Luis Suarez Banned For 10 Matches For Ivanovic Bite

[Herr Tubthumper]

You make it sound as if it is Ivanovic's fault for being bitten. If he had decked Suarez, he would have been quite rightly sent off. Thank God he has got some self control.

And I think 10 games is too much - out of proportion when compared to career threatening tackles

Does intent play a part in lenghty suspensions for career threatening tackles? If so, this will be harder to demonstrate than biting someone and may explain why a bite gets more than a tackle?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Does intent play a part in lenghty suspensions for career threatening tackles? If so, this will be harder to demonstrate than biting someone and may explain why a bite gets more than a tackle?

Agreed - but some career threatening tackles are misjudgements, while others are reckless. Just goes to show how difficult it is and you have to take each case on its merits - or demerits.

- but maybe Suarez's mouth was just in the wrong place at the wrong time..... and yes, I am joking.

 

[KJP]

I agree. So why aren't career ending tackled so harshly?

Whose career has been ended recently due to a bad tackle?

 

[edna krabappel]

I can clearly recall a game in the 70's when Billy Bremner and Ron Harris traded punches during a game and the ref just told them to stop it and get on with the game. not even a booking as I recall.

Times change, what is acceptable on a football pitch would not be acceptable down West St on a saturday night, but slowly the punishments are increasing. Sooner or later someone will be done by the Rozzer's.

You're about 25 years too late there. Everyone's favourite chirpy pundit, Chris Kamara, was convicted of GBH in 1988 after elbowing a Shrewsbury player in the face and breaking his cheekbone.

This thing about bad tackles though- I understand why they wind people up, but they are, as it goes, an unavoidable part of the game. The rules of the game permit tackling, and inevitably people are going to get them wrong at times. Look at Richard Carpenter- he got sued by an opponent for ending his career with a tackle. It is what you might call an occupational hazard, and it doesn't necessarily have to be malicious, just badly timed, or ill thought out.

Biting people is not even close to being within the rules. It's childish, it's disgusting, and it's not something that can happen accidentally: it's entirely pre-meditated. I can't even begin to fathom what makes a footballer want to bite someone (I've had people attempt to bite me before when I've been on duty, but they're usually pissed or off their faces).

For my money, the starting point was always going to be a three match ban, because he'd have got that for a sending off if the referee had seen it. It's the second time he's been found guilty of the same offence, regardless of the fact the previous incident was in another country, so doubling that at the very least seems reasonable. Suarez himself has been telling the world he should only get a three game ban, which rather suggests a lack of appreciation of the gravity of the incident. He's previously been in trouble with officialdom in the English league, which adds on further games (in the same way that you get a four match ban instead of three if you get a second red card in a season). All in all, ten games seems about right.

Surely even Suarez must learn a lesson from that.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Surely even Suarez must learn a lesson from that.

I bet this has been said before.

 

[edna krabappel]

I bet this has been said before.

Sadly you are probably right

I like it when the PFA say "He needs help". Help? What help can you give someone for the condition of being a total stroker?

 

[JBizzle]

Whose career has been ended recently due to a bad tackle?

Sorry I meant "potentially" career ending, leg breaking tackles. Like the ones on Ramsay, Diaby and Eduardo, or the unpunished tackles of Aguero and McManaman recently. All awful, all less than this ban. Lacks consistency with the seriousness of the offence in my opinion.

 

[glasfryn]

Ivanovic
how many games has he been banned for ,kicked the shite out of Suarez the whole match .........oh no how silly of me.
fairness not in the FA dictionary then ...........oh no how silly of me again
is this bloke ..Suarez the devil incarnate has he broken legs or what?

an action born of frustration
as I said before a few times
10 games is right
but message to the FA
lets have a bit of fairness

 

[METALMICKY]

You're about 25 years too late there. Everyone's favourite chirpy pundit, Chris Kamara, was convicted of GBH in 1988 after elbowing a Shrewsbury player in the face and breaking his cheekbone.

This thing about bad tackles though- I understand why they wind people up, but they are, as it goes, an unavoidable part of the game. The rules of the game permit tackling, and inevitably people are going to get them wrong at times. Look at Richard Carpenter- he got sued by an opponent for ending his career with a tackle. It is what you might call an occupational hazard, and it doesn't necessarily have to be malicious, just badly timed, or ill thought out.

Biting people is not even close to being within the rules. It's childish, it's disgusting, and it's not something that can happen accidentally: it's entirely pre-meditated. I can't even begin to fathom what makes a footballer want to bite someone (I've had people attempt to bite me before when I've been on duty, but they're usually pissed or off their faces).

For my money, the starting point was always going to be a three match ban, because he'd have got that for a sending off if the referee had seen it. It's the second time he's been found guilty of the same offence, regardless of the fact the previous incident was in another country, so doubling that at the very least seems reasonable. Suarez himself has been telling the world he should only get a three game ban, which rather suggests a lack of appreciation of the gravity of the incident. He's previously been in trouble with officialdom in the English league, which adds on further games (in the same way that you get a four match ban instead of three if you get a second red card in a season). All in all, ten games seems about right.

Surely even Suarez must learn a lesson from that.

This big time! The comparison to bad tackles is an obtuse nonsense.

 

[El Sid]

Suarez spotted in Nandos earlier today asking for bingo wings.........

 

[HastingsSeagull]

Any other player than him and it would have been 3 or 4

 

[edna krabappel]

Any other player than him and it would have been 3 or 4

Possibly. But then that's not because he's Luis Suarez, but because he has a history of unacceptable behaviour and, crucially, biting people.

 

[BensGrandad]

Possibly. But then that's not because he's Luis Suarez, but because he has a history of unacceptable behaviour and, crucially, biting people.

[/QUOTE

DIdnt the ex FA man say on the radio that previous offences in other countries could not be taken into account with any punishment given. I can see an appeal and a possible legal case coming here.

 

[glasfryn]

Possibly. But then that's not because he's Luis Suarez, but because he has a history of unacceptable behaviour and, crucially, biting people.

[/QUOTE

DIdnt the ex FA man say on the radio that previous offences in other countries could not be taken into account with any punishment given. I can see an appeal and a possible legal case coming here.

I really am losing all confidence in the FA
one word inconsistency and this has dribbled down to the refs
you might also say that other players have unacceptable behavior the only problem is they might have been to a court of law and they said they did'nt
right or wrong the FA bring this precious game of ours in to disrepute by not know their a**e from their elbow.

 

[JBizzle]

Possibly. But then that's not because he's Luis Suarez, but because he has a history of unacceptable behaviour and, crucially, biting people.

Shouldn't that be irrelevant though? His reputation has worked against him for sure though.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I was listening to Radio 5 yesterday I think (might have been Monday), and an ex member of the FA disciplinary panel was saying that offences in other countries cannot be taken into account. Also, the FA could not take into account the long ban that he served last season for racism. The only other evidence they could consider was of violent conduct in this country. As I believe he has not ever been charged with violent conduct before in this country (so technically his first offence of this kind) I feel the punishment is a bit strong.

As a previous poster has already said... Surely racism or attempting to trip a referee is much worse than biting someone.

How can you disregard the conclusion drawn from the Dutch - one of the most respected FAs in the world? David Davies said there wasn't a UK precedent for this situation (Defoe got booked by the ref) and he clearly didn't have a clue.

Also, I think it's pointless comparing racism to biting. It's like saying manslaughter is worse than having sex with children. Both are bad.

 

[Soulman]

Were not really missing out on much in that case anyway !!!



Not really as Evra, Welbeck or Defoe dont have previous history of racism or biting opposition players......

Really, Defoe got a yellow card for biting an opposing player, and Evra admitted racially abusing Suarez, in Spanish (not his native tongue) but no action was taken.

 

[glasfryn]

Really, Defoe got a yellow card for biting an opposing player, and Evra admitted racially abusing Suarez, in Spanish (not his native tongue) but no action was taken.

as I said the FA are inconsistent

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

How I hate Liverpool

Reading there forum some are using Hillsboro as a reason the FA have give out this ban

Always the victim

 

[Soulman]

as I said the FA are inconsistent

For sure.
Roy Keane.
He made headlines again in the 2001 Manchester derby, a game in which Alf-Inge Håland played. Five minutes from the final whistle, he was sent off for a blatant knee-high foul on the Norwegian in what was seen by many as an act of revenge. He initially received a three game suspension and a £5,000 fine from the FA, but further punishment was to follow after the release of Keane's autobiography in August 2002, in which he stated that he intended "to hurt" Håland. Keane's account of the incident was as follows:
I'd waited long enough. I ****ing hit him hard. The ball was there (I think). Take that you cu##. And don't ever stand over me sneering about fake injuries.
An admission that the tackle was in fact a premeditated assault, it left the FA with no choice but to charge Keane with bringing the game into disrepute. He was banned for a further five matches and fined £150,000 in the ensuing investigation. Despite widespread condemnation, he later maintained in his autobiography that he had no regrets about the incident: "My attitude was, f##k him. What goes around comes around. He got his just rewards. He f###ed me over and my attitude is an eye for an eye.