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

eyescreamcone

2 matches

cournioni wrote: »

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

That's a good point maybe FIFA should bring in instant video refing.
Maybe start a new thread/maybe not

NoelJ

3 matches

cournioni wrote: »

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

If that had happened it would be a court case. I don't think Chellini would be taking it as easy if he had an infection.

Zico

1 match

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.

Good for you.

Maybe it'll catch on. I'm sure employers would much prefer staff coming in with bites rather than sprained ankles or broken wrists because some fat oaf booted them in a fit of rage during an evening 5-aside game.

You could start a new craze "bite me, don't boot me".

niallo27

1 match

cournioni wrote: »

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

I'm not sure you do yourself though. Do you know the chances yourself.

eyescreamcone

2 matches

cournioni wrote: »

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

Infections can be serious indeed - did anyone get an infection?

Unearthly

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.

Nothing new here really. It took him ages to apologise to Evra and it was only cause Liverpool finally copped onto themselves but he has since backtracked.

I get the feeling he genuinely thinks he should be allowed do what he does

RedemptionZ

cournioni wrote: »

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

Infection is preferable to brain damage most of the time...

Corholio

The people who are using the 'sure noone was hurt' argument. What are their views on spitting, or using racist insults? Honestly, I'd like to know.

Too Tough To Die

Over 10 matches

Sergio Ramos should get a 10 match ban if he reaches 20 red cards for Real. He clearly isn't learning his lesson.

Irlandczyk

10 matches

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Infections can be serious indeed - did anyone get an infection?

Oh, that's easy: No, no infections. Of course, why this even matters is the confusing and difficult part of your question to answer. If I bite some randomer on O'Connell St., is it not assault unless s/he gets an infection?

Too Tough To Die

Over 10 matches

Corholio wrote: »

The people who are using the 'sure noone was hurt' argument. What are their views on spitting, or using racist insults? Honestly, I'd like to know.

10 game ban imo. Unless the spitting or racial abuse leads to serious injury, then an extended ban should be considered.

eyescreamcone

2 matches

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Sergio Ramos should get a 10 match ban if he reaches 20 red cards for Real. He clearly isn't learning his lesson.

When was the last time Suarez got a red card?

niallo27

1 match

Irlandczyk wrote: »

Oh, that's easy: No, no infections. Of course, why this even matters is the confusing and difficult part of your question to answer. If I bite some randomer on O'Connell St., is it not assault unless s/he gets an infection?

Thats not the point he is making, if you punch someone and they get up and if you punch someone and you kill them. Do you think they should be both treated the same.

Zico

1 match

Corholio wrote: »

or using racist insults?

Just search "Suarez Evra" for that.

eyescreamcone

2 matches

Irlandczyk wrote: »

Oh, that's easy: No, no infections. Of course, why this even matters is the confusing and difficult part of your question to answer. If I bite some randomer on O'Connell St., is it not assault unless s/he gets an infection?

I'm sure the penalty would be much greater if the other party received an injury of any kind though.

If a randomer came up and bit you on the arm - but you were unhurt in any way - what do you expect would happen?

Sweet FA is what would happen in the real world.

Tombo2001

5 matches

Corholio wrote: »

The people who are using the 'sure noone was hurt' argument. What are their views on spitting, or using racist insults? Honestly, I'd like to know.

Racism is appalling.

Spitting is deeply unpleasant.

Corruptly awarding a World cup to Qatar is wrong.

Posting on boards when you should be doing work for your employer is wrong.

Whats your view on that one.....mister righteous!!

Royal Irish

12 month global ban

Eyescreamcone, what planet are you on?

Too Tough To Die

Over 10 matches

eyescreamcone wrote: »

When was the last time Suarez got a red card?

Dunno mate.

Zidane received a 3 match suspension and an award for player of the tournament following the infamous headbutt. Here's a video of his previous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoP04d72rkw

Some of these are far worse than anything Suarez has done as a professional. Essentially, he's being punished for a lack of variety in his transgressions.

Zico

1 match

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Sweet FA is what would happen in the real world.

You could probably end this discussion by testing your theory. If you're right you'll feel vindicated.:)

eyescreamcone

2 matches

Throw in Scholsey

"Sure he's not any good at tackling"

Officially the dirtiest player in the Champions League EVER!!! (going on cards received)

Reputations count for a lot when the media do their judging and when the disciplinary committees get together.

eyescreamcone

2 matches

Zico wrote: »

You could probably end this discussion by testing your theory. If you're right you'll feel vindicated.:)

I'll get back to you on that

Will I Amnt

8 matches

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Throw in Scholsey

"Sure he's not any good at tackling"

Officially the dirtiest player in the Champions League EVER!!! (going on cards received)

Reputations count for a lot when the media do their judging and when the disciplinary committees get together.

Just when you think it can't get any worse...

redbaron_99

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Throw in Scholsey

"Sure he's not any good at tackling"

Officially the dirtiest player in the Champions League EVER!!! (going on cards received)

Reputations count for a lot when the media do their judging and when the disciplinary committees get together.

Scholes was a rubbish tackler. Wasn't a fierce tackler though. There's a difference.
Suarez BIT a player in a World Cup match. The third time he has done it. He deserved what he got.

Liam O

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Dunno mate.

Zidane received a 3 match suspension and an award for player of the tournament following the infamous headbutt. Here's a video of his previous.

Zidane was retiring anyway, not exactly overly punishable. Suarez has committed pretty much every transgression that's possible in a football match in his career so not sure how you can argue the point you did.

Soft Falling Rain

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.

It is a misguided comparison as someone is clearly hurt by sexual assault, physically and mentally depending on the severity. In no way can it be compared to what Suarez has done.

Not that I'm excusing Suarez, the man deserves his punishment, it's just the severity on LFC that is galling. He might as well have grabbed Cheillini by the balls and start squeezing.

Smithwicks Man

6 month global ban

Why can't people accept that a precedent is being set here.

Let me paint a picture for some of ye. FIFA gave Suarez a more lenient ban, say 10 international games and that's it. Cabaye (just a random player) goes out in the first game of the Ligue 1 and bites a player, gets an 8 game ban. Then moves to La Liga a couple of years later, goes and bites a player again mid-season - receives a 10 game ban. Then come the 2018 World Cup he bites a player in the Group Stages. What do you think his ban would be? 10 international games? It would have to be if Suarez's was only 10 games for the same thing.

FIFA are setting down a marker that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated and unfortunately for Suarez (or not, considering it's his own fault) he is the one who is being made an example of with a harsh ban.

The only silly thing about the ban imo is that he can't enter football stadiums or train with the team. It should be the 9 international games and a ban on playing any competitive matches for 4 months and none of this "ban from any football activity" nonsense.

To those saying that 4 months is excessively harsh, you need to accept that if it was 2 months then he would barely be missing any club games at all seeing as the club season doesn't start for 6 weeks anyway.

Too Tough To Die

Over 10 matches

Liam O wrote: »

Zidane was retiring anyway, not exactly overly punishable. Suarez has committed pretty much every transgression that's possible in a football match in his career so not sure how you can argue the point you did.

Whether he was retiring or not shouldn't matter. Why suspend him at all then?

I'm not familiar with the rest of Suarez' transgressions, perhaps you could bring me up to speed on them. All i know is the 3 bites and they are not nearly as bad as what Zidane has done throughout his career. A bit more mental, yes. But as bad, no.

CSF

6 month global ban

Honestly, what the hell does Paul Scholes have to do with Suarez's ban?

CSF

CSF wrote: »

Honestly, what the hell does Paul Scholes have to do with Suarez's ban?

Never mind Aids and sexual assault!

Quality stuff. Lads putting in a decent shift!

:pac:

2Mad2BeMad

nice to see liverpool screwed next season bit of karma for thinking they won the premier before it was over :pac:

niallo27

1 match

CSF wrote: »

Honestly, what the hell does Paul Scholes have to do with Suarez's ban?

What's does sexual assault have to do with Suarez getting banned. This whole thread is bonkers.

Rayne Wooney

Looks like we're going through all the United players in history in here

RasTa

3 matches

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.

His knee hit his head btw so I'm guessing you shouldn't have bothered?

brevity

This thread is like Polio.

Godge

niallo27 wrote: »

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

I suppose Suarez must have been on drugs to do what he did so he got off lightly:D:

Seriously, I am amazed at the number of people on here that are defending Suarez and wondering why Liverpool should be punished. Firstly, on Suarez:

In particular, the Hunt reference is interesting. What Hunt did was way out of line and he should have got a far bigger punishment. However, in his defence, he would argue that he was reaching for the ball in a fair contest, Cech got there first and what happened was unfortunate. I don't believe that but I can't prove it.

None of that applies in the case of Suarez. In no way can biting someone be considered as an extension of what happens on the field, or a mistimed tackle, or a case of the player I fouled being too quick for me, or that he is not that kind of player etc. which are the excuses trotted out time after time in defence of foul play. Think of Shawcross on Ramsey or Smith on Diaby or Taylor on Eduardo. All of those fouls were arguably much more serious than biting and all of them most definitely had much more serious consequences with two of the three affected having their careers at the top effectively ended and the other out of top-level football for the guts of two years. But in all of those cases, the defences I mentioned were used and the excuses made. Again I don't believe the excuses but I can't prove it. Again, I didn't see many of the people criticising Suarez in the media criticising those players so I understand why some people don't like the hypocrisy.

However, biting and spitting fall into a completely different category. There is no way that they are part of football, no way that they are an extension of what goes on in the game, or a mistimed tackle etc. Suarez has bitten three times! Three times! It is worth saying again because it is so far off the planet.

The only thing that is lacking in the punishment is that his mental health issues be addressed before he can return to the pitch, whether they range from something like anger management to something more deeply rooted in his psyche. Toddlers learn not to bite - how come Suarez missed out on this training?

As for Liverpool, there is another question. Why should Liverpool benefit? Why should they get a player who is rested after not having to play international games? Why should they get a player who is among the best in the Premier League but is excused from international football? Why didn't Liverpool properly address Suarez' issues after the last bite? Why didn't Liverpool ensure that their employee wouldn't behave like that in a public place again? Do Liverpool have no control over their players? Why is he still a Liverpool employee after his third transgression? If Liverpool are the special club that so many of their supporters claim, will they stand by Suarez and announce that they are ensuring he is getting counselling and any necessary medical treatment and that they won't let him back on the football pitch until they are sure there will not be a repeat, and that if that takes six months, so be it.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

niallo27

1 match

Godge wrote: »

I suppose Suarez must have been on drugs to do what he did so he got off lightly:D:

Seriously, I am amazed at the number of people on here that are defending Suarez and wondering why Liverpool should be punished. Firstly, on Suarez:

In particular, the Hunt reference is interesting. What Hunt did was way out of line and he should have got a far bigger punishment. However, in his defence, he would argue that he was reaching for the ball in a fair contest, Cech got there first and what happened was unfortunate. I don't believe that but I can't prove it.

None of that applies in the case of Suarez. In no way can biting someone be considered as an extension of what happens on the field, or a mistimed tackle, or a case of the player I fouled being too quick for me, or that he is not that kind of player etc. which are the excuses trotted out time after time in defence of foul play. Think of Shawcross on Ramsey or Smith on Diaby or Taylor on Eduardo. All of those fouls were arguably much more serious than biting and all of them most definitely had much more serious consequences with two of the three affected having their careers at the top effectively ended and the other out of top-level football for the guts of two years. But in all of those cases, the defences I mentioned were used and the excuses made. Again I don't believe the excuses but I can't prove it. Again, I didn't see many of the people criticising Suarez in the media criticising those players so I understand why some people don't like the hypocrisy.

However, biting and spitting fall into a completely different category. There is no way that they are part of football, no way that they are an extension of what goes on in the game, or a mistimed tackle etc. Suarez has bitten three times! Three times! It is worth saying again because it is so far off the planet.

The only thing that is lacking in the punishment is that his mental health issues be addressed before he can return to the pitch, whether they range from something like anger management to something more deeply rooted in his psyche. Toddlers learn not to bite - how come Suarez missed out on this training?

As for Liverpool, there is another question. Why should Liverpool benefit? Why should they get a player who is rested after not having to play international games? Why should they get a player who is among the best in the Premier League but is excused from international football? Why didn't Liverpool properly address Suarez' issues after the last bite? Why didn't Liverpool ensure that their employee wouldn't behave like that in a public place again? Do Liverpool have no control over their players? Why is he still a Liverpool employee after his third transgression? If Liverpool are the special club that so many of their supporters claim, will they stand by Suarez and announce that they are ensuring he is getting counselling and any necessary medical treatment and that they won't let him back on the football pitch until they are sure there will not be a repeat, and that if that takes six months, so be it.

How many question can you ask in one post. Do you honestly think any club should cut loose a 70 million player or stop him from playing.

Godge

niallo27 wrote: »

How many question can you ask in one post. Do you honestly think any club should cut loose a 70 million player or stop him from playing.

Yes.

Liverpool have a duty to Suarez as his employer. That includes getting to the bottom of whatever causes his aberrant behaviour on the pitch and ensuring it is cured before they let him out there again.

WinnyThePoo

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Looks like we're going through all the United players in history in here

I haven't got a clue who they will pick next!:D

niallo27

1 match

Godge wrote: »

Yes.

Liverpool have a duty to Suarez as his employer. That includes getting to the bottom of whatever causes his aberrant behaviour on the pitch and ensuring it is cured before they let him out there again.

Ah sweet Jesus. Will you stop. Football is big business. Win at all cost and don't care how we get there.

Brendan Filone

People seem to forget that Suarez once tried to bite Gerrard:

Godge

niallo27 wrote: »

Ah sweet Jesus. Will you stop. Football is big business. Win at all cost and don't care how we get there.

Have a read of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

fullstop

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

Hilarious. Ah yes, I remember Hunt's Michael Flatley routine on Cech's head...who'd have thunk that would happen :rolleyes:

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.

So wait, did he stamp on his head or kick him...I'm confused? Was it not his knee that hit his head?

What you need to remember is, Suarez behaved like an animal and got rightfully punished for it. You may as well accept in and move on instead of stressing yourself coming up with ridiculous arguments and comparisons to try to defend the indefensible.

eyescreamcone

2 matches

Godge wrote: »

Have a read of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

FFS
I've just lost the will to live

K-9

Godge wrote: »

Yes.

Liverpool have a duty to Suarez as his employer. That includes getting to the bottom of whatever causes his aberrant behaviour on the pitch and ensuring it is cured before they let him out there again.

Obviously the club did work hard with him last season. Threads ridiculous, aids and sexual assault but don't bring up Cantona!Anyway the club can't guarantee he wont do it again!

niallo27

1 match

Godge wrote: »

Have a read of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Football isn't normal work

DARK-KNIGHT

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.

no it doesnt he can get a job in petstores anywhere in uk

Godge

niallo27 wrote: »

Ah sweet Jesus. Will you stop. Football is big business. Win at all cost and don't care how we get there.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

FFS
I've just lost the will to live

When you live in football fantasy land, you don't realise that footballers are also real people, that they are employees, that football clubs are employers and there are legal responsibilities of both. That is real, selling and buying players like commodities is for FIFA 14, pretending they aren't people is for Football Manager, reading the analysis in tabloids etc., those are the things that are not real.

As I said, have a read of employment legislation.

Godge

K-9 wrote: »

Obviously the club did work hard with him last season. Threads ridiculous, aids and sexual assault but don't bring up Cantona!Anyway the club can't guarantee he wont do it again!

I didn't bring up Cantona, Aids or sexual assault but if diversion works for you, go ahead.

niallo27 wrote: »

Football isn't normal work

Can you point me to the relevant exceptions in employment legislation? Where does the law differentiate between football employments and other employments?

K-9

Godge wrote: »

I didn't bring up Cantona, Aids or sexual assault but if diversion works for you, go ahead.




Can you point me to the relevant exceptions in employment legislation? Where does the law differentiate between football employments and other employments?

It was obviously a general comment, yet you didn't bother address the actual relevant points I made, and accuse me of diversion. Hmmmmmmm.......