I was thinking last night about the comparisons being made between a reckless tackle and a bite, and which is worst etc - I would put this forward as to why biting could be considered far worse than a leg breaking tackle (by accident or on purpose)................... What if the person doing the biting had HIV or AIDS? You can argue that is going to the extreme but it cannot be ruled out as a possibility. In the early stages of contracting either it is not always apparent immediately so the potential is certainly there.
Agreed, Could biting therefor be considered worse than a bone crunching tackle that leaves a play in bits for a long period in your mind?
In my opinion, yes, although I do realize that it's only my opinion and that others will disagree with me.
Obviously. I have just listened to the Robbie Savage point of view, he would rather have been bitten - know anyone with a highly contagious and life threatening disease that can go along and oblige?
That is true thai, but also you could say that a broken leg could lead to blood clot which could be deadly? Listening to Darren Lewis on sky sports this morning, and he was talking about the only other 2 cases of this in England, one was obviously Defoe, the other was a Chester player and the victim needed stitches, his punishment...........................................................5 games!
Well of course that is also true but that goes back to the "tackle or off the ball" thing. If it was a tackle and actually formed some part of the game it is an accident, in the other scenario it isn't
Well of course that is also true but that goes back to the "tackle or off the ball" thing. If it was a tackle and actually formed some part of the game it is an accident, in the other scenario it isn't
You keep going on about it 'being in part of the game' to be bruntly hones is bullshit, thats why an over the top 2 footed tackle is outlawed, to take it out of the game. and rightly so. I suppose you think that a stamp is still part of the game? or an elbow perhaps? anything that is against the rules is not part of the game period.
No they are not, they are intentional acts of violence on a football pitch and should be treated every bit as harshly to stamp them out. Maybe the answer is to actually prosecute players and take them to court, after all if you run on the pitch and punch or kick a player, you would be up in front of the magistrate within 48 hours wouldn't you
No they are not, they are intentional acts of violence on a football pitch and should be treated every bit as harshly to stamp them out. Maybe the answer is to actually prosecute players and take them to court, after all if you run on the pitch and punch or kick a player, you would be up in front of the magistrate within 48 hours wouldn't you
thing is ILD, nobody is saying that he shouldn't be punished. What I'm saying is that far worse goes on that gets a more softer ban than this. What do i think is appropiate ban for this - 5 match ban + 5 suspended for 3 years i think is quite fair. (plus all wages during that time as a fine) I just think if somebody has to miss any game time because of the recklessness of another player it should be more than what suarez has done.
but then wasn't Roy Keanes 'tackle' an intentional act of violence = 5 games ban! wouldn't you call that a part of football thing!
Now the site seems to be working again I will go further................. Your original question was which is worse - a leg breaking tackle or a bite, to which I have given you (to my mind) a very good reason as to why a bite could be considered far worse but for some reason you are now moving the goal posts to try and make a point (not sure what point mind). What you have now done is moved on to aspects that are not part of the game. of which you can see my response above and nothing to do with your original question. You have it in your mind a tackle is worse than a bite and that's fine, I will live with it but I will still disagree unless you can convince otherwise while staying on the topic you raised
Indeed you would, and you'd do time for it too...Sheffield Wednesday v Leeds, Kirkland incident springs to mind.
That needs to burden of proof to prove intent, and that is why elbows, spitting, biting etc and easier calls, as is a two footed tackle, but a "normal looking" tackle with intent to harm is far harder to prove and I guess this is where the apparent inconsistency creeps in.
not moving the goalposts thai, just wanting to know where you draw the line as in to what is part of the game and what is not? players get elbowed because a player is using his arms for elavation, so surely that is part of the game?
