Suarez

[ludwig]

I've just seen people whinging on the news about the ten match ban Suarez got for biting an opponent like an animal. Shouldn't they be directing their anger at the player for being such a thug?

[ludwig]

// calls for a season ban are ludicrous //

Why? I'd say ten weeks is lenient, a season ban is about right, a prison sentence for assault is probably harsh, and calls for the death sentence are ludicrous.

[Mass_Hysteria]

Gromit, he is a GROWN MAN! Not a child having a tantrum and HE BIT SOMEONE in the middle of a game of football watched by thousands of people. Perspective??

[Gromit]

The bite was infantile but did no lasting harm. Players are attacked every week of every season and bodily harm does occur. If those attacks happened in the street prison sentences would probably ensue. Only Last week Manchester City's Aguero thrust his studded boots into the backside of an opposing player and he did not receive any ban. And the tackle was worse that Suarez's chomp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDDOxa_0PG0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[LazyGun]

I do not dispute that worse injuries have occurred on the pitch, Gromit, through kicks, punches and elbows. Some of the consequent damage has been sickening, career ending in some instances (I am thinking of that tackle by Gascoigne on the Notts Forest guy years ago)

But there is something particularly vicious, infantile and animalistic about biting someone - really uncivilised.

I still think a 10 match ban is too lenient.

[Mass_Hysteria]

I have to disagree, The Aguero tackle was poor to say the least and should have been punished (stupid FA rules) but dare I say, part of the game, biting someone is most definitely not part of the game.

[ludwig]

// Players are attacked every week of every season and bodily harm does occur //

Yes, and they should all be potentially charged with assault. I still think Roy Keane should have served a prison sentence for deliberately ending Alf Haalands career. As if the video evidence wasn't enough, he was good enough to confess to the crime in print afterwards, but nothing happened.

[lcg]

yes....and he should be banned for longer! 10 matches is piddly for a second offence. he is an animal.....x

[joggerjayne]

The authorities are so careful nowadays about blood borne infections like hepatitis.

If you get a blood injury, you have to leave the pitch, to eliminate the risk of transmitting any infections.

And this guy just BITES! another player?

Would you ever go on a pitch with someone like that?

No WAY!

[WyeDyed]

Will he be paid during his ban?

[jno]

you don't really get long bans for being uncivilised, though, do you? Otherwise who'd be left on the field? It's towards the harmless end of "violent conduct" - obviously I'd say different if his victim contracted rabies, but he didn't.

[Mass_Hysteria]

Good point WyeDyed! If he's not available to Liverpool until approx October 2013? A few £million would hurt a bit?

[magicmick]

Good question wyedyed one to get your teeth into

[sir.prize]

Let's hope Suarez appeals against the 10 match ban. Any appeal would also carry the possibility of having the length of Suarez's ban extended, as a new panel would sit. It may also be shown that the FA asked for a longer suspension, given the extraordinary nature of Suarez's offence and his previous misconduct in the English game.

[ludwig]

// you don't really get long bans for being uncivilised, though, do you? //

Biting someone... uncivilised. Ok.

Yes, now you mention it I think I recall a pithy remark in an Oscar Wilde play about such a practice.

It could also be considered a thuggish assault of course.

[Gromit]

Joggerjayne,

There was no blood injury. He did not break the skin. It was deliberate and a strange thing to do, but hardly career threatening for Ivanovic.

[LazyGun]

@jno We are probably going to have to agree to disagree.

I see no reason why we should tolerate the abandonment of civilised behaviour merely because they are kicking a ball around - for squillions of pounds, and in public. Were civilised behaviour to be suspended for the duration of a match, why bother with a referee? And just because other stuff is done on the pitch that should not excuse this behaviour.

This was an adult man, a millionaire, on a pitch, playing a public game - who was compelled to bite another player. And he has done it before.It is absolutely animalistic.

I think that is inexcusable personally.

[WyeDyed]

I am guessing that is between him and his club (probably involving lawyers and contracts).
Can the FA get involved in this?

[jno]

oh, I'm not trying to excuse it, just trying to figure out what sort of punishment is appropriate given how much worse, or better, his behaviour could have been. I think Gromit's right. Actions that actually injure peope are worse, and there's a fair bit of that about.

[joggerjayne]

//Joggerjayne,

There was no blood injury. He did not break the skin.//

So it would be okay for me to shoot a gun at you, as long as I missed ?

[ludwig]

// I'm not trying to excuse it //

Thanks for the clarification.