because of this. A real shame. I find Suarez far more entertaining than Messi which I am not proud of.

When I say 'Poor old Suarez', what I mean is that he obviously just cant help himself........he knows its wrong, he's been punished severely for it in the past, and yet he does it again........he cant help it.

Also, personally......maybe its just me......but I dont think what he did was all that bad.

Compared to say Nigel de Jong in the last world cup final, or Marchisio's potentially leg breaking tackle earlier in the tournament..... its neither here nor there......

Utopia Parkway

1 match

Ordinary man wrote: »

I find it crazy that suarez didn't even try to issue some kind of apology after the game or even after getting banned. He doesn't seem to even have acknowledged that it was wrong to do that.

Reading the article in the Guardian last night it seems Uruguayans view football through a different prism to most.

1. They will do anything to win. Winning is all that matters.
2. What happens on the field stays on the field.

When you have that collective mindset it's easy to see how they are not big on apologies for something that happens during a football game.

eyescreamcone

2 matches

Did any of Suarez's bite victims have to be substituted because of the bites?
Did any of them miss any further games through injury caused by the bite?
How many games did they miss?

Skylinehead

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Did any of Suarez's bite victims have to be substituted because of the bites?

No.

Did any of them miss any further games through injury caused by the bite?

No.

How many games did they miss?

0 probably.

What's your point?

bucketybuck

5 matches

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Did any of Suarez's bite victims have to be substituted because of the bites?
Did any of them miss any further games through injury caused by the bite?
How many games did they miss?

How is this even relevant?

Royal Irish

12 month global ban

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Did any of Suarez's bite victims have to be substituted because of the bites?
Did any of them miss any further games through injury caused by the bite?
How many games did they miss?

Spitting doesn't injure people either.

eyescreamcone

2 matches

bucketybuck wrote: »

How is this even relevant?

Obviously it's relevant to the seriousness of his crime.
Is it really that serious if nobody was hurt?

Compare it with Hunt stamping on Petr Cech's head and causing a fractured skull - now that had serious consequences and warranted a long ban

eyescreamcone

2 matches

Royal Irish wrote: »

Spitting doesn't injure people either.

I wouldn't agree with a long ban for spitting either.

niallo27

1 match

Royal Irish wrote: »

Spitting doesn't injure people either.

I think the point he may be making is that people causing it a vicious assault and calling for jail time are slightly overplaying the incident.

wonga77

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Obviously it's relevant to the seriousness of his crime.
Is it really that serious if nobody was hurt?

Compare it with Hunt stamping on Petr Cech's head and causing a fractured skull - now that had serious consequences and warranted a long ban

ara come on now, talk about exageration

Irlandczyk

10 matches

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Obviously it's relevant to the seriousness of his crime.
Is it really that serious if nobody was hurt?

Compare it with Hunt stamping on Petr Cech's head and causing a fractured skull - now that had serious consequences and warranted a long ban

You don't think a player that has bitten 3 different players on 3 different occasions and clearly hasn't learned anything from his previous punishments, a player who has also shown to be capable of racist abuse, is worthy of a long ban on the basis that he hasn't caused a serious injury? You don't think someone like that, going virtually unpunished or with lenient punishment, is capable of going further and inflicting greater injury the next time?

I don't understand people comparing this to other one-off incidents at all. If this was Suarez's first biting incident, I can see him getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist, one-match ban. As it is, his previous actions have been taken into account, and I personally think 9 matches and 4 months is adequate. If he does it again, I can see 2 years or more being given to him.

wonga77 wrote: »

ara come on now, talk about exageration

Makes it sound like Hunt danced on Cech's head for fun, doesn't it?

googled eyes

Apparently FIFPRO the player's union are getting involved as the world ban/ stadium and training ban infringes on Suarez' right to work.

Zico

1 match

niallo27 wrote: »

I think the point he may be making is that people causing it a vicious assault and calling for jail time are slightly overplaying the incident.

If you sexually assault someone on a football pitch does the same standard apply?

Not injured, no big deal, no crime committed?

Skylinehead

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Obviously it's relevant to the seriousness of his crime.
Is it really that serious if nobody was hurt?

This is obviously hyperbolic in relation to Suarez biting, but by that logic attempted, but failed, murder is ok? Nobody was hurt after all.

bangkok

7 matches

Royal Irish wrote: »

Spitting doesn't injure people either.

neither does missing a drug test and Ferdinand got an 8 month ban, including playing for England. Suarez got off lightly

niallo27

1 match

Zico wrote: »

If you sexually assault someone on a football pitch does the same standard apply?

Not injured, no big deal, no crime committed?

Why in the name of Jesus would you mention sexual assault on the field. Are you comparing what Suarez did to a sexual assault and that Suarez victims would go through the same ordeal.

niallo27

1 match

bangkok wrote: »

neither does missing a drug test and Ferdinand got an 8 month ban, including playing for England. Suarez got off lightly

Ferdinand could have been trying to gain an advantage by taking drugs. It had to be punished.

rob316

12 month global ban

googled eyes wrote: »

Apparently FIFPRO the player's union are getting involved as the world ban/ stadium and training ban infringes on Suarez' right to work.

I was thinking the same.

I am in agreement with banning him from international football and a total football ban, its harsh on Liverpool but not on Suarez. He deserves it

Banning him from Anfield/Melwood and training is a bit much though IMO.

The other issue I have is FIFA made no attempt to get him help. He is one of the brightest talents in the game, the game would benefit from helping him treat this problem. A non-biting Suarez as evidenced by his last season is a truly exciting player who adds value to any league.

Royal Irish

12 month global ban

niallo27 wrote: »

I think the point he may be making is that people causing it a vicious assault and calling for jail time are slightly overplaying the incident.

I've been dropping in and out of this thread since it started so haven't read all the posts and I haven't seen anyone call for jail time for Suarez.

People who would call for that are just daft.

You can't bite other players though. People keep saying it was his third time when really it is his 4th that we know of. He was banned for 10 games by the FA last time. Bans for similar incidents should never get smaller. They should always get bigger and bigger until the player cops on so I agree with the ban 100%.

If he does it again he will get something like 6 months or a 20 match ban so basically he will miss half a season. That is why he is now untouchable to all the big clubs in Europe.

Will I Amnt

8 matches

niallo27 wrote: »

Why in the name of Jesus would you mention sexual assault on the field. Are you comparing what Suarez did to a sexual assault and that Suarez victims would go through the same ordeal.

Why can't people distinguish between an example and a comparison? Happens every time on here.

eyescreamcone

2 matches

A few people on here think that Hunt fracturing Cech's skull was a small matter.
It was probably the most dispicable foul in recent years and was way worse than any one or 3 bites that Suarez made.
Why wasn't the punishment higher?

Soft Falling Rain

googled eyes wrote: »

Apparently FIFPRO the player's union are getting involved as the world ban/ stadium and training ban infringes on Suarez' right to work.

Wouldn't it just be like any other job where someone is suspended indefinitely without pay? That is not classed as an infringement on someone's right to work as far as I know.

niallo27

1 match

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Why can't people distinguish between an example and a comparison? Happens every time on here.

Do you think it was a good example to use.

googled eyes

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Wouldn't it just be like any other job where someone is suspended indefinitely without pay? That is not classed as an infringement on someone's right to work as far as I know.

But he's not been suspended by his employer is the angle ( I think ). Not a big fan of Unions and legal talk so I don't know.

wonga77

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A few people on here think that Hunt fracturing Cech's skull was a small matter.
It was probably the most dispicable foul in recent years and was way worse than any one or 3 bites that Suarez made.
Why wasn't the punishment higher?

I dont know why im even bothering to reply but here goes.
First of all he didnt "stamp" as you put it. You make it sound like he did riverdance on Cech's head
He had no history of this behavior, it wasnt premeditated, most people have it down as an accidental colision. Im not sure how its even comparable to somebody biting tbh

Ordinary man

rob316 wrote: »

I was thinking the same.

I am in agreement with banning him from international football and a total football ban, its harsh on Liverpool but not on Suarez. He deserves it

Banning him from Anfield/Melwood and training is a bit much though IMO.

The other issue I have is FIFA made no attempt to get him help. He is one of the brightest talents in the game, the game would benefit from helping him treat this problem. A non-biting Suarez as evidenced by his last season is a truly exciting player who adds value to any league.

Why is it up to fifa to get him help? If he is too mentally unbalanced to go a season without biting or loosing the plot, then maybe he needs to hang up his boots. He can afford to get any amount of help he needs but chooses not too

Will I Amnt

8 matches

niallo27 wrote: »

Do you think it was a good example to use.

Yeah, sometimes you need to use an extreme example to get a point across, the spitting example obviously didn't work.

Maybe look past the extremity and answer the question?
It's not all about the physical mark left on the player as the other poster is making out.

eyescreamcone

2 matches

wonga77 wrote: »

I dont know why im even bothering to reply but here goes.
First of all he didnt "stamp" as you put it. You make it sound like he did riverdance on Cech's head
He had no history of this behavior, it wasnt premeditated, most people have it down as an accidental colision. Im not sure how its even comparable to somebody biting tbh

You shouldn't have bothered. Your reply was useless.
Hunt deliberately kicked Cech in the head. Maybe he didn't intend to fracture his skull but he meant to "let him know he was there".
Accidental my arse. We usually hear home town views like this when Irish rugby lads such as Alan Quinlan get done for "eye gouging".

If you think this was accidental you know very little about the game.
Years later Hunt wanted to swap shirts after a game v Chelsea. He went to their changing room and was rightly told to F-OFF.

This was infinitely worse than anything Suarez did.

Zico

1 match

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A few people on here think that Hunt fracturing Cech's skull was a small matter.
It was probably the most dispicable foul in recent years and was way worse than any one or 3 bites that Suarez made.
Why wasn't the punishment higher?

Perhaps if you were on the disciplinary committee it would have been, but it seems you have a very different view about these things to most people in football.

Being in the minority you'll just have to get used to how things are and hope players of teams you follow behave themselves to the standards the rest of us expect.

niallo27

1 match

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Yeah, sometimes you need to use an extreme example to get a point across, the spitting example obviously didn't work.

Maybe look past the extremity and answer the question?
It's not all about the physical mark left on the player as the other poster is making out.

I don't think anyone that was bitten by him were mentally scared by what happened. Ivananvic didnt miss a game and shook his hand and the Italian fella seems to be making light of it so yes i do find the use of a sexual assault as a reference point to be quiet bizarre.

wonga77

eyescreamcone wrote: »

You shouldn't have bothered. Your reply was useless.
Hunt deliberately kicked Cech in the head. Maybe he didn't intend to fracture his skull but he meant to "let him know he was there".
Accidental my arse. We usually hear home town views like this when Irish rugby lads such as Alan Quinlan get done for "eye gouging".

If you think this was accidental you know very little about the game.
Years later Hunt wanted to swap shirts after a game v Chelsea. He went to their changing room and was rightly told to F-OFF.

This was infinitely worse than anything Suarez did.

Not a home town view, I couldnt gve 2 ****es about Hunt. il bow to your superior knowledge on this, You obviously know everything about everything. Good man

eyescreamcone

2 matches

Zico wrote: »

Perhaps if you were on the disciplinary committee it would have been, but it seems you have a very different view about these things to most people in football.

Being in the minority you'll just have to get used to how things are and hope players of teams you follow behave themselves to the standards the rest of us expect.

I'm not sure which ivory tower you live in but I'd much prefer to get one of Suarez's harmless lovebites than have my skull fractured like Petr Cech did.

cournioni

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Did any of Suarez's bite victims have to be substituted because of the bites?
Did any of them miss any further games through injury caused by the bite?
How many games did they miss?

Maybe the remainder of the tournament, had Suarez been rightly sent off.

eyescreamcone

2 matches

wonga77 wrote: »

Not a home town view, I couldnt gve 2 ****es about Hunt. il bow to your superior knowledge on this, You obviously know everything about everything. Good man

Thank you for bowing....and while you're down there...

Will I Amnt

8 matches

niallo27 wrote: »

I don't think anyone that was bitten by him were mentally scared by what happened. Ivananvic didnt miss a game and shook his hand and the Italian fella seems to be making light of it so yes i do find the use of a sexual assault as a reference point to be quiet bizarre.

You're missing the point, Zico was refuting this view
"Is it really that serious if nobody was hurt"
His reply was valid.

cournioni

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I'm not sure which ivory tower you live in but I'd much prefer to get one of Suarez's harmless lovebites than have my skull fractured like Petr Cech did.

Another person that doesn't realise the dangers of possible infections from human bites breaking the skin.

niallo27

1 match

Will I Amnt wrote: »

You're missing the point, Zico was refuting this view
"Is it really that serious if nobody was hurt"
His reply was valid.

Of course its serious. The man is half bonkers.