Basically people are saying that saurez should have waited 30 seconds, 2 footed Ivanovic, broke his leg and got away with a smaller ban! Am i correct in that?
So someone who assaults someone in the street on the second occasion should receive the same punishment again or should it reflect the nature of a repeat offender?
But then should somebody get punished more for biting somebody (not drawing blood) in a nightclub, than punching somebody causing a broken eye socket or nose?
Biting like spitting is disgusting and is the lowest basic animal instinct. Would a 2/3 game ban change this persons attitude to doing it, I don't think so. I honestly think he would see it as a condonement and not a serious situation, and would probably do it again. I was horrified when I saw the incident, a Years ban would be reasonable in my opinion. Don't forget that kids see this sort of thing on TV replays, it has to be shown to them and the rest of football that this sort of behaviour IS NOT ACCEPTABLE! Liverpool and the evil Suarez are "shocked" by the length of the ban, why? Do they think it's OK to bite people? Lets not forget the handballs, the diving, the racisism and general cheating that is now associated with this player and the club he represents!
I would agree entirely if it was balanced across the game. Shawcross, Holt, Fellaini, who in my opinion were premeditated in their actions, get off or received small punishment for far worse outcomes than a bruise on the arm. We all saw it. But some loophole in the FA rules means they can't be done retrospectively. But rules can certainly be bent or elasticated because it is Suarez. You can't compare it to off the pitch either. You are not allowed to swear in the street but thousands can join together on the terraces and swear to music. Players appear to swear at the officials without recourse. I am in no way defending Suarez at all but I just think the media and non Liverpool supporters have jumped on the bandwagon. What a shame he didn't bite Rio Ferdinand or John Terry, then we could have had a real crisis!
Basic facts are that Suarez has been given a harsher ban than somebody whose has gone over the top in a tackle and broken somebodies leg. I can't remember of a harsher ban of 10 games or more for something like that? agreed? And most on here thinks its worse than a bad tackle? Agreed? So i ask the question, 1st game next season Van Dogsdick is lining up for you guys, what would you rather he is a victim of? A Bite which doesn't draw blood or a 2 footed tackle over the top which puts him out for 18 months?
Another clever play on a persons name? Where do you think them all up To answer the question - well, you can't as it is little more than proposing two scenarios in an endeavor to make a point. I believe it is called a leading or loaded question
It's like someone asking if you would prefer a quick knee in the nuts in which the pain will go away quite quickly but you may never have kids of your own or a smash in the face with a hammer which might leave you physically scared for life.
Firstly, I think one of your own actually came up with that name before me! and secondly No it isn't Thai, I'm just asking what they think is the most serious to the player and club? My guess would that the tackle would be the most serious, thus should be punished harsher than a bite.
but as mentioned earlier, any such tackle would in all probability has resulted from a player going for the ball. In no way can biting be seen as a ball winning skill in any way shape or from. So it's not a simple case of which would you prefer or a simple case of which is worst. It comes down to the manner in which it occurred. In this case a very off the ball situation with nothing in mind other than to harm another person - it's the "off the ball" bit that makes all the difference as far as I can see
That is true but a tackle is part of the game, biting is not. Remember Eric Cantona at Selhurst Park? There were calls for him to be booted out of the English game as he did something that had nothing to do with actually playing football while on the football pitch. He got a lengthy ban and rightly so but no players were harmed.
Ok so.... Roy Keane gets a 5 match ban for deliberately ending a footballers career with an assault on the pitch. Paulo Di Canio gets 11 match ban for pushing referee Paul Adcock over. Suarez gets a 7 match ban for a percieved racist comment made towards Evra. Suarez gets a 10 match ban for biting an opponent. Something a bit screwy going on here? Biting an opponent surely comes under 'Violent Conduct' which is a 3 match ban so why is the FA suddenly putting this into another category without any prior warning? It seems like as usual they are reacting to the whipped up media hysteria. Isn't it also strange that when Defoe bit an opponent he wasn't subject to an enforced retrospective ban? Oh and btw, I am not defending Suarez's actions but there does seem to be a bit of a witch hunt going on here!
JWM, we are all painfully aware that the FA are a law unto themselves which makes "arguments" such as these go off on tangents. There is no consistency,. or none that I have found so far. The trouble is, sometimes, we end up trying to compare apples with pears and it can't be done. Some people will be annoyed with the FA and some will not over this latest incident, but really who are we to question the outcome? If the question was asked of the FA I am reasonably sure they would come up with an answer that would satisfy the majority and only those who want to make more out of it will continue to claim it as being unjust
So basically what the FA are saying is that pushing a referee over is far more serious than a tackle that ends a player's career and also racially abusing another player! The FA have got themselves into a right old mess over this!
The FA has bowed to media pressure on this one, Consisitency in these judgements has got to be the key.
Where I do have a little sympathy with the FA in this case comes down to two factors.... The Cantona incident which is arguably the closest "similar" incident received and 8 month ban and a fine. So a precedent of sorts is in place. It's not the first occurrance of this particular off the ball offence by Saurez, and if the initial ban was 7 weeks (not saying that was right or wrong) then any subsequent ban for a repeat offence has to be longer, hasn't it?
As a referee myself I am judged for the consistency of my decision making but the FA it seems acts in a totally different way!
I wouldn't say the cantona incident is anything like this, Cantona kicked a knob (sorry i mean fan). this is between players. the closet thing to this is when Jermiane defoe incident with another player, and what did they do. sweet FA.
3 match bans for violent conduct hasn't stamped out bad tackles and won't until the FA increase the bans to 5,6,7 etc until it stops. If you want to see players biting each other then just slap their wrists with a minimum ban. As I've already said, personally it horrifies me, I don't want to see it and think a longer ban, will send the right message!!
