Luis Suarez Banned For 10 Matches For Ivanovic Bite

[um bongo molongo]

That anyone thinks 10 games is harsh for biting someone - BITING like some sort of feral animal - has really quite shocked me.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

I had a look at the FIFA recommendations, and they don't have anything listed for biting (probably because it happens so rarely). However for spitting (in my opinion, a similar but slightly less severe offence) the recommendation is at least six matches. I think ten for Suarez is pretty much spot on.

 

[clapham_gull]

Slightly over the top in my opinion, really on the basis of consistency.

The only way to really deal with these incidents is to dock points. Job done.

Lazy reporting by ITV News just now. Stated that Defoe wasn't banned (further) because the referee saw the incident. Not sure why I need to explain why that is rubbish.

 

[BadFish]

7 for attempting to trip a ref

How many did Roy Keane get for what he did to Haaland? 5 weeks and two weeks wages was it?

 

[BadFish]

I just hope to god that Ivanovic is recovering okay, I assume he will be straight into counseling when he gets out of surgery.

 

[BadFish]

Can someone tell me why one of these gets a 10 match ban and everyone acting like the fella has ended someones career and the other gets a yellow card and no-one really cares.

 

[Cypriot-Seagull]

Wonder how many people will call their new dogs Suarez now?

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

Can someone tell me why one of these gets a 10 match ban and everyone acting like the fella has ended someones career and the other gets a yellow card and no-one really cares.

So you are a firm believer in "2 wrongs make a right"?

 

[BadFish]

So you are a firm believer in "2 wrongs make a right"?

no, but a little consistency from the FA would be nice, wouldn't it? I am a firm believer in the FA reacting to the hysteria surrounding this incident and dishing out a punishment that seems inconsistent.

I think the real question here is how long do people need to take off to assist with the baby? Or did you bite someone?

We got a proper hammering last night!!

 

[BadFish]

I had a look at the FIFA recommendations, and they don't have anything listed for biting (probably because it happens so rarely). However for spitting (in my opinion, a similar but slightly less severe offence) the recommendation is at least six matches. I think ten for Suarez is pretty much spot on.

got a link for these? that would be interesting to look at.

 

[BadFish]

The bit where he spat the flesh out of his mouth and the blood was oozing out of his mouth like some rabid cannibal was particularly shocking, I barely believe it actually happened - deserves the death penalty?

If a dog had bitten someone it would be put down - Barry Glendenning

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

got a link for these? that would be interesting to look at.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/50/02/75/discoinhalte.pdf - The reference I quoted is on page 30.

Also of interest are the recommendations set down in rugby. To highlight how serious they view biting, the only offence with a more serious punishment is the physical abuse of match officials.
As a comparison...
A low end biting offence is set down at 12 weeks, mid range at 18 weeks, and top end at 24+ weeks
A top end punching offence is only 8+ weeks
A top end elbow is 9+ weeks
A top end head butt is 16 + weeks
A top end kick is 12 + weeks etc
To compare with the FIFA spitting suggestion of a minimum 6 matches, the IRB low end sanction is only 4 weeks, so an argument of the IRB being overly harsh doesn't stand up either.
Link - IRB Handbook The sanctions start on page 258.

I don't think anyone is denying that Defoe should have been dealt with more harshly, but I think you can put that down to the stubbornness about retrospective action. Although from a consistency perspective, I would argue that a punishment for a first offence of 7 matches and second offence of 10 matches is about right.

PS Have permission from the good lady wife to start playing again. What time next week?

 

[BadFish]

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/50/02/75/discoinhalte.pdf - The reference I quoted is on page 30.

Also of interest are the recommendations set down in rugby. To highlight how serious they view biting, the only offence with a more serious punishment is the physical abuse of match officials.
As a comparison...
A low end biting offence is set down at 12 weeks, mid range at 18 weeks, and top end at 24+ weeks
A top end punching offence is only 8+ weeks
A top end elbow is 9+ weeks
A top end head butt is 16 + weeks
A top end kick is 12 + weeks etc
To compare with the FIFA spitting suggestion of a minimum 6 matches, the IRB low end sanction is only 4 weeks, so an argument of the IRB being overly harsh doesn't stand up either.
Link - IRB Handbook The sanctions start on page 258.

I don't think anyone is denying that Defoe should have been dealt with more harshly, but I think you can put that down to the stubbornness about retrospective action. Although from a consistency perspective, I would argue that a punishment for a first offence of 7 matches and second offence of 10 matches is about right.

PS Have permission from the good lady wife to start playing again. What time next week?

Hopefully the best thing to come out of this will be the daft retrospective punishment action thing.

Game at 6.00 next week

 

[arfer guinness]

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 agree 10 games is too much - out of proportion when compared to career threatening tackles

My point was not that Ivanovic was wrong not to retaliate but I don't like the current trend of footballers who are unable to take what amounts to minor knocks without running to the referee like children running to teacher.

 

[smeg]

BBC Sporf - Article: GIF: This has got to be the strangest GIF of all time, involving Suarez, Gerrard & Dalglish! WTF is this? Speechless... - LockerDome (funny Suarez GIF)

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Can someone tell me why one of these gets a 10 match ban and everyone acting like the fella has ended someones career and the other gets a yellow card and no-one really cares.

Because the referee has given Defoe a yellow card and under the pathetic FA rules on retrospective punishment no further action can be taken, where as with Suarez - he wasnt booked and because no punishment was taken, he can get the ban.

Its the FA rules that need changing, pathetic that you cant actually overrule a yellow card, especially when we dont have things to let the ref see the incident again.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

The first interview that I saw Rodgers give was seemingly condemnatory of Suarez..saying it was unacceptable and that no player was bigger than the club. Today he is bleating about the length of the ban.

Biting is animalistic and has no place in society. For a senior pro to do that is beyond unacceptable, it is shocking. How would I feel if it had been one of our best players? I would say the same...He is not fit to wear the shirt and should not do so again.

 

[drew]

Is Brendan Rodgers really that dumb? Saying they have punished the man and not the offence and that it doesn't help his rehabilitation? WTF! He was banned for 7 games for biting an opponent when in Holland and that hasn't stopped him so clearly he needs a greater deterrent. Rehab is not the responsibility of the FA, that's down to Liverpool as he is their employee and presumably they want him to continue to be so, albeit with him on the pitch and not in the stand! If he hadn't bitten before or been found guilty of racist comments then perhaps he would have got a lighter penalty.

 

[Dan Gleeballs]

Is Brendan Rodgers really that dumb? Saying they have punished the man and not the offence and that it doesn't help his rehabilitation? WTF! He was banned for 7 games for biting an opponent when in Holland and that hasn't stopped him so clearly he needs a greater deterrent. Rehab is not the responsibility of the FA, that's down to Liverpool as he is their employee and presumably they want him to continue to be so, albeit with him on the pitch and not in the stand! If he hadn't bitten before or been found guilty of racist comments then perhaps he would have got a lighter penalty.

Agreed. Liverpool aren't doing themselves any favours with these kind of statements. Suarez behaviour has been rightly punished & Rodgers would be better off not passing comment if he disagrees with the ban. Makes you wonder how Suarez mind ticks if his reaction is to bite the opponent when he gets frustrated. Perhaps he does need help. But Liverpool need to advocate that this behaviour doesn't belong in football. Hey kids lets introduce biting into football. Liverpool FC don't see it as an offence that fits a harsh punishment. Thanks FA for not rehabilitating Suarez its not his fault he can't control himself on a football pitch. Get a grip

 

[Twinkle Toes]

I've just LOL'd at the ridiculous paranoid crap that Rodgers has come out with today. I hope the FA charge the muppet with bringing the game into disrepute. "A punishment with absolutely no helping the rehabilitation of the player..." indeed. Ahhhhhh, poor lil' Lois. He needs therapy as much as Hannibal Suarez if you ask me.