"Frank Barson (Watford): 6 months for allegedly kicking an opponent, which was denied by both him and the opposing team, and in spite of a 5,000 signature petition presented to the FA, 1928." And liverpool fans think the FA treats them badly
There are a lot anomolies in football decisions. Clubs are held responsible when fans run riot when it's debatable that clubs can control it, the police for example are not held responsible for a riot (very often). On the other hand why do they not hold Liverpool responsible for Suarez they employ him, train him and defend him. Perhaps a points deduction would be more appropriate as it all seems to hinge on the value of the player to the club. He becomes less valuable if he costs the club points in such a manner.
I hear what you're saying Lenny. I get that you're playing devil's advocate and not trying to justify anything But going back to your top sentence in particular. - Yes, players know they are choosing to play a contact sport where injuries and dangerous play can occur, whether intentional or by accident. It's something that is a risk for any player who is playing, every time they step on the pitch. After all, it is football and these things can happen as we unfortunately see quite regularly. But no one expects to be bitten. There is absolutely no reason why biting someone like an absolute psycho maniac should even enter the equation or have any place on the football pitch.
The ref had to abandon the game after 55 minutes because he wouldn't leave. Middlesborough were winning the game; the scoreline was ordered to stand as the result. Oldham lost the the title to Everton that season by one point. They have, of course, never come close to winning it since! I bet Billy was popular!
I think he should have been banned for an entire season, its the SECOND time he's done it, and I said the other day its the aforementioned health issue that is worse than dangerous, you're unlikely to die from a broken leg or smashed cheekbone, it'll smart a bit! but you will get better. Why would anyone want someone elses (partner/s excluded! ) saliva on them or worse if the skin is broken? ...how those teeth managed to avoid that I'll never know. Apparently the FA view the incident only as 'deplorable'....
Here is a PDF of the rationale behind the ban. Interesting reading (in a way): http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/~/media/164A568A93784FE391CC1FDAB4D7313F.ashx Apparently the criteria for extending a ban beyond the automatic three games are the following: -------------------------------------- a. The applicable Law(s) of the Game and any relevant FIFA instructions and / or guidelines; b. The nature of the incident and the Playerâs state of mind, in particular any intent, recklessness or negligence; c. Where applicable, the level of force used; d. Any injury to an opponent caused by the incident; e. Any other impact on the game in which the incident occurred; f. The prevalence of the type of incident in question in football generally; g. The wider interests of football in applying consistent punishments for dismissal offences. ------------------------------- Each of these is discussed in the PDF. No mention of previous behaviour being a factor in deciding punishments. Interestingly it says that Suarez submitted a list (like the one above, perhaps) of recent punishments/offences in answer to part a) above. b) Is undeniable c) Is not that great, I think d) Not much by the looks of things e) Well he went on to score a goal but apparently that is not relevant. "Impact on the rest of the game" means more the immediate aftermath. In other words - if Ivanovic had retaliated and then got sent off. But this didn't happen. f) This is a weird one. It seems worded to deal with things that are becoming endemic problems in football (diving, anyone?). And biting is certainly not something that is a big problem in the game. And yet the FA seem to say that the fact that it is NOT common is the reason to include this criterion! Because they don't want it to become common. So either it's a common offence and this criterion applies or it's not a common offence and this criterion still somehow applies. Good to see that the FA state very clearly: "We further agreed that the participants in a game of football do not expect to be bitten by another participant when they come to play football" Well done them! There's a statement which is going to inspire and challenge! (I imagine a sort of ridiculous scene from Dad's Army when I think of them making these sort of pronouncements. Or some Dickensian scene with a bunch of old men covered in cobwebs saying obvious things as if they were weighty and important). g) Well consistency seems to be whatever the FA say consistency is. In response to Suarez's list of relevant punishments in recent times they say: "We also noted that all, [sic] but one of the offences cited were physical bodily contacts, as opposed to biting an opponent as in this case" So a mouth is not a body part according to the FA. And their reasoning to dismiss all previous punishments is, well, non-existent (despite being six paragraphs long). Anyway - just thought I'd share by little foray into the bizarre, archaic pseudo-legalese reasoning (or lack of) that the FA come up with. With some creative punctuation to boot!
Wow. I bet he didn't mind being banned for twelve months - gave him an excuse not to show his face in the city. Although where a footballer would go in 1915 on relatively normal wage (did he even get wages for that period?) might only be as far as Blackpool.
Evander Holyfield was a master of the "third glove." He'd headbutted Tyson into a career damaging and very, very expensive loss already and was in the process of using the same completely illegal and highly dangerous tactic to cheat his way to another win. Tyson was so frustrated he figured he might as well get DQ'd and take a piece out of Holyfield while he was at it. I find Holyfield's headbutting more inexcusable than Tyson's biting. Tyson, at least, had been severely provoked. The biggest thing I see wrong with that list is David Layne, Peter Swan and Tony Kay (Sheff Weds): The trio were banned for life after betting on their own team to lose, 1965. ( However, the ban was lifted after seven years) Nobody who bet against their own team should ever be allowed in a stadium to watch a game, let alone play in one. There is no more anti-sportsmanship than that. Forgiveness for this kind of offense just should not happen. American sports still has fixing scandals periodically, despite a more or less universal policy of banning players who gamble for life. Other than that, I actually don't have much of a problem with these bans--except that major and career ending injuries are punished too lightly. Keane should have been banned from football after admitting he ended Hangeland's career intentionally. The thing about Suarez isn't that he bit somebody, but that he's a complete loon. The ten game ban looks like it might have made him realize, apparently for the first time, that he has a severe case of assholeitis and desperately needs treatment. As we know, biting as an isolated act of madness hasn't been punished too severely, nor, I think, should it be. Hazard got a get out of jail free card for his act of madness in kicking a ballboy, which in another league could have resulted in an enormous suspension. I'm not happy about it, but I can sort of see it: as far as I know, Hazard's been perfectly okay before and since, he just lost his marbles for a second without doing any major damage.
Re Cantona; The person he kicked was found guilty in court of racially abusing Cantona and recieved a fine and a community sentence I think. There was also evidence that he had previous for racism and that he was was a member of the racist/nazi BNP...this was thought to be one of the reasons that Cantona was not jailed...the provocation he faced was taken into account. I ain't ain't arguing Cantona was right but I do get how he lost it...I can't say the same for Suarez. He has previous for biting (Cantona didn't have previous at attacking the crowd); he was not provoked (Cantona was); he then pretended he was injured...claimed he understood how badly he behaved but argued he should only get a 3 match ban which suggests he weren't being honest...Cantona said he wished he'd hit him harder...at least he was honest! In my opinion some have missed the point with suarez...his handballs and diving are lumped in with his biting...EVERY PLAYER would commit handball to win a game and plenty would dive...the problem with Suarez is his ability to be violent with no provocation...that suggests he has a real problem in his head. There has been too much hysteria about it on both sides...suarez aint public enemy number one but in my opinion he got off lightly with 10 matches for an unprovoked assault on a player after he has been banned for 7 matches for biting 2 and a half years ago. As for him affecting children; I work in a primary school and all the kids think he was stupid and laughed at him acting like a 2 yr old, even the kids who have problems with being violent. The Liverpool supporting kids are embarrassed for him. We have to have a zero tolerance on violence at school for obvious reasons but we do understand that kids can be provoked into losing their tempers so we can offer them alternative strategies to responding violently ... the kids that worry us are the ones who act violently with no provocation...they are the ones that grow up and attack people who bump them in a crowded pub; or attack someone for looking at them in the wrong way. They are unpredictable and have very few friends; and they are a combination of sad and angry.
It's worse for many reasons. Infections after breaking the skin is a huge one. HIV, Hepatitis, who knows what? A punch is one thing; it's almost instinct for some people, but a bite, or even a headbutt is premeditated. The law takes this view too. And I think he should have been arrested, charged with common assault, found guilty and sentenced to 3 months. I would not see that as a harsh punishment. You cannot go around biting people, it's against the law.
