Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vvvslaxman

Luis Suarez banned 4 months for biting incident

Recommended Posts

Will be fun watching defenders crap their pants when he is next to them :haha: Btw Liverpool fans are disgusted by this but Uruguay seems like the pakistan of south America. ...they think he is innocent and framed
Arg is the Pak of SA,we are Brazil,Aus is Germany You can probably call SL as Uruguay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will be fun watching defenders crap their pants when he is next to them :haha: Btw Liverpool fans are disgusted by this but Uruguay seems like the pakistan of south America. ...they think he is innocent and framed
I am a Liverpool follower from a long time. But I think after this incident Liverpool should offload him for whatever they get. He has done it 2 times already, got heavy punishments and now did this again. Its something that he can't put aside and will do it again. If he does it again, he will be banned for 2 years at least and that will be a huge loss for the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too harsh.. Players do tackle which are far more damaging potentially and can rule out players for months. They get away with that and so much hullabo about an innocent bite.
this (lifeban would be too harsh). how was it any more dangerous than Zidane's headbutt ? Or look at Pepe's dangerous tackles on youtube, he should be first one to be banned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDlBQNZw4z4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too harsh.. Players do tackle which are far more damaging potentially and can rule out players for months. They get away with that and so much hullabo about an innocent bite.
Innocent bite? Did you see the mark on Chiellini? He was feasting on Ivanovics's arm, not long back. Deserved nothing less than a life ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Innocent bite? Did you see the mark on Chiellini? He was feasting on Ivanovics's arm, not long back. Deserved nothing less than a life ban.
But how is it any different from potentially career ending tackles which are regularly made ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL @ people comparing biting someone to leg tackle. There is something called basic human decency and biting a person is kinda off the list of things humans are supposed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL @ people comparing biting someone to leg tackle. There is something called basic human decency and biting a person is kinda off the list of things humans are supposed to do.
I was befuddled by the defense from uruguay.. the entire country is defending him through various crazy theories like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deserved a more stringent ban, may be for 2 years at least. The incident was shocking and needs to be condemned all over the globe. Uruguay defending their star player is disgusting. The incident cannot be supported. Its pathetic to see people claiming biting to be alright in football. FIFA should have been a lot more aggressive on this issue. But I think because the world cup is in South America, Suarez might have gotten away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But how is it any different from potentially career ending tackles which are regularly made ?
Tackling while the ball is still on is different from intentionally biting someone. Like in cricket, a bowler can ball bouncers and beamers directed as someone intentionally. But it is very different from a bowler kicking a batsman even though the kick will cause lesser injury. Same thing here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Innocent bite? Did you see the mark on Chiellini? He was feasting on Ivanovics's arm' date= not long back. Deserved nothing less than a life ban.
lol.. you are making it sound as if he had his dinner right in the ground during match. You get a mark even when a doctor pinches an injection in you. So what big deal if Chellini had a mark. Most of the persons would any day such marks ahead of a tackle happening when you running at full speed. Such tackle can make you bed-ridden for months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol.. you are making it sound as if he had his dinner right in the ground during match. You get a mark even when a doctor pinches an injection in you. So what big deal if Chellini had a mark. Most of the persons would any day such marks ahead of a tackle happening when you running at full speed. Such tackle can make you bed-ridden for months.
lol....you are making it sound as if there is no difference between a tackle in a football game (which is a natural part of the aggressive game) and one person biting another (that too its his 3rd incident of biting an opponent).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol....you are making it sound as if there is no difference between a tackle in a football game (which is a natural part of the aggressive game) and one person biting another (that too its his 3rd incident of biting an opponent).
well.. when aggressive, some people may love to tackle while some may love to bite. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol.. you are making it sound as if he had his dinner right in the ground during match. You get a mark even when a doctor pinches an injection in you. So what big deal if Chellini had a mark. Most of the persons would any day such marks ahead of a tackle happening when you running at full speed. Such tackle can make you bed-ridden for months.
He was basically eating Ivanovic. Lol! And as said above my MTC and yoda, this is inhuman. Beamers and short balls can end careers too, but imagine the bowler running towards the batsman and taking a bite out of him? This guy is mentally unstable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much rather have suarez nibble my shoulder then a carrer threatning two footer at my knees or an elbow flush in the face which could break my nose. Point is that other players have committed much more dangerous things and have done so more then 3 times and in much shorter time frames. What Suarez did was more weird and odd in an attempt to hurt someone. However, it seems he has got a lengthy ban cos what he did was unsual and weird in trying to hurt someone, rather then what the ban should have been based on was how much you could hurt the other guy. Others do much more serious hurtful things but these are seen as weird and normal ways of trying to hurt your opponent and would only get a straight red and no mass hysteria and extra ban above the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a well put point of view that I kind of agree with: http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/298bsf/chiellini_feels_that_the_proposed_formula_to/ciiej08

Interesting to see his perspective. I suppose that, as a fellow player, he realises just how severe this ban is. 4 months away from the thing you love, particularly one where a player generally only enjoys about 15 years at the top. A ban from the Champions League, the competition Suarez has been dreaming to play in ever since joining Liverpool. We may moralise all we want, but it is a very severe punishment, regardless of whether it is justified or not. One is curious to see what happens next. Judging by the recidivism, this is clearly something that is a deeper issue with Suarez. It's not something he can just 'stop' doing, it seems. I would expect it to happen again. In which case, what is the approach? Ban him more and more, until he is banned from the game completely? Get him 'help'? But what sort of help? I mean, he bites someone once a year - does that honestly merit psychiatric intervention? What makes this strange to me is that, in the grand scheme of things, a bite is a fairly innocuous 'foul'. It's not a leg-breaking tackle, it's not a headbutt, not racism and not doping or another form of cheating. It's just a really odd thing to do and I think nobody really knows how it should be handled. I personally think the whole thing has been over-blown significantly. But it has been escalated and it doesn't look like it's can be 'de-escalated'. If the ban is reduced, a lot of people and papers will cry 'outrage!'. Yet, there are many who say this wasn't enough. But it is so strange to call for a year-long ban for something that, really, has no real physical or psychological effect on the 'injured' player. It's not going to stop the world playing football. There isn't a victim. Perhaps apart from people who believe footballers are role models. Are they? They kick a ball for a living. I'd rather not model myself after that.
Especially this: http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/298bsf/chiellini_feels_that_the_proposed_formula_to/ciif9uu
I think you are right and I completely agree with your assessment of the situation. And herein lies the dilemma. FIFA's decision somewhat changes the nature of what football is and what it means. In this case, the overall effect of Suarez's actions is no greater than that of a common poorly-timed tackle. Chiellini lives to see another day and, in my opinion, football has a no better or worse reputation than before this incident. So the only reason remaining on my table is that this is an abstract moral issue. We don't like people biting other people. There may be no damage, there may not be a victim, but it is an act we find morally repulsive. But this is where my train of thought begins to diverge from the general consensus. I am fine with great moral conflicts being discussed in dramatic films or in Victorian novels. But football is a game. A group of 11 men play against a group of another 11 men. Since we find this entertaining, we watch it. We want to see the best football players beat the set of next best football players. Ideally, we come from the same town or nation as these winning football players. If there is foul play that wilfully hinders the progress of this entertainment, such as a bad tackle or handball or match-fixing or doping, I would like to see appropriate action taken to make sure this is mitigated. I do not like to see the football pitch turn into a moral battleground for various strands of society with enough existential security to be able to muse about the failings of man. Footballers are not philosophers or preachers or horizons to aim for (lest one also likes to play football). They kick a ball and we find this pleasantly disruptive of the monotony of our working days. This is a foul and I want to see it punished as such. You want to debate the animalistic nature of man? Discuss psychology? Question societal values? Do a degree, watch a Christopher Nolan film or find yourself an Internet forum. But please don't turn football into the Jeremy Kyle / Jerry Springer show / high school debating club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much rather have suarez nibble my shoulder then a carrer threatning two footer at my knees or an elbow flush in the face which could break my nose. Point is that other players have committed much more dangerous things and have done so more then 3 times and in much shorter time frames. What Suarez did was more weird and odd in an attempt to hurt someone. However, it seems he has got a lengthy ban cos what he did was unsual and weird in trying to hurt someone, rather then what the ban should have been based on was how much you could hurt the other guy. Others do much more serious hurtful things but these are seen as weird and normal ways of trying to hurt your opponent and would only get a straight red and no mass hysteria and extra ban above the norm.
Your elbow, your feet, your whole body is involved in a football tackle. Your tooth has no place there. Secondly biting is a dangerous act in more than one way. It can spread disease. Your bodily fluid directly comes in contact with other person's bloodstream. It is a strict no no. We cannot justify the act by saying okay getting kicked is more dangerous than biting. Boxing is a sport where they try to kill each other. Even there biting is strictly prohibited. You cannot say i would rather get bitten rather than taking a left hook from Tyson. Unless it is a hot dog eating contest you don't need tooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much rather have suarez nibble my shoulder then a carrer threatning two footer at my knees or an elbow flush in the face which could break my nose. Point is that other players have committed much more dangerous things and have done so more then 3 times and in much shorter time frames. What Suarez did was more weird and odd in an attempt to hurt someone. However, it seems he has got a lengthy ban cos what he did was unsual and weird in trying to hurt someone, rather then what the ban should have been based on was how much you could hurt the other guy. Others do much more serious hurtful things but these are seen as weird and normal ways of trying to hurt your opponent and would only get a straight red and no mass hysteria and extra ban above the norm.
Exactly my thoughts. Its more like an unusual thing. If you go by Human behavior, they are not supposed to lock their heads or give headbutts too but that just happens frequently so its not taken as unusual. Keane finished Haland's career with an intentional tackle, he even admitted that he just wanted to finish him. Got a 5 match ban, that's it. And there will be many incidents like this where tacklers don't even admit. One can say two wrongs don't make right over this, but that doesn't make it fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your elbow' date=' your feet, your whole body is involved in a football tackle. Your tooth has no place there. Secondly biting is a dangerous act in more than one way. It can spread disease. [b']Your bodily fluid directly comes in contact with other person's bloodstream. It is a strict no no. We cannot justify the act by saying okay getting kicked is more dangerous than biting. Boxing is a sport where they try to kill each other. Even there biting is strictly prohibited. You cannot say i would rather get bitten rather than taking a left hook from Tyson. Unless it is a hot dog eating contest you don't need tooth.
It is not instantaneous. Besides you contract infection, AFAIK, only if bite cuts through the skin/flesh and it is left unattended for long. Even if it leads to infection, if should be dealt with in regular civil/criminal court. Every foul should be dealt with the way it was written in the sports rule books. An escalation of severity of punishment in runtime based on public's emotional response, without following proper procedure to amend the 'constitution' of football/fifa is not an intelligent and honest thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not instantaneous. Besides you contract infection, AFAIK, only if bite cuts through the skin/flesh and it is left unattended for long. Even if it leads to infection, if should be dealt with in regular civil/criminal court. Every foul should be dealt with the way it was written in the sports rule books. An escalation of severity of punishment in runtime based on public's emotional response, without following proper procedure to amend the 'constitution' of football/fifa is not an intelligent and honest thing to do.
After contracting disease.. what is the point? Say Suarez is carrying hepatitis.. would you rather want him to kick you or bite you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...