If you think you've been treated badly, then of course you should have recourse to the courts. That should apply to everyone. That's the way the system is set up, and in my opinion it's correct. Otherwise you could have some very bad decisions with no way to rectify them. Not commenting on the rights or wrongs of this case, but the general principle of being allowed to go to court. If you think it's wrong that a player should be allowed to challenge a decision in this way, then so you think it's also wrong for someone who is sacked from a more normal job to also be denied that opportunity? It is a player's livelihood, and he has a right to defend it.
I take that reply on board sir. But,if I walk up to a work college bite him on the shoulder and follow through with my head and am then dismissed from my post you believe I have the right to appeal?If so on what grounds do I hold the right to appeal? In my eyes he got off lightly and should keep his head down and take his punishment like a man.
The right of governing bodies to govern should be respected. I am a member of a profession and they deal with any punishments or sanctions should I misbehave in my professional capacity (and I pay them thousands every year for the privilege, too). I have to abide by their findings whether I like it or not so Suarez should just shut the **** up and take it - if the Uruguay FA appeal then I hope that it's made clear before the hearing that they can increase the sentence once the question of its fairness or otherwise is opened up.
Have you ever actually tried to bite somebody on that part of their body at that angle. Think about how wide you have to open your mouth to make that happen at the angle it was supposed to happen. He's got bit teeth -- biting somebody and smacking into their shoulder and leaving an impression are two different things. Everybody is quick to assume that there was an actual bite versus his head banging into the guys shoulder - I've seen it multiple times, not convinced it was a deliberate act. Also, everybody should have the right of appeal in any administrative or judicial action against them. How else do you ensure that due process takes place, that the "adjudicators" are impartial and well informed and that all evidence has been properly reviewed and the rules properly interpreted and applied. And in the grand scheme of things .... there are horrendous tackles that take place on a regular basis, where malicious harm is intended, real harm is done and the culprits - if they get sent off - receive nothing more than a 3 game suspension. Why does biting somebody versus cracking somebody's leg with your studs and causing a potentially career ending injury warrant greater punishment. Not that biting somebody is any more tasteful foul play than kicking the **** out of them but everybody seems to be biased in their preference of foul play.
Not condoning any "over the top tackle " but there 'could' be grounds for appeal as football is played with the limbs which can cause the greater harm but how could anyone appeal against biting someone where there is evidence , I believe the incident was filmed with HD cameras of a greater standard than the average viewers equipment and clearly show bite marks .
Sorry Yankee - I try to make a make a point of being fair to everyone's views but "not convinced it was a deliberate act" made me laugh out loud and outside of Uruguay you're the first person I've seen post anything like that. I think you need to watch the video again. A clear movement twoards the shoulder and an opening of the mouth after which Chiellini understandably reacts. If FIFA could have left him off they would have so it's pretty unequivocal. [video=youtube;pK-zDcX0sW4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK-zDcX0sW4[/video]
Biting is akin to spitting in the face or eye gouging imo. It is totally 'outside' of sport, any sport. In rugby, for biting you are banned for 3 months minimum first time, second 6 months minimum, third time your gone, banned from the game, and quite right too.. I can appreciate Suarez appealing the decision against him but its nothing to do with anything other than money. He's been caught bang-to-rights, and he can't deny his action. his appeal is an attempt to reduce his punishment not overturn the decision. What I cant tolerate is the holier than though self professed Vatican of football, Liver-fekikin-pool, considering action against FIFA for their decision.
Your appeal would probably be pointless, but you should still have a right of appeal. But I suppose it would also depend on the circumstances. It is probably also the case that the punishment could be increased if the appeal is found to be completely groundless and a waste of the court's time. So anyone appealing needs to take that into account. I have no idea on what grounds Suarez is appealing, so can't comment on the worthiness of it.
