Suarez at it again
- Thread starter Easy Tiger
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
If a picture paints a thousand words
If only
You must log in or register to see images
If only
You must log in or register to see images
I joked earlier that the bookies will soon be offering odds on Suarez to bite someone each match.
Well it turns out they already did! Some Danish bloke has just cashed in big time on a bet he placed for Suarez to bite someone in this World Cup at 175/1!!!
You couldn't make it up!
Well it turns out they already did! Some Danish bloke has just cashed in big time on a bet he placed for Suarez to bite someone in this World Cup at 175/1!!!
You couldn't make it up!
âThese things happen in the box,â Suarez was quoted as telling Uruguayan media.
HAHA
These things happen in the box?
Suarez isnt mental, he is a freaking comedian!
HAHA
These things happen in the box?
Suarez isnt mental, he is a freaking comedian!
Absolute joke of a player. Less than a week ago he was giving it big'uns about the english press giving him a hard time the biting, cheating, racist little ****.
Lincoln Tiger
Well-Known Member
FIFA have now confirmed the Suarez is in bother.
The betting slip for the bloke who won a bet on Suarez biting someone at the World Cup...
The betting slip for the bloke who won a bet on Suarez biting someone at the World Cup...
You must log in or register to see images
It's all our fault apparently.
http://www.theguardian.com/football...ite-uruguayan-english-press-agenda?CMP=twt_gu
The Luis Suárez ‘biting’ incident has been explained away by a Uruguayan TV station as a conspiracy by the English – just like the 1966 World Cup final.
A report on the Tenfield station’s website says Suárez’s face made contact with Giorgio Chiellini’s shoulder but only became an issue about biting when British reporters repeatedly asked questions in the post-match press conference, forcing Fifa to look into the matter. The report adds that Geoff Hurst’s second goal in the 1966 final did not cross the line.
It says: “In the TV replay, as viewed in the press area, it appears that Luisito’s face comes in contact with Chiellini without it being clear whether he bites him as was claimed by those – especially the English – who were keen to play down Uruguay’s victory.
“In our view the TV picture is not clear as to whether or not Suárez bites the shoulder of the Italian defender. Note how Suárez stumbles after jumping for the ball and how his face hits the shoulder of the Italian player.
“British reporters, in the press conference, asked Ãscar Tabárez three times asked about the incident, saying that: ‘Suárez bit Chiellini.’ Their intention was Fifa should intervene and expel Luisito from the World Cup.
“It would be good if these Englishmen, who are concerned to have Suárez suspended, remember how they won the World Cup in 1966 with a ball which was not a goal.”
Other press reaction in Uruguay included coverage of the response on social media and overseas, and the sense that all may not have been as it seemed – El Observador pointing to a lack of definitive photo evidence.
“There was no single picture to prove there was a bite. Two images were circulating: one, of Chiellini with his shirt up for the referee, appeared to show he had been visited by a vampire. In the other there was nothing. Was it Photoshop?
“But the episode was enough for Luisito to again be the talk of the British media, and relegated the result between Uruguay and Italy to second place. All British media detailed it on their websites in great detail.”
Ultimas Noticias saw both sides, reporting: “The photos spread over social networks. But nobody talks about how Suárez was injured in the jaw and the eye. Suárez said ‘these things happen on the pitch’ and played down his swollen face.”
El Pais also covered the UK reaction: “The assumption that Suárez bit [Chellini] flew around the world as soon as the incident happened, even before the game ended. The main English newspapers were tough with Liverpool player. It is worth remembering that most of the English press harassed the Uruguayan after the bite that he gave Branislav Ivanovic.”
Public opinion in Uruguay, meanwhile, was divided. “We needed to win, so if you have to hit you hit, if you have to bite you bite,” said Barbara Giordano, a 26-year-old law student in Montevideo.
Some, though, were furious. “This kid can’t control his biting and attacking issues,” said Luis Lara, a 52-year-old shopkeeper. “That makes all of us Uruguayans look bad.”
http://www.theguardian.com/football...ite-uruguayan-english-press-agenda?CMP=twt_gu
The Luis Suárez ‘biting’ incident has been explained away by a Uruguayan TV station as a conspiracy by the English – just like the 1966 World Cup final.
A report on the Tenfield station’s website says Suárez’s face made contact with Giorgio Chiellini’s shoulder but only became an issue about biting when British reporters repeatedly asked questions in the post-match press conference, forcing Fifa to look into the matter. The report adds that Geoff Hurst’s second goal in the 1966 final did not cross the line.
It says: “In the TV replay, as viewed in the press area, it appears that Luisito’s face comes in contact with Chiellini without it being clear whether he bites him as was claimed by those – especially the English – who were keen to play down Uruguay’s victory.
“In our view the TV picture is not clear as to whether or not Suárez bites the shoulder of the Italian defender. Note how Suárez stumbles after jumping for the ball and how his face hits the shoulder of the Italian player.
“British reporters, in the press conference, asked Ãscar Tabárez three times asked about the incident, saying that: ‘Suárez bit Chiellini.’ Their intention was Fifa should intervene and expel Luisito from the World Cup.
“It would be good if these Englishmen, who are concerned to have Suárez suspended, remember how they won the World Cup in 1966 with a ball which was not a goal.”
Other press reaction in Uruguay included coverage of the response on social media and overseas, and the sense that all may not have been as it seemed – El Observador pointing to a lack of definitive photo evidence.
“There was no single picture to prove there was a bite. Two images were circulating: one, of Chiellini with his shirt up for the referee, appeared to show he had been visited by a vampire. In the other there was nothing. Was it Photoshop?
“But the episode was enough for Luisito to again be the talk of the British media, and relegated the result between Uruguay and Italy to second place. All British media detailed it on their websites in great detail.”
Ultimas Noticias saw both sides, reporting: “The photos spread over social networks. But nobody talks about how Suárez was injured in the jaw and the eye. Suárez said ‘these things happen on the pitch’ and played down his swollen face.”
El Pais also covered the UK reaction: “The assumption that Suárez bit [Chellini] flew around the world as soon as the incident happened, even before the game ended. The main English newspapers were tough with Liverpool player. It is worth remembering that most of the English press harassed the Uruguayan after the bite that he gave Branislav Ivanovic.”
Public opinion in Uruguay, meanwhile, was divided. “We needed to win, so if you have to hit you hit, if you have to bite you bite,” said Barbara Giordano, a 26-year-old law student in Montevideo.
Some, though, were furious. “This kid can’t control his biting and attacking issues,” said Luis Lara, a 52-year-old shopkeeper. “That makes all of us Uruguayans look bad.”
Only 10 games?
Nowhere near enough.
A full ban from football for at the very least 12 months is needed.
He has to be taught a lesson. Something such as what i've put is the only way to do it.