He deserves a lengthy ban, but I think it should be applied only to International football. When he was banned for the Ivanovic bite, he was still allowed to play for Uruguay. Now he does it for Uruguay, and it affects us more than it does for his country.
The Times say that we are considering legal action. Regardless of how that pans out, I want him sold. To do that again was the height of stupidity, and he's seriously let the club down and embarrassed everyone who has supported him. Theres also the risk of him doing it again, which would probably see a year long ban or worse. Outstanding player, but not worth the hassle.
KT
At this point I don't think there is anything to learn nor was there ever. He just has faulty wiring.
-----
Should that GNAW and not NOR
Only messing mate, good point about the faulty wiring, as a Utd fan i really do think it harsh on Loverpool
The ban was surely on the player, not specifically for his country or club, they just happen to be who he plays for.
I though the media reaction to the incident was over the top although Suarez was an idiot doing what he did and I think he knew it was the second he did it.
Overall I think the ban is fair considering his previous bites (although FIFA didn't raise this point when giving the ban). Ffor me personally although biting is unprofessional and disrespectful I still think intentional fouls such as breaks, elbows, 2 footed studs, headbutts etc are worse offences as they are intending to cause more harm to an opponent.
For me football is entertainment and Suarez is one of the most entertaining players in the world, whether it's scoring goals, biting people or handling the ball on the line, he's like a pantomime villain, it's great to watch and I think people overreact to what he does simply because he plays for an opposing team. He clearly has psychological problems and ideally needs help but he;s also brilliant entertainment IMO.
Whilst the biting isn't on, it's feral at worst, it's not criminal. People need to gain a little perspective.
------------------------------
It is criminal though. If you were to bite people in completely unprovoked attacks in real life you'd surely get banged up by the third time.
Sorry about typo's im finding it hard to use my phone tonight
Tbh if someone bites me i think id laugh and slap em....its actually childish nothing more.
It is criminal though. If you were to bite people in completely unprovoked attacks in real life you'd surely get banged up by the third time.
-----
Do rugby players need locking up??
comment by FatJanMolby *I'm a boogie monster* (U4297)
posted 11 minutes ago
Any comparison to a criminal going to prison is puerile. He's bitten someone, not raped or murdered somebody. Whilst the biting isn't on, it's feral at worst, it's not criminal. People need to gain a little perspective.
The ban is harsh on Liverpool, but he deserved to be punished severely and unfortunately we have to beat the brunt of it.
I think a lengthy international ban would have been a more fitting punishment. He has an unwavering loyalty to Uruguay, an affinity that he doesn't have with club football. He'll go from club to club like most footballers do. One thing he can't change is his nationality. A 2 year ban from international football would have have probably hurt him more than this ban. He's been banned for this sort of length before and clearly he hasn't learnt his lessons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not puerile, the point is that you punish an individual with the appopriate level, you don't dilute the punishment because of how it affects employers of family members. That is absurd.
Liverpool are not being punished, Suarez is being punished, they are just unluck to employ him.
It is that simple.
Harsh but you can argue 3rd time, biggest stage and they need to set an example etc. However it seems to punish Liverpool more then the player or the team he committed it playing for.
I think they should have stuck to the competition ban and a much bigger fine which goes to charity and a warning if it happens again he face then could face an 9 month global ban or something.
Liverpool have to pay 2.5m in wages whilst also missing a key player for 25 % of their season... For something they had no control over which happened at a world cup in Brazil.......
I don't know why people think there's been an overreaction to it, biting is completely off the wall, you could argue stamping on someone's foot does more harm than spitting in someone's face, but I know which will get the biggest reaction, plus you don't require jabs for hepatitis for the majority of tackles.
comment by Got_Better (U6241)
posted 12 seconds ago
Tbh if someone bites me i think id laugh and slap em.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be a strange reaction.
I'd be appalled if someone tried to bite me.
Banning him only for internationals but allowing him to play at domestic level would be a total farce.
the point is that you punish an individual with the appopriate level, you don't dilute the punishment because of how it affects employers of family members. That is absurd.
_________
No one is saying dilute the punishment you cretin just choose a punishment that doesn't involve punishing a party that had no involvement/control over any of it more then it punishes the player and his national team.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 4 minutes ago
Whilst the biting isn't on, it's feral at worst, it's not criminal. People need to gain a little perspective.
------------------------------
It is criminal though. If you were to bite people in completely unprovoked attacks in real life you'd surely get banged up by the third time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. If a man tore through someone's jugular vein then yes. But he didn't even break skin here. I don't think the police or the CPS would waste their time and money on sending someone to prison for a bite. A caution or a fine at worst.
We got to around 18 comments in before anyone felt a compulsion to reply to someone's else's point! Well done Earl Brutus!!!
It was, in fairness though, a futile task - and one that is completely at odds to the whole idea of a forum - which is after all, a platform in which to put forward your own view and at the same time contest/agree with the views of others.
And I can't even help myself:
SWTN: "Punishment fair and apt and ffs people need to understand that Liverpool are not being punished, Suarez is being punished."
I think a better way of wording it would be that Liverpool are being affected, even though the incident only relates to Liverpool through association (Suarez being employed by them). Suarez should be punished, but the emphasis of his punishment should affect Uruguay more than it will affect Liverpool. Maybe the ban, while not being altered in length or for number of games, could have included a caveat that enabled Suarez to train with Liverpool's squad, so at the very least he would be ready for first team action the very moment his ban has ended.
Maybe the reference to not being able to play/train in any football related activities could have been made more in line with International football than domestic football.
You're right - Suarez is being punished. But Liverpool are going to feel the effects of that punishment for longer than Uruguay will. And that just doesn't seem right to me.
comment by SWTN Biggish (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Banning him only for internationals but allowing him to play at domestic level would be a total farce.
______________
Anything to see Liverpool disadvantaged is all that im getting from you.
comment by RED666👺 (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
It is criminal though. If you were to bite people in completely unprovoked attacks in real life you'd surely get banged up by the third time.
-----
Do rugby players need locking up??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biting is not common in rugby and I've never heard of a rugby player biting another player on three separate occasions.
Initially I thought it a bit light, having seen the headline (6-10 months would have been my guess/preference), however the ban on all football related activities, as others have mentioned, is harsh.
Given he's unable to train (aside from going for a run on his own), realistically that's going to add another 3 weeks onto it getting match fit, so by then you're in late November (& probably another 5 matches incl CL games) onto the 13 he'll already miss : 18 in total, almost a 3rd of a seasons games for a CL team. Then you have the possibility of him crocking himself rushing to get back, as mentioned by others.
The ban from all stadia is just ridiculous although Fifa clearly want to this to be put to bed & that'd never happen if the cameras are on Suarez should he be in the stands.
All in all, this WC has been rather entertaining thus far
comment by Mamadou's Funky Barber (You've been ... (U16191)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN Biggish (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Banning him only for internationals but allowing him to play at domestic level would be a total farce.
______________
Anything to see Liverpool disadvantaged is all that im getting from you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure tribalism and selfishness is all I am seeing from you.
comment by SWTN Biggish (U7916)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FatJanMolby *I'm a boogie monster* (U4297)
posted 11 minutes ago
Any comparison to a criminal going to prison is puerile. He's bitten someone, not raped or murdered somebody. Whilst the biting isn't on, it's feral at worst, it's not criminal. People need to gain a little perspective.
The ban is harsh on Liverpool, but he deserved to be punished severely and unfortunately we have to beat the brunt of it.
I think a lengthy international ban would have been a more fitting punishment. He has an unwavering loyalty to Uruguay, an affinity that he doesn't have with club football. He'll go from club to club like most footballers do. One thing he can't change is his nationality. A 2 year ban from international football would have have probably hurt him more than this ban. He's been banned for this sort of length before and clearly he hasn't learnt his lessons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not puerile, the point is that you punish an individual with the appopriate level, you don't dilute the punishment because of how it affects employers of family members. That is absurd.
Liverpool are not being punished, Suarez is being punished, they are just unluck to employ him.
It is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed but my point about perspective still stands. This is not criminal. If someone goes to jail for breaking a law he goes to jail. So be it. This isn't criminal though otherwise he'd be facing other criminal sanctions as well as FIFA's punishment.
Just to clarify why I don't agree with the viewpoint that it should have just been an international ban, I think FIFA took previous occurences into consideration with this, and regardless of what people think, it really isn't just the british media that have created a furore over this. They had to be seen as taking a strong stance on this, and the only way they could really do that was a ban from football completely for a period of time.
In terms of Liverpool, yes it is harsh on them that they lose their asset, but ultimately if their asset hadn't done something so extraordinary repeatedly, then there would be no problem. When any player plays for their national team, they are still under the employment of their club - they are effectively leased to the national association to play for them. That's why if a player gets injured on international duty, the club can then claim compensation back from them. With this instance, my first thought was that Liverpool would claim compensation back from the Uruguayan FA for the period that he is not playing. However, I imagine they will argue it is entirely down to the actions of the player rather than the situation he was put in, which would also be difficult to argue. This is seen, due to the repeated occurences, as more than just a red card offence, which is why they have gone to a worldwide ban rather than just international.
At a very crude level as well, ultimately Liverpool knew the risks with Suarez when they bought him. The offer to Ajax was put in whilst he was in the middle of his first suspension for this offence and it has happened again since. That risk has massively still paid off considering last season and just how good a player he is (which is what makes the whole thing so depressing really). Had he not had issues though, you could have added another 10 million to his price tag in the first place and others would have tried harder to get him.
Biting is not common in rugby and I've never heard of a rugby player biting another player on three separate occasions.
----
They've punched ome another on many occasions, this would also lead to ending up in court
Get it into your head that this is about the player not about LFC. They have done nothing wrong buy Suarez has and he has to be punished appropriatly.
He can't get a pass just because he is a key player for a football club..................would you be crying if this was about Johnson and not Suarez....................?
We both know the answer to that.
This is about punishing the individual, show some class for once and accept it.
"You're right - Suarez is being punished. But Liverpool are going to feel the effects of that punishment for longer than Uruguay will. And that just doesn't seem right to me."
Only based on number of games though, he misses the whole of the Copa America through this. I actually think the impact is worse for Uruguay.
We got to around 18 comments in before anyone felt a compulsion to reply to someone's else's point! Well done Earl Brutus!!!
--------------------------------------------------------
No problem mate, happy to help
Sign in if you want to comment
Suarez's ban
Page 2 of 4
posted on 26/6/14
He deserves a lengthy ban, but I think it should be applied only to International football. When he was banned for the Ivanovic bite, he was still allowed to play for Uruguay. Now he does it for Uruguay, and it affects us more than it does for his country.
The Times say that we are considering legal action. Regardless of how that pans out, I want him sold. To do that again was the height of stupidity, and he's seriously let the club down and embarrassed everyone who has supported him. Theres also the risk of him doing it again, which would probably see a year long ban or worse. Outstanding player, but not worth the hassle.
posted on 26/6/14
KT
At this point I don't think there is anything to learn nor was there ever. He just has faulty wiring.
-----
Should that GNAW and not NOR
Only messing mate, good point about the faulty wiring, as a Utd fan i really do think it harsh on Loverpool
posted on 26/6/14
The ban was surely on the player, not specifically for his country or club, they just happen to be who he plays for.
I though the media reaction to the incident was over the top although Suarez was an idiot doing what he did and I think he knew it was the second he did it.
Overall I think the ban is fair considering his previous bites (although FIFA didn't raise this point when giving the ban). Ffor me personally although biting is unprofessional and disrespectful I still think intentional fouls such as breaks, elbows, 2 footed studs, headbutts etc are worse offences as they are intending to cause more harm to an opponent.
For me football is entertainment and Suarez is one of the most entertaining players in the world, whether it's scoring goals, biting people or handling the ball on the line, he's like a pantomime villain, it's great to watch and I think people overreact to what he does simply because he plays for an opposing team. He clearly has psychological problems and ideally needs help but he;s also brilliant entertainment IMO.
posted on 26/6/14
Whilst the biting isn't on, it's feral at worst, it's not criminal. People need to gain a little perspective.
------------------------------
It is criminal though. If you were to bite people in completely unprovoked attacks in real life you'd surely get banged up by the third time.
posted on 26/6/14
Sorry about typo's im finding it hard to use my phone tonight
posted on 26/6/14
Tbh if someone bites me i think id laugh and slap em....its actually childish nothing more.
posted on 26/6/14
It is criminal though. If you were to bite people in completely unprovoked attacks in real life you'd surely get banged up by the third time.
-----
Do rugby players need locking up??
posted on 26/6/14
comment by FatJanMolby *I'm a boogie monster* (U4297)
posted 11 minutes ago
Any comparison to a criminal going to prison is puerile. He's bitten someone, not raped or murdered somebody. Whilst the biting isn't on, it's feral at worst, it's not criminal. People need to gain a little perspective.
The ban is harsh on Liverpool, but he deserved to be punished severely and unfortunately we have to beat the brunt of it.
I think a lengthy international ban would have been a more fitting punishment. He has an unwavering loyalty to Uruguay, an affinity that he doesn't have with club football. He'll go from club to club like most footballers do. One thing he can't change is his nationality. A 2 year ban from international football would have have probably hurt him more than this ban. He's been banned for this sort of length before and clearly he hasn't learnt his lessons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not puerile, the point is that you punish an individual with the appopriate level, you don't dilute the punishment because of how it affects employers of family members. That is absurd.
Liverpool are not being punished, Suarez is being punished, they are just unluck to employ him.
It is that simple.
posted on 26/6/14
Harsh but you can argue 3rd time, biggest stage and they need to set an example etc. However it seems to punish Liverpool more then the player or the team he committed it playing for.
I think they should have stuck to the competition ban and a much bigger fine which goes to charity and a warning if it happens again he face then could face an 9 month global ban or something.
Liverpool have to pay 2.5m in wages whilst also missing a key player for 25 % of their season... For something they had no control over which happened at a world cup in Brazil.......
posted on 26/6/14
I don't know why people think there's been an overreaction to it, biting is completely off the wall, you could argue stamping on someone's foot does more harm than spitting in someone's face, but I know which will get the biggest reaction, plus you don't require jabs for hepatitis for the majority of tackles.
posted on 26/6/14
comment by Got_Better (U6241)
posted 12 seconds ago
Tbh if someone bites me i think id laugh and slap em.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be a strange reaction.
I'd be appalled if someone tried to bite me.
posted on 26/6/14
Banning him only for internationals but allowing him to play at domestic level would be a total farce.
posted on 26/6/14
the point is that you punish an individual with the appopriate level, you don't dilute the punishment because of how it affects employers of family members. That is absurd.
_________
No one is saying dilute the punishment you cretin just choose a punishment that doesn't involve punishing a party that had no involvement/control over any of it more then it punishes the player and his national team.
posted on 26/6/14
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 4 minutes ago
Whilst the biting isn't on, it's feral at worst, it's not criminal. People need to gain a little perspective.
------------------------------
It is criminal though. If you were to bite people in completely unprovoked attacks in real life you'd surely get banged up by the third time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. If a man tore through someone's jugular vein then yes. But he didn't even break skin here. I don't think the police or the CPS would waste their time and money on sending someone to prison for a bite. A caution or a fine at worst.
posted on 26/6/14
We got to around 18 comments in before anyone felt a compulsion to reply to someone's else's point! Well done Earl Brutus!!!
It was, in fairness though, a futile task - and one that is completely at odds to the whole idea of a forum - which is after all, a platform in which to put forward your own view and at the same time contest/agree with the views of others.
And I can't even help myself:
SWTN: "Punishment fair and apt and ffs people need to understand that Liverpool are not being punished, Suarez is being punished."
I think a better way of wording it would be that Liverpool are being affected, even though the incident only relates to Liverpool through association (Suarez being employed by them). Suarez should be punished, but the emphasis of his punishment should affect Uruguay more than it will affect Liverpool. Maybe the ban, while not being altered in length or for number of games, could have included a caveat that enabled Suarez to train with Liverpool's squad, so at the very least he would be ready for first team action the very moment his ban has ended.
Maybe the reference to not being able to play/train in any football related activities could have been made more in line with International football than domestic football.
You're right - Suarez is being punished. But Liverpool are going to feel the effects of that punishment for longer than Uruguay will. And that just doesn't seem right to me.
posted on 26/6/14
comment by SWTN Biggish (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Banning him only for internationals but allowing him to play at domestic level would be a total farce.
______________
Anything to see Liverpool disadvantaged is all that im getting from you.
posted on 26/6/14
comment by RED666👺 (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
It is criminal though. If you were to bite people in completely unprovoked attacks in real life you'd surely get banged up by the third time.
-----
Do rugby players need locking up??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biting is not common in rugby and I've never heard of a rugby player biting another player on three separate occasions.
posted on 26/6/14
Initially I thought it a bit light, having seen the headline (6-10 months would have been my guess/preference), however the ban on all football related activities, as others have mentioned, is harsh.
Given he's unable to train (aside from going for a run on his own), realistically that's going to add another 3 weeks onto it getting match fit, so by then you're in late November (& probably another 5 matches incl CL games) onto the 13 he'll already miss : 18 in total, almost a 3rd of a seasons games for a CL team. Then you have the possibility of him crocking himself rushing to get back, as mentioned by others.
The ban from all stadia is just ridiculous although Fifa clearly want to this to be put to bed & that'd never happen if the cameras are on Suarez should he be in the stands.
All in all, this WC has been rather entertaining thus far
posted on 26/6/14
comment by Mamadou's Funky Barber (You've been ... (U16191)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN Biggish (U7916)
posted 2 minutes ago
Banning him only for internationals but allowing him to play at domestic level would be a total farce.
______________
Anything to see Liverpool disadvantaged is all that im getting from you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure tribalism and selfishness is all I am seeing from you.
posted on 26/6/14
comment by SWTN Biggish (U7916)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FatJanMolby *I'm a boogie monster* (U4297)
posted 11 minutes ago
Any comparison to a criminal going to prison is puerile. He's bitten someone, not raped or murdered somebody. Whilst the biting isn't on, it's feral at worst, it's not criminal. People need to gain a little perspective.
The ban is harsh on Liverpool, but he deserved to be punished severely and unfortunately we have to beat the brunt of it.
I think a lengthy international ban would have been a more fitting punishment. He has an unwavering loyalty to Uruguay, an affinity that he doesn't have with club football. He'll go from club to club like most footballers do. One thing he can't change is his nationality. A 2 year ban from international football would have have probably hurt him more than this ban. He's been banned for this sort of length before and clearly he hasn't learnt his lessons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not puerile, the point is that you punish an individual with the appopriate level, you don't dilute the punishment because of how it affects employers of family members. That is absurd.
Liverpool are not being punished, Suarez is being punished, they are just unluck to employ him.
It is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed but my point about perspective still stands. This is not criminal. If someone goes to jail for breaking a law he goes to jail. So be it. This isn't criminal though otherwise he'd be facing other criminal sanctions as well as FIFA's punishment.
posted on 26/6/14
Just to clarify why I don't agree with the viewpoint that it should have just been an international ban, I think FIFA took previous occurences into consideration with this, and regardless of what people think, it really isn't just the british media that have created a furore over this. They had to be seen as taking a strong stance on this, and the only way they could really do that was a ban from football completely for a period of time.
In terms of Liverpool, yes it is harsh on them that they lose their asset, but ultimately if their asset hadn't done something so extraordinary repeatedly, then there would be no problem. When any player plays for their national team, they are still under the employment of their club - they are effectively leased to the national association to play for them. That's why if a player gets injured on international duty, the club can then claim compensation back from them. With this instance, my first thought was that Liverpool would claim compensation back from the Uruguayan FA for the period that he is not playing. However, I imagine they will argue it is entirely down to the actions of the player rather than the situation he was put in, which would also be difficult to argue. This is seen, due to the repeated occurences, as more than just a red card offence, which is why they have gone to a worldwide ban rather than just international.
At a very crude level as well, ultimately Liverpool knew the risks with Suarez when they bought him. The offer to Ajax was put in whilst he was in the middle of his first suspension for this offence and it has happened again since. That risk has massively still paid off considering last season and just how good a player he is (which is what makes the whole thing so depressing really). Had he not had issues though, you could have added another 10 million to his price tag in the first place and others would have tried harder to get him.
posted on 26/6/14
Biting is not common in rugby and I've never heard of a rugby player biting another player on three separate occasions.
----
They've punched ome another on many occasions, this would also lead to ending up in court
posted on 26/6/14
Get it into your head that this is about the player not about LFC. They have done nothing wrong buy Suarez has and he has to be punished appropriatly.
He can't get a pass just because he is a key player for a football club..................would you be crying if this was about Johnson and not Suarez....................?
We both know the answer to that.
This is about punishing the individual, show some class for once and accept it.
posted on 26/6/14
"You're right - Suarez is being punished. But Liverpool are going to feel the effects of that punishment for longer than Uruguay will. And that just doesn't seem right to me."
Only based on number of games though, he misses the whole of the Copa America through this. I actually think the impact is worse for Uruguay.
posted on 26/6/14
We got to around 18 comments in before anyone felt a compulsion to reply to someone's else's point! Well done Earl Brutus!!!
--------------------------------------------------------
No problem mate, happy to help
Page 2 of 4