Jump to content

Luis Suarez banned 4 months for biting incident


vvvslaxman

Recommended Posts

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.
Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After contracting disease.. what is the point? Say Suarez is carrying hepatitis.. would you rather want him to kick you or bite you?
Technically, on the football field, I don't see much difference between the two, morality/disgust point of view is subjective. Also, what is with the false choice? Personally, I do not want either! Besides, it is not the question of my choice, your choice or public poll. Personally, I would find spitting-on-the face more disgusting/provocative. Anything happens on the field, should be dealt as per the written rules of the sport. If the 'punishment' looks unfair (too much/too less), it should be raised in the next iteration/meeting of the responsible committee and rulebook be modified accordingly, as required. As I said, modifying/twisting the rules/penalties based on public's emotional response is not the civilized way and is in fact intellectually dishonest. Even though its irrelevant to answer hypothetical questions - even if the bite leads to infection, or some life long condition/disability - I would go to civil/criminal court or deal with it myself [in india :( ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw - it looked more of a tactical act to provoke Chiellini to commit into a foul to earn a penalty, if you go by his reactions after the 'tacle'. He wanted to make it look like that the other guy 'elbowed/shouldered' his face...or may be it was just pure out of frustration (as some psychologist diagnosed and predicted earlier last year) From what I read so far, he is a normal guy off the field and not a serial biter on the run with malicious intents to spread some zombie virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, on the football field, I don't see much difference between the two, morality/disgust point of view is subjective. Also, what is with the false choice? Personally, I do not want either! Besides, it is not the question of my choice, your choice or public poll. Personally, I would find spitting-on-the face more disgusting/provocative. Anything happens on the field, should be dealt as per the written rules of the sport. If the 'punishment' looks unfair (too much/too less), it should be raised in the next iteration/meeting of the responsible committee and rulebook be modified accordingly, as required. As I said, modifying/twisting the rules/penalties based on public's emotional response is not the civilized way and is in fact intellectually dishonest. Even though its irrelevant to answer hypothetical questions - even if the bite leads to infection, or some life long condition/disability - I would go to civil/criminal court or deal with it myself [in india :( ]
Football related fouls deserve lesser punishment. Stepping on the toes, pushing, shoving, pulling are related to football fouls. They get punishment ranging from free kick to direct red card. biting cannot be classified as a football foul. It is a physically harmful attack outside the range of football fouls. Hence the seperate treatment. FIFA got this one right except they are way too lenient as he is doing this third time. Just because they don't have rules for a cannibal act doesn't mean we have to treat it on par with other fouls. I though only uruguay fans treat this on par with other fouls in a football field. What is next? Carrying a kitchen knife and stabbing someone and say treat this on par with other fouls.. Kicking, stpeping on someone's feet there are lot of gray areas in terms of interpretation. Biting.. where is gray area in that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fifa is a disgrace. If it was a sh!t player I could understand but you don't ban a player like Suarez for biting. 1. It brings the lolz, u never see chit like this 2. Bite is gonna go away quick from Chielleini 3. He is a great player now Uruguay games will be boring as fark Fifa is a disgrace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football related fouls deserve lesser punishment. Stepping on the toes' date=' pushing, shoving, pulling are related to football fouls. They get punishment ranging from free kick to direct red card. biting cannot be classified as a football foul. It is a physically harmful attack outside the range of football fouls. Hence the seperate treatment. FIFA got this one right except they are way too lenient as he is doing this third time. Just because they don't have rules for a [b']cannibal act doesn't mean we have to treat it on par with other fouls. I though only uruguay fans treat this on par with other fouls in a football field. What is next? Carrying a kitchen knife and stabbing someone and say treat this on par with other fouls.. Kicking, stpeping on someone's feet there are lot of gray areas in terms of interpretation. Biting.. where is gray area in that.
Really??? This is such an immature over-reaction/exaggeration. You take internet taunts/jokes so seriously that you throw your own objectivity out of the window? His act was at best animalistic, than cannibalistic. Cannibalism has a very specific definition - act or practice of eating (actual eating!!) flesh of other human beings ( if other words flesh of animals of your own species). It is quite common for kids to bite the other person, out of frustration/aggression, e.g. to get out of someone's strong hold - without the malicious intent of actually eating someone. Those kids are not labeled with cannibalistic tendencies. Suarez's was at best childish/idiotic act of aggression rather than cannibalistic intent. The intention in such case is to hurt/cause pain or provoke, and not eat the other person. If I get it right, dangerous tackles (while trying to win the ball) deserve yellow cards. And excessive/offensive use of force with the intention of harming/provocating someone, when the ball is not in play - deserve red card, and/or ban of few matches. I would like to see the actual words used in the punishment dished out by FIFA, even they would not have used the words 'repeated cannibalistic act' as a reason/measure for judging the severity of punishment. If they did - Suarez has every right to sue them and very strong chance (almost invincible) to even win a lawsuit of defamation. Civilized and honest way is to agree upon the rules in advance, and follow the rule book. If it did not have a clause for a specific/unseen act/incident, use least abstract one which covers it most closely. If you did not forsee certain punishable act, accept it and modify the rulebook accordingly when the emotions are not running high. Otherwise it sets bad precedents of lack of objectivity. Do you really think that following act is a part of the 'football tackle' and any less dangerous than Suarez's bite? http://gfycat.com/IdealEllipticalChimpanzee As per you, what should be the penalty of repeat offenses of such kind? ( e.g. Pepe is known to do similarly or more dangerous acts of unprovoked aggression, repeatedly). Do you really believe, it should be less severe than 3 bites in ~3-4 years?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fifa is a disgrace. If it was a sh!t player I could understand but you don't ban a player like Suarez for biting. 1. It brings the lolz, u never see chit like this 2. Bite is gonna go away quick from Chielleini 3. He is a great player now Uruguay games will be boring as fark Fifa is a disgrace!
This logic of different punishments for more popular players is the most ridiculous one ever and something expected from a 12 year old's mind. Very familiar to the logic used by Pak fans to reduce Amir's ban and not surprising seeing who the poster it Why not go the whole hog and make sure all matches are always exciting in all regards by fixing them like WWE, pretty sure that is the kind of competition you enjoy anyways
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...