Suarez Charged

[Joelinton's Right Foot]

Way over the top for me, I can only assume the ban length relate to previous conduct because the individual incident wasn't all that bad.

I think its a bit of both. Biting is still seen a bit like spitting as just being one of those things that is just low (in all sports). Didn't a rugby player get an 18 months ban for biting? It is harsh when compared to some others tho who have had some horror tackles. IMO its those other bans that were too short tho (or non existent) rather than Suarez's being too long (especially as he is a repeat offender).

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

I think its a bit of both. Biting is still seen a bit like spitting as just being one of those things that is just low (in all sports). Didn't a rugby player get an 18 months ban for biting? It is harsh when compared to some others tho who have had some horror tackles. IMO its those other bans that were too short tho (or non existent) rather than Suarez's being too long (especially as he is a repeat offender).

But should biting be viewed like that? Not something I'd fancy doing myself but its not like he bit a chunk out of him like some kind of street fight. What he did is akin to nipping someone. I used to do that regularly on a football field to wind opponents up We've got it all wrong in this country for me. I'd rather see someone do what Suarez did, rather what McManaman did.

With a horror tackle you are risking a guys career and therefore livelihood. With a bite it is more designed to annoy and wind up rather than inflict actual harm.

 

[Joelinton's Right Foot]

But should biting be viewed like that? Not something I'd fancy doing myself but its not like he bit a chunk out of him like some kind of street fight. What he did is akin to nipping someone. I used to do that regularly on a football field to wind opponents up We've got it all wrong in this country for me. I'd rather see someone do what Suarez did, rather what McManaman did.

With a horror tackle you are risking a guys career and therefore livelihood. With a bite it is more designed to annoy and wind up rather than inflict actual harm.

I do see where you are coming from. I suppose a big question would be how did he intend the bite. Was it just meant to be a nip or did Ivan throw him off before he managed to get his substantial teeth into a nice chunk of flesh? Or was it (probably) somewhere inbetween? Its a similar dilemma with tackles though. Foe me there should be a distiction between a mis-timed tackle and an attempt to hurt an opponent, but the times people would agree as to which was which would be minimal, so its impossible to implement. Anything designed purely to hurt and not part of the game should be hammered though - and I don't mean like your nipping fetish, but something designed to inflict injury.

 

[Obi Wan]

With a horror tackle you are risking a guys career and therefore livelihood. With a bite it is more designed to annoy and wind up rather than inflict actual harm.

No actual harm? But now Ivanovic might also be condemned to a lifetime of turning into a man-eating rodent during every full moon! How would you feel if that were you? You haven't thought this through.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

No actual harm? But now Ivanovic might also be condemned to a lifetime of turning into a man-eating rodent during every full moon! How would you feel if that were you? You haven't thought this through.

He should be banned for life! or at least the length of time Ivanovic would have to wait to have an hiv test! If he had punctured his skin he would have had an anxious 3-6 month wait in order to get the all clear!!! Oh...and then theres hepititis!

 

[ClearlyDeludedGloryHunter]

I don't think that it matters if it were a nip, a bite or a ruddy great chunk torn out of his arm.

He was suspended before for biting and that should have been made clear enough; no more biting, young man, it's just not accepted.

Rogers has complained about the length of the ban and, wrongly in my view, but surely if the first offence were seven matches then the FA's hands are tied and couldn't really give a shorter penalty. They can't be seen to have a Frequent Offenders Programme in which persistant offenders get a bonus: punishments simply don't don't work like that.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

No actual harm? But now Ivanovic might also be condemned to a lifetime of turning into a man-eating rodent during every full moon! How would you feel if that were you? You haven't thought this through.

Fair enough, I see you point

 

[Albert's Chip Shop]

Suarez WILL NOT APPEAL - just been on BBC.

 

[Joelinton's Right Foot]

Suarez WILL NOT APPEAL - just been on BBC.

Sensible decision really