Poll: Suarez has to be banned for a year at least
- Thread starter Frankiemac
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,932
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
It won't and it shouldn't, but he shouldn't have any leniency on the punishment as he has shown no remorse.
Quite simply this...
So what if it is a minimal offence and he didn't draw blood. As a repeat offender you have to dramatically increase the punishment ("logarithmically" in my opinion) to the point where they are deterred from doing it... It hasn't worked so far so he needs a much heftier punishment
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Not to be awkward but intent can be an important factor in determining the punishment for a crime. If I shot at someone with the intent to kill or maim them but was so incompetent that every shot missed then have I committed a crime?
You can perhaps argue that he wasn't committed enough to his course of action to cause any serious harm but at best that's more of a mitigation than anything else. His intent appeared to be to bite the shoulder of Chiellini and that's what he should be punished for plus his previous incidents should be taken into account for sentencing (depending on the various Fifa regulations regarding what is or isn't admissible) if he's found guilty.
As for why Dylan Hartley is still playing - arguably he shouldn't be but it's a different sport. Football isn't willing to take on board the TMO from rugby so why should it look to rugby as a yardstick for how appropriately to punish someone for on-field transgressions?
His point was obvious. Regardless of whether he drew blood or not, it's his third time biting a person on TV, watched by millions of people. Intent to cause some form of harm is there, and he is a disgrace to football and a bad example to the worlds youth, regardless of his talent.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,932
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I am not sure you are just trying to argue for argue sake, or just plain trolling…
I am going to ignore that because knowing how you debate on here, it is a waste of time.
I have to point out though, the part where you say he committed an act of violence a long time ago and now this…have you forgotten ALL that in between? The biting in Ajax, the biting in the Liverpool shirt? Not to mention all the bad tackles, the kicking etc amongst all of that too. He didn't play like Gary Lineker for 11 years.
It is not 11 years of clean bill of health and relapse, it is a consistent show of violence.
I am going to ignore that because knowing how you debate on here, it is a waste of time.
I have to point out though, the part where you say he committed an act of violence a long time ago and now this…have you forgotten ALL that in between? The biting in Ajax, the biting in the Liverpool shirt? Not to mention all the bad tackles, the kicking etc amongst all of that too. He didn't play like Gary Lineker for 11 years.
It is not 11 years of clean bill of health and relapse, it is a consistent show of violence.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,932
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
And the three strike rule is truly ridiculous. They have it because mouth breathing conservatives think that you need to be tough on crime, etc... when if you look at the outcomes of severe criminal justice systems (like the US) the sentences and punishments they use lead to rubbish outcomes, whereas relatively 'soft' criminal justice systems which use comparatively lenient sentences and punishments which deliver better outcomes. You're basically picking out one of the worst criminal justice devices and saying we should use it because America does - that's borderline retarded!
Who's tolerating it..?
It's not retarted, tolerating and even supporting biting in football is retarted however.
And who has done that?
So what physical harm is there if you racially abuse another player. Should someone who injures another player get a longer ban than someone who simply punches them. They will be fine for the game the next week after a punch but an injury can take them out for months.
The reason he deserves a long ban is because he has a history of this, he never learns and the reason what he did is so bad is because it was just out and out violent. You don't bite someone without meaning to. You mistime a tackle and its worse than you intended. The other player does something at just the wrong time and your tackle injures him. You don't have these issues with a bite.
Going in two footed and elbowing someone in the face is not always done with the intention of injuring them. If you have a player near you, you might look over your shoulder to see where they are before jumping. When you are charging about and try to make a tackle, sometimes it doesn't come off quite as you would like due to where your feet are when you go for the ball.
Yes, plenty of players do these things intentionally but there is almost always plenty of room for doubt about their intentions. Was it accidental or did they go into the tackle to intentionally injure the other player.
When you bite someone there is no doubt about your intentions. There is no element of timing, bad luck or ambiguity to a bite. Its plain nasty.
Last edited:
Oh I know, there are plenty where you are almost certain that they meant to do it but the difference is that there is still an element of "perhaps they didn't mean it". There is not that doubt when you bite someone.
You're correct the difference is obvious, but I can't help but think you're kind of changing the goal posts of the argument to suit your cause
My general point is that you cannot ban someone for a long time unless you are 100% sure it was intentional. With almost every other foul there is at least some doubt.
My foot slipped as I went to tackle, I didn't realise he was there, I raised my arm to balance myself, he moved the ball after I had committed to the tackle etc. Even when it looks 99% certain something was intentional you can argue that it wasn't and that it was an accident.
"I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do that, it was a rash challenge but I didn't mean to hurt the guy".
Suarez cannot defend his actions in any way.
He's right though, you seem to be playing devils advocate without the logic to back it up.
If he were to break the skin, you're pretty much guaranteed an infection which can range from nasty to life-threatening. I believe the standard practice for any bite (animal or human) is to get it treated regardless of whether it broke the skin.
In that regard, I'd say that biting is more harmful than substance abuse, and certainly is more harmful directly than match fixing. Maybe not to the sport, but definitely to the health of the person being bitten (and that's more important than the sport).
Imagine Suarez, instead of biting, had punched his opponent in the face. Regardless of whether it drew blood, he'd be on the end of a lengthy ban. If, after he'd served his ban, he went on to do it a second time, that'd probably be it for his career. If somehow he managed to continue playing after that, then surely the third time would be enough for the powers that be to throw the book at him. I don't see why biting should be treated any differently.