[Danny]

Then I guess Roy Keane should have been out the game for the repeat number of intentional leg-breakers he committed in his career too?

I accept the biting thing is appalling, but it's no more 'dangerous' than a leg-breaker. It just looks ridiculous and ugly.

[kurtsimonw]

The difference with tackles is that they aren't as black and white as biting. I've seen plenty of leg breaking challenges, some of them shouldn't have even been free kicks. It's just bone colliding at speed, this stuff can happen.

[Danny]

The difference with tackles is that they aren't as black and white as biting. I've seen plenty of leg breaking challenges, some of them shouldn't have even been free kicks. It's just bone colliding at speed, this stuff can happen.

No, but some are absolutely intentional. What about violent conduct? Elbows? Intentional attacks?

Are they acceptable compared with biting?

I accept the alien nature of the act, but then Gary Lineker once did a sh*t on the pitch and wasn't punished for it...

[han2503]

No, but some are absolutely intentional. What about violent conduct? Elbows? Intentional attacks?

Are they acceptable compared with biting?

I accept the alien nature of the act, but then Gary Lineker once did a sh*t on the pitch and wasn't punished for it...

To be fair to the guy he had the runners (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Milan Are Brilli...]

So, if you committed an offence at your place of work, and they told you you could not engage in ANY work-related activities for 4 months except doing the job in your leisure in your spare time, you'd accept that as just?

That your work was actually telling you how to live your life for 4 months? I can accept a ban from playing but ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING FOOTBALL RELATED INCLUDING PHOTOSHOOTS?!

He's still getting paid right? In which case this does happen for regular people in the UK with gardening leave.

[kurtsimonw]

Yep.

I think FIFA have every right to ban him from arenas they license. One of my dads former co-workers was firedfrom Royal Mail and is no longer allowed to set foot on their premises. Suarez must be laughing.

[Danny]

Yep.

I think FIFA have every right to ban him from arenas they license. One of my dads former co-workers was firedfrom Royal Mail and is no longer allowed to set foot on their premises. Suarez must be laughing.

Ah, so he's banned from posting a letter too?

[kurtsimonw]

Ah, so he's banned from posting a letter too?

Why would he be banned from posting a letter? He's just not allowed on the premises. It's the same as Suarez, he can play football, just not at any FIFA sanctioned arena.

Unlike any normal person, Suarez is still being paid, can still play football with friends, family, etc. can still watch football, can still play FIFA. I wish I could be banned from work and still get to do all this stuff.

This post has been edited by kurtsimonw: Aug 3 2014, 11:59 PM

[Danny]

Why would he be banned from posting a letter? He's just not allowed on the premises. It's the same as Suarez, he can play football, just not at any FIFA sanctioned arena.

He cannot take part in any football related activity. ANYTHING. The only thing he can do is play football privately. He can't even train at any club's private training facility. He can't take part in autograph sessions, can't spend time with his team mates while they're on club business, WHATEVER that is. That's draconian. And outwith what FIFA are really entitled to enforce on a person.

Unlike any normal person, Suarez is still being paid, can still play football with friends, family, etc. can still watch football, can still play FIFA. I wish I could be banned from work and still get to do all this stuff.

Eh, no, because it was FIFA with the ban, not his club. Like your parent company (Procter & Gamble) banning you but your employer (Pampers) still pays you.

[kurtsimonw]

He cannot take part in any football related activity. ANYTHING. The only thing he can do is play football privately. He can't even train at any club's private training facility. He can't take part in autograph sessions, can't spend time with his team mates while they're on club business, WHATEVER that is. That's draconian. And outwith what FIFA are really entitled to enforce on a person.

Why are they? All clubs ultimately come under FIFA, they're stopping him, for a period, having him anything to do with their clubs and the clubs facilities.

I think what some people are really missing is that this is the 3rd time he's done such a crazy thing. If this was a first offence, I would be completely with you on this. But a 3rd? If he was banned from football for life, he'd have no leg to stand on. If you can't get things right on a 2nd and 3rd chance, you dont deserve a 4th. At that point you're taking a piss.

[Danny]

Like I say, Roy Keane did more than 3 intentional legbreak style tackles. I see absolutely no difference. In fact he committed worse IMO.

[kurtsimonw]

and I would agree with you, but most of Keane's tackles were done to a player with the ball. If we talk about a court of law situation, it would be difficult for people to prove that Keane's intent was to harm the player, his defence would be that he was just a little late on a challenge. A number of completely fair challenges have ended with a player having a severe injury.

Suarez has no defence though. There is clear intent in all of his bites. He can't claim he was going for the ball or similar.

If bad fouls are worse than biting, then Suarez is good at that too. The first one here is one of the worst attempts to end a players career I've ever seen.

His biting is just the tip of the iceberg really.

[Danny]

Oh I know he's no angel, but my point is he's being castrated for his crimes in a way others aren't for theirs.

Look at Totti at the world cup. 3 match ban for the worst thing a player can do to another.

But Suarez got 7 for the Ajax bite incident. His first crime.

Point is he gets more punished than anyone else despite his crimes not being any worse or better.

I am biased in that I do really like the guy and rate him as the world's best right now, but it doesn't alter that the punishment he receives is always harsher. Look at the Hunt knee that nearly killed Cech. The-then Reading winger didn't even receive a yellow card never mind a match ban. Many woeful tackles which break legs get off far less severe than Suarez first offence.

[kurtsimonw]

It's mostly because it's hard to be proven if there's any intent at all. Most tackles are grey, biting is clearly very black and white. With it being his 3rd time, the ban needed to be big, because quite clearly he isn't learning, is he?

[Danny]

It's mostly because it's hard to be proven if there's any intent at all.

Totti? Song's blatant elbow? Both 3 match bans. Suarez' first bite offence, 7.

Most tackles are grey, biting is clearly very black and white. With it being his 3rd time, the ban needed to be big, because quite clearly he isn't learning, is he?

I agree, he needs help. And I accept the ban had to be big, but not totalitarian. It's also thoroughly inconsistent. He is banned from ALL FOOTBALL-RELATED ACTIVITY ™ (except having a medical for a team, & signing for them).

Can someone explain to me the logic behind the ban where he's banned from the world except bits of it?