2014 World Cup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Part of the Suarez offence was the pathetic effort to "simulate" some sort of aggressive action by Chiellini. That in its own right should warrant a 3 game ban.

---

Doesn't that regrettably go with the territory these days? Commit a bad foul and then pretend you're injured in the hope to avoid the referee's retribution.

On a separate issue, the referees have been quite lenient in this tournament with cards especially for tug backs where it used to be an automatic yellow. I think that has been an improvement. However, where the game is getting out of hand is the automatic feigning of injury for 90% of tackles. The having to leave the pitch following treatment was an attempt to reduce this but now players are rolling around and then telling the trainer not to come on. How to deal with this? It is gone beyond a joke.

Doesn't that regrettably go with the territory? :)

I actually think that while FIFA has good reason to scrutinise an offence they also then have freedom to look at the pretending, so have every reason to add this on.

Wrt the feigning injury I honestly haven't been conscious of such a high percentage of pretend injuries. I often think people underestimate how sore a bone on bone knock is. Only last night I was rolling around in agony having walked into a stool in my living room having just turned the lights off to go to bed. Wood straight into the middle of my shin. Even Mrs Stuttgart ( she says hi) came down to check if I was ok I was moaning so much.

Interesting start to Argentina v Nigeria. More action already than in England's game yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

Why is a relatively harmless bite far worse than someone going over the top of the ball trying to do serious injury to someone?

---

if you bit another player in the leinster senior league once you would get a year ban no doubt. appear in front of the LSL committee for the same offence a third time and it would be lifetime ban. why should a highly paid "professional" playing in front of millions be treated more leniently than that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

He's had seven and ten game bans already. They shouldn't go the other direction.

---

Good point!

They were talking about a two year, twenty-four game minimum, ban earlier. A tad OTT, but more in favour than against.

But a few people have made the point about, er, previous 'hatchet-men' (a certain Corkonian springs to mind, but there were many others far worse!!) who caused career-threatening or -ending injuries...

Not too much recrimination for most of them.
Even players throwing punches or head-butts eg. Duncan Ferguson, prefer more lenient teatment?

I have people (mainly Liverpool fans) trying to justify Suarez by saying Cantona was still loved by United fans, Terry still loved by Chelsea fans after the racist issue etc....

Suarez has bitten a player 3 feckin times on top of being a racist! Who actually bites someone! I still cant get my head around it, I seen the Ajax one again yesterday and its actually freaky to watch, he leans in during an argument and bites the guy in the neck. Any normal person if they lose the head completely might swing a punch or throw a headbutt.

With the one yesterday there wasnt even a scuffle between them, Chiellini had his back turned and for some reason Suarez go to act when hes frustrated is to lean in and bites for no apparent reason.

What makes it all the worse is the absolute arrogance of the guy honestly believing that he is innocent and its all a conspiracy against him. Any ban should be right across all football and not just international. 6 months should be the minimum with the warning that if it happens again its a lifetime ban

In agreement with Razors left peg on this one. 6 months should be minimum for this. It's absolutely insane and mind-boggling to see people genuinely defending such actions. I understand club loyalty and all that jazz, but the man is getting away with this over and over again. He should be given a hefty fine and a 6 month ban.

Good points by Razor.

On the UK phone ins this morning Liverpool fans were saying that he has damaged the image of the club and he has let the club down. Many would be happy to see him go now.

Good article on thescore.ie basically saying that Suarez needs a lengthy ban to save himself from himself as his teammates, managers and advisors are enabling his behaviour by supporting / refusing to condone it. He is a "piece of meat" that many people have a financial or other vested interest in so they will continue to be soft on him. In this environment it's no wonder he believes he's a victim. That's why the authorities need to be hard.


My mate from Liverpool says he lives in a private gated development almost exclusively inhabited by a motley crew of advisors and agents and other hangers on.

I hate that this is taking away from the WC. Pure WC talk at this stage imo.

I missed today's games because I had been up since 4am. What was the sca?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Or possibly the act of a total toe rag with self control issues.

---

He's certainly got psychological problems that might be aided by the seeking of some psychiatric treatment. I think the reason this incident in particular has sparked such an hysterical response is because of how biting is viewed by society at large. (I'm assuming the incident is receiving the same level of exposure around the world as it is here in the UK, where Suarez, the man who knocked England out, also plays his club football.) Biting is very much taboo and, as has been mentioned, is deemed unmanly, primitive and subhuman. Human adults aren't expected to bite; arguing, punching and kicking one another is what "normal" humans are supposed to do. People can celebrate and pay money to enjoy Mike Tyson beating the sh*te out of Evander Holyfield, but when Tyson takes a bite out of his opponent's ear, they're utterly repulsed. If there was an etiquette of violence, biting would surely fall foul of it. See Razors' comment above, for example: "Any normal person if they lose the head completely might swing a punch or throw a headbutt." I wouldn't dare cast judgment upon the casting of judgment or anything - :p - but is there moral consistency in treating the relatively-harmless bite more harshly than the utterly appalling headbutt? I won't be a biting apologist, but the moral revolt just seems odd and arbitrary to me.

I thought Dunphy's response to which Bonnie linked was measured and on the money. It was good to see given the media's over-the-top outrage. Adrian Chile's comment to break analysis of England-Costa Rica yesterday was cretinous: "It's only right to report this. It's nearly a news matter now!" For all his faults and groundless opinions, Dunphy's a good man at heart. Well, compared to that Chiles anyway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Robbie Savage will be all too familiar with that.

---

Was Savage once involved in a biting incident too or was that a play on his surname that went completely over my head? :o

Anyway, as Bonnie notes, there were also some games today... It's been quite rare to see a keeper catch a shot at this World Cup. I was surprised when Enyeama caught a stinger towards the end of Argentina-Nigeria. It seemed such an unusual sight. Does the specific ball they use possibly play a role in the lack of catching and this apparent surge in punching? Adidas are always making the balls lighter and flightier. In slow-motion replays, you'll often see the ball swaying from side to side as it glides through the air. It reminds me of these from the glory days of youth down at the beach:

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbvie...for-soccer.jpg

Why don't they just play with them instead already?! Is punching simply something that's a lot more common for goalkeepers outside of the UK and Ireland to do then, and so we're just not used to seeing it so much maybe? Or am I imagining an increase in its prevalence?

Whatever about his impressive catch, Enyeama didn't cover himself in glory for Messi's free-kick. It was indeed a lovely free-kick, but I thought the keeper could have done better to get across the goal. Maybe some buddies of his team-mate had been in touch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MjPpjkR5P4

Seeing a free-kick being coverted has been another rare sight at this World Cup, of course. Does Messi's bring the grand tally to two now then?

Group E could be interesting. Even a heavy defeat and a big Swiss win could put France out, though very unlikely.

Depending on results, Ecaudor could lose and go through or win and go out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

How in hell are BBC willingly showing Greece?

---

Their daily coverage of Wimbledon must be forcing them to cover the evening fixtures. ITV have been covering the late afternoon games.

1-0 Switzerland.

I know technically anyone can qualify and anyone can be eliminated, but realistically, it does look like France and Switzerland going through.

That said, we've had plenty of surprised and late drama so far.

Danny when I said that a normal person might swing a punch or throw a head butt, I meant it as as an instinctive reaction and those are generally what people do... I didnt mean a head butt was an ok thing to do.

But this is a case where they guy wasnt particularly in the stressful situation of a scuffle or scrap with the other guy, it was a pre meditated bite on another person whos back was turned, thats what makes it much more morally repugnant and especially that the guy is a repeat offender who thinks he does no wrong

2-0 Switzerland. Good night Honduras. One more goal for Switzerland and we're into the situation that Ecuador could win and go out.

I would love to see this WC get more mental and have this game finish 4-0 and Swiss 5-0 and send home France.

I'd settle for France to finish runners-up in the group so the play Argentina in the next round. Another top team gets knocked out, and more chance for the Costa Ricas and Colombias to reach the semis.

Ain't gonna happen though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Anyway, as Bonnie notes, there were also some games today... It's been quite rare to see a keeper catch a shot at this World Cup. I was surprised when Enyeama caught a stinger towards the end of Argentina-Nigeria. It seemed such an unusual sight. Does the specific ball they use possibly play a role in the lack of catching and this apparent surge in punching? Adidas are always making the balls lighter and flightier. In slow-motion replays, you'll often see the ball swaying from side to side as it glides through the air. It reminds me of these from the glory days of youth down at the beach:

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbvie...for-soccer.jpg

Why don't they just play with them instead already?! Is punching simply something that's a lot more common for goalkeepers outside of the UK and Ireland to do then, and so we're just not used to seeing it so much maybe? Or am I imagining an increase in its prevalence?

Whatever about his impressive catch, Enyeama didn't cover himself in glory for Messi's free-kick. It was indeed a lovely free-kick, but I thought the keeper could have done better to get across the goal. Maybe some buddies of his team-mate had been in touch...

---

That ball was great fun, but when it was left out in the rain it turned even more deadly.

To be fair to the Nigerian goalkeeper, the ball dipped really fast , was unstoppable IMHO

:o
:o
:o

EDIT: That was meant to be :shocked:!

End of this group as a contest so. What an awful challenge. Dunno how the ref took so long to send Valencia off there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

Danny when I said that a normal person might swing a punch or throw a head butt, I meant it as as an instinctive reaction and those are generally what people do... I didnt mean a head butt was an ok thing to do.

---

Don't worry. I didn't suspect you to be condoning other forms of more common physical violence. I was just using what you said as an example of how some forms of violence have seemingly greater social "acceptance" or are relatively "tolerated" (to use those terms loosely, as laws obviously forbid such generally frowned-upon behaviour), whereas biting is seen as more freakish, abnormal and sub- or even anti-human. For some reason, it challenges our senses and instincts in a way that a punch mightn't. I'm not saying anyone is necessarily right or wrong in reacting to a bite differently to a punch or a headbutt. It's just an interesting observation because surely if one form of violence utterly disgusts, all forms of violence, and especially those that are more physically harmful, should do also. Sure, there was shock when Zidane head-butted Materazzi in the World Cup final, but it was a different form of shock and certainly not as scandalised. Nobody was saying Zidane had mental health issues. He just "uncharacteristically lost his head in the heat of the moment"; he wasn't framed as a savage beast.

To be honest, my own initial instinctive reaction upon it being announced during the England-Costa Rica game was one of utter shock. It caught my curiosity and I immediately switched over to the Uruguay-Italy game. If I'd heard a player had been sent off for kicking or elbowing his opponent, it probably wouldn't have captured my imagination and I wouldn't have switched over. However, looking at it in hindsight as rationally and objectively as possible, as nasty as it admittedly is, you have to question whether a relatively-harmless bite merits such an hysterical reaction when kicks and elbows are generally met with lesser condemnation? There's no talk of a two-year ban for Alex Song who did an off-the-ball elbow hatchet-job on his man during the Cameroon-Croatia game, for example.

This is mental if true.... http://balls.ie/football/the-ghanaia...freakin-money/

I want Portugal to hammer them anyway so they have a chance of going through, but any argument over money in a world cup seems plain wrong

I guess the nature of biting as previously discussed does make this a bigger deal.

There's also the issue of spreading disease too. You break the skin and you could (I think) transfer a disease, if Suarez (or whoever) had one. Not quite the same with an elbow or a studs up.

Ecuador actually playing better with ten men.

Someone should have told that Ecaudorian you'll never score a goal with a condom on your head!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

This is mental if true.... http://balls.ie/football/the-ghanaia...freakin-money/

I want Portugal to hammer them anyway so they have a chance of going through, but any argument over money in a world cup seems plain wrong

---

Or worse, over the form that money takes. In the age of digital banking, why are they so insistent on $3 million in hard cash? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Don't worry. I didn't suspect you to be condoning other forms of more common physical violence. I was just using what you said as an example of how some forms of violence have seemingly greater social "acceptance" or are relatively "tolerated" (to use those terms loosely, as laws obviously forbid such generally frowned-upon behaviour), whereas biting is seen as more freakish, abnormal and sub- or even anti-human. For some reason, it challenges our senses and instincts in a way that a punch mightn't. I'm not saying anyone is necessarily right or wrong in reacting to a bite differently to a punch or a headbutt. It's just an interesting observation because surely if one form of violence utterly disgusts, all forms of violence, and especially those that are more physically harmful, should do also. Sure, there was shock when Zidane head-butted Materazzi in the World Cup final, but it was a different form of shock and certainly not as scandalised. Nobody was saying Zidane had mental health issues. He just "uncharacteristically lost his head in the heat of the moment"; he wasn't framed as a savage beast.

To be honest, my own initial instinctive reaction upon it being announced during the England-Costa Rica game was one of utter shock. It caught my curiosity and I immediately switched over to the Uruguay-Italy game. If I'd heard a player had been sent off for kicking or elbowing his opponent, it probably wouldn't have captured my imagination and I wouldn't have switched over. However, looking at it in hindsight as rationally and objectively as possible, as nasty as it admittedly is, you have to question whether a relatively-harmless bite merits such an hysterical reaction when kicks and elbows are generally met with lesser condemnation? There's no talk of a two-year ban for Alex Song who did an off-the-ball elbow hatchet-job on his man during the Cameroon-Croatia game, for example.

---

Is it relatively harmless though? If a dog bites you would need to go get a tetanus shot, if a person bites you and breaks the skin I would imagine its the same thing.
I dunno, maybe because it is so weird to see some one bite it causes more of an outrage but thats the thing... it is actually really really weird!

Lashing out the way Song did for example is normal human behaviour. I know from playing football that if I was having an ongoing thing with a fella on the pitch there would be times where you would go into a challenge harder than needed and at times I probably intended to hurt the guy. But again I think that is normal human behaviour when you get angry. I wouldnt like it at the time but I could understand a guy going in hard or leaving a foot in on me for the same reasons.

But if a guy spat at me I think I would completely go bananas, that is far less dangerous than anything else that might happen on a football pitch but its disgusting and disrespectful. Most people would agree that it is completely unacceptable. To me though biting is much worse again, there is something very wrong about it. It is not normal behavior in any way at all.

I keep going back to this, but you could give the guy the benefit of the doubt if it happened once in an odd situation but for it to happen on 3 separate occasions with no provocation to me means the guy deserves an extended ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

Is it relatively harmless though? If a dog bites you would need to go get a tetanus shot, if a person bites you and breaks the skin I would imagine its the same thing.
I dunno, maybe because it is so weird to see some one bite it causes more of an outrage but thats the thing... it is actually really really weird!

---

You'd need more than a tetanus shot if a dog bit you. Rabies has a mortality rate in excess of 99.5%.

The tetanus bacterium can easily be transmitted through soil - e.g. a muddy boot raking down and cutting your leg. Or by a bite. But I think there's extra infections a bite can cause - HIV or hepatitis, for example. So for that reason, it is worse than an elbow.

Anyways, 3-0 Switzerland. Shaqiri hat-trick.

France are strange. Wasn't impressed with them against Honduras. They were clinical against a poor Switzerland. And now they're much again. Wonder what France will show against Nigeria? If it's this France, and today's Nigeria, a shock could be on the cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

This is mental if true.... http://balls.ie/football/the-ghanaia...freakin-money/

I want Portugal to hammer them anyway so they have a chance of going through, but any argument over money in a world cup seems plain wrong

---

Read that this morning. And to think we go on about Saipan being a shambles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Or worse, over the form that money takes. In the age of digital banking, why are they so insistent on $3 million in hard cash? :confused:

---

Because they don't trust the Federation to have the capital from just them saying so. Every tournament I hear about this sort of thing with the African sides, never any other confederation.

This game is opening up now, Ecuador finally piling forward. Will do them little good looking at the other scoreline.

France are fond of the elbows in this game, Sahko in the first half and Giroud there both lucky to get away with it. I thought Valencias red card was a bit harsh.

Harsh? Two feet off the ground, studs into the guy's knee? Couldn't argue with it, I thought.

Ecuador's keeper down with an injury, and they use their third sub elsewhere. Weird.

France's finishing has been brutal all game.

Here is the red actually. Probably get taken down soon though. Valencia gets the ball, but the follow-through is nasty and unavoidable. You can't make tackles like that, even if you do get a nick on the ball first.

First corner in the 94th minute. Madness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Harsh? Two feet off the ground, studs into the guy's knee? Couldn't argue with it, I thought.

Ecuador's keeper down with an injury, and they use their third sub elsewhere. Weird.

France's finishing has been brutal all game.

---

Thought he got his foot to the ball but when the ball was sandwiched between him and the french player it caused the foot to roll off the ball into the french guys leg.
Maybe Im wrong but thought it was a bit harsh

RTÉ panel saying not a red. Not helping my case here!

It just looks like an unnecessary lunge to me. The slip off the ball was always likely with the way he went in

No complaints from anyone though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

RTÉ panel saying not a red. Not helping my case here!

It just looks like an unnecessary lunge to me. The slip off the ball was always likely with the way he went in.

---

I cant see whos on the panel so Im not sure if Im happy or freaked out that I have the same opinion as them :)