Poll: Suarez has to be banned for a year at least

The the ban fair?

  • Scouser: Fair

    Votes: 11 3.0%

  • Other: Fair

    Votes: 64 17.4%

  • Scouser: Too lenient

    Votes: 7 1.9%

  • Other: Too lenient

    Votes: 228 62.0%

  • Scouser: Too harsh

    Votes: 13 3.5%

  • Other: Too harsh

    Votes: 22 6.0%

  • manyoo fans: derp

    Votes: 23 6.3%
  • Total voters
    368
@English_AS: FIFA sources say Suárez' punishment has to reflect reality:"What's the difference between what he did & a head butt, or a deliberate elbow?"

@English_AS: Suárez minimum ban would be as for violent conduct: four matches, though could be more. All to be served with national team.

A guy from Norway put a bet on at 175/1 that Luis will bite someone at the WC. Ahaha
 
I think in this incident he actually broke poor lads leg.
DzYNfq.gif
 
grimm said:
Kicking is a normal part of the game though. You don't bite the ball, or anything else during a game of football do you?
Click to expand...

Kicking people with no attempt to get the ball is part of the game? Or elbowing people? Or targeting them with an awful tackle with clear intent to hurt them? (e.g. Suarez's one that dm loves)
 
grimm said:
Kicking is a normal part of the game though. You don't bite the ball, or anything else during a game of football do you?
Click to expand...

Na its ok to bite people during game.... They'll rather get bitten then kicked..

Only deluded Liverpool fans will support Suarez. How long do you wanna give it before the next poor victim gets bitten :(
 
Purdy said:
Kicking people with no attempt to get the ball is part of the game? Or elbowing people? Or targeting them with an awful tackle with clear intent to hurt them? (e.g. Suarez's one that dm loves)
Click to expand...

Nice ninja edit ;)
 
Purdy said:
So biting is where the line is drawn? I'd rather be bitten than any of those maybe bar a kick on the leg.
Click to expand...

No, as EVERYONE has told you time and time again, it's quantity of what he's done, bite irrelevant, a bite is not acceptable just because it's arguably less bad than breaking someone's leg. Biting is completely unacceptable on the pitch, he is not being vilified for the bite but for the bite being one of a huge long list of things he has done.

The line is drawn, what is acceptable and what is not is clear. Sometimes you cross the line, that happens. Biting is across the line as is leg breaking tackles, and punching and everything else. Every player will step across the line on occasion. As with everything, as everyone tells you which you purposefully chose to ignore. The problem is now many times he has stepped across this line and still continually shows absolutely no sign of changing. Every time he steps way over this line he will be banned and his previous offences will be taken into account when that ban is considered.

Everyone gets a few chances in life( for the most part) and Suarez has had dozens more chances than everyone else, and each time he gets a ban, he just goes on being the same vile person who keeps fouling people.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Look on this incident on the player and his history alone. Not what others did.
Click to expand...

No, it needs to be contextualised, not abstracted. And the punishment, in order to be meaningful, needs to have and set precedent.


Hows about that one? De Jong never even got a retrospective red for that.

I'd rather be bitten.
 
Sho said:
Nice ninja edit ;)
Click to expand...

Changing a full stop to a question mark?

drunkenmaster said:
No, as EVERYONE has told you time and time again, it's quantity of what he's done, bite irrelevant, a bite is not acceptable just because it's arguably less bad than breaking someone's leg. Biting is completely unacceptable on the pitch, he is not being vilified for the bite but for the bite being one of a huge long list of things he has done.
Click to expand...

But there are players who do all the other things, in similar or more quantity and far more dangerously, but the bite is where the big ban comes in? Had he simply done a stamp on someone's foot yesterday would there be calls for a life ban?

EDIT: I see yet again you've ignored the part you don't want to answer similar to the fabregas thing
 
Last edited:
Purdy said:
But there are players who do all the other things, in similar or more quantity and far more dangerously, but the bite is where the big ban comes in? Had he simply done a stamp on someone's foot yesterday would there be calls for a life ban?
Click to expand...

A serious and obvious stamp with no potential mistaking it for going for the ball, yes, I would be.

This is the difference a bite is utterly utterly unmistakeable. Football is a game where people kick the ball a lot, there will be hundreds of instances a year where people purposefully kick people but it's so close to the ball we can't know for sure because we can't prove the intent. Biting on the shoulder.. it's utterly unmistakeable.

AS for other players doing similar things in similar quantities, who, Barton... someone most people would be happy to see banned because of the sheer number of bad things he's done. Any others? De Jong has done a few really awful tackles but the terrible ones are few and far between.

In almost any circumstance, in any walk of life, sport, work, most people get a few chances because most humans make mistakes. It's when people go beyond their few chances, refuse to change and continue doing the same thing that punishments get handed out and get worse on each occasion.
 
Purdy said:
Had he simply done a stamp on someone's foot yesterday would there be calls for a life ban?
Click to expand...

This is the crux isn't it. When in "reality" as FIFA sources quite rightly say, there's no difference between butting, elbowing, kicking, gouging, biting, spitting or pulling someone's hair.

There all violent assaults of one sort another. What merits each incident as worthy of stiffer punishment is the degree of intent to injure, not the moral outrage caused. And certainly not the moral outrage, which the Uruguayan FA will say has been drummed up by the English press, who have a history with Suarez and still have the hump over England being eliminated.
 
Last edited:
Purdy said:
But there are players who do all the other things, in similar or more quantity and far more dangerously, but the bite is where the big ban comes in? Had he simply done a stamp on someone's foot yesterday would there be calls for a life ban?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the hilarious thing. Had he gone in and potentially broken someones foot/leg, people wouldn't be calling for a year long ban.

He does need some proper help though, he needs to sort this red midst rubbish out and focus on his game
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
Yeah, that's the hilarious thing. Had he gone in and potentially broken someones foot/leg, people wouldn't be calling for a year long ban.
Click to expand...

Yes they would, and why on earth would you think they wouldn't?

He did a list eleventy billion things long, regardless of if he bit, stamped, broken someones leg, punched someone, they all break the rules and he's had his chances, he's had more chances than any other player I can name and done worse things (in volume) than any other player I can name.

Why on earth would anyone suggest there wouldn't be the same reaction if he had intentionally broken someone's leg. What an utterly utterly stupid thing to suggest.

Sure, if he'd broken someone's leg we'd all pat the guy on the back and think it was a shame.... seriously are you on medication of some kind? Most people aren't calling for a life long ban, I'm saying it should be considered because there HAS to be a point somewhere, where enough is enough, I don't know where that line is, I said I don't know where that line is, Fifa need to decide because if Fifa have say a dozen chances to ban him over despicable behaviour and don't and then he does end someone's career, they will be sued over it.

If he broke someone's leg in a god awful tackle I would absolutely suggest a lifetime ban right now, that would be the end of the line IMHO, given he's done it before, intentionally hurt players since, attempted to hurt others and done all kinds of other things as well.

If he accidentally broke someone's leg with a clearly not intentional tackle.... it would depend, absolute fluke circumstance, or reckless and stupid but not intentional, again because of his previous it would be a very hard call to make, for someone with no history it wouldn't be such a hard call.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
Yes they would, and why on earth would you think they wouldn't?

He did a list eleventy billion things long, regardless of if he bit, stamped, broken someones leg, punched someone, they all break the rules and he's had his chances, he's had more chances than any other player I can name and done worse things (in volume) than any other player I can name.

Why on earth would anyone suggest there wouldn't be the same reaction if he had intentionally broken someone's leg. What an utterly utterly stupid thing to suggest.
Click to expand...

Mate, you obviously never used to watch Vinnie Jones, or Chopper Harris...

it goes on all the time, bad tackles and stuff, like you say though, the biting action in itself is a bit easier to vilify. But it doesnt make it worse
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom