First biting offence: 7 game ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickccfc
Second: Three more on top of it. Right and proper. Dogs bite people, not footballers.
Printable View
First biting offence: 7 game ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickccfc
Second: Three more on top of it. Right and proper. Dogs bite people, not footballers.
I think his 10th came after some expiry date though i could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
I agree, you cant really say that Defoé's was just a nibble (you're almost implying it was some sort of playful foreplay) and so didn't warrant any serious investigation. To me both are bites from an attacker on a defender's arm or sholder, both display intent to aggrivate/harm the opposing player, both are similar offences - a bite is a bite it's not like Defoé and Mascherano were team mates larking around in a training session. Both should get pretty long bans but the FA's bungling on the first (and their haphazard approach in general) has put them in a questionable position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Thanks. That must be it because all the reports are saying he's out for the first six games of next season.Quote:
Originally Posted by KK77
I think the ban would be a tad harsh for a first offence but it's only right if previous conduct is taken into account.
Luis Suarez has been banned for 10 matches for biting Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic, the English FA has announced.
The sanction was imposed on Wednesday by an independent regulatory commission on a charge of violent conduct against the Liverpool striker.
An FA statement said: "A three-person independent regulatory commission today upheld the FA's claim that a suspension of three matches was clearly insufficient and the player will serve a further seven first-team matches in addition to the standard three.
The suspension begins with immediate effect."
Suarez has until midday on Friday to appeal the additional suspension.
In a statement, Liverpool's managing director Ian Ayre said the club was "shocked and disappointed" by the suspension.
"Both the club and player are shocked and disappointed at the severity of today's Independent Regulatory Commission decision," said managing director Ian Ayre.
"We await the written reasons before making any further comment."
In order of worst I have to go:
Suarez 1 > Suarez 2 > Defoe. I know a bite is a bite but Defoe was retaliating to a pretty poor tackle and lost the run of himself. Suarez at the weekend didn't appear to be in any sort of a rage.
I must admit though, Victim No.1 Otman Bakkal is a hero for his reponse!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAl74ovJP-4
It wasnt a shocking tackle by Mascherano, it was late but it's not like it was high or studs up, it's a tackle Defoé (or any striker) would probably face 2-3 times in any game, so the reaction of him was pretty scandlous. Anyway I don't think what happend before an incident can really be used as a means of lessening it (unless it is some sort of self-defense whereby players are coming to blows) other wise you go down a slippery slope and you could condone Agüero's stamp as David Luis had jostled with him just before and the Brazilian's elbow might have hit him.
People can have their opinions about a nibble or a bite, but the ref was right there staring into the whites of both players' eyes and I think he got it spot on as regards Defoe. I'm biased against a cheat (in that incident Mascherano) who will simulate pain and roll around in virtual agony to get another player sent off. But apparently that's not a football crime.
That's the game as it's played, so I'm told, and it's one of the glaring paradoxes that a blind eye is still given to these shenanigans, for the most part.
No one likes to see players milking things, but a bite is a bite and it should have come under violent conduct irrespective of Masherano's reaction to it.
I think biting somebody is indicative of an underlying mental health issue in a way that simulating injury isn't. I'd be all for seeing simulation punished more harshly too, but biting is clearly more serious.
In all of football I'd say biting is extremely rare, so rare as to be non existent. I seriously doubt that this demonstrates that Defoe has/had mental issues. It was a one off.
Retaliation isn't rare but it's frowned upon in football to the extent that even a mild retaliation can get a far harsher punishment than the original offence. And there are plenty of examples where a mild retaliation is milked by the original offender to get the retaliation treated more harshly by the ref.
It's easy from a distance to have a reflective condemning opinion on acts of retaliation made in the heat of a game but it's the nature of the game to have adrenalin pumping and emotions on the edge, competitiveness. Suarez does not have that excuse, his action was unprovoked and the other player reacted within the boundaries of 'normal'.
So you think biting somebody falls within the boundaries of normal behaviour, as long as it was in response to some perceived ill?
Eh no Charlie, maybe I did not express myself clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Perhaps you have the opinion that the ref should have sent off Defoe, I don't, I think the ref saw the whole incident for what it was and acted appropriately. Then perhaps I disagree with you on the matter of Defoe's yellow card punishment.
And yes my perception of the whole Defoe incident is that I find cheating to get a player sent off, infinitely more reprehensible than the impetuous nibble on the arm.
Biting is so rare as to be a non-existent issue, but such blatant cheating is rampant, it's even hardly worth a mention that Mascherano is blatantly simulating agony, it has become normalised.
You said biting something isn't indicative of a mental problem. Therefore it must fall into the category of broadly normal behaviour.
I said it was a pretty poor tackle, not shocking. Defoe was going at full speed and he took him out of it from behind, a very frustrating one from Defoe's point of view. Obviously he shouldn't have reacted the way he did, that's a given, but it was more understandable than the Suarez one in my opinion, even if he was lucky to have avoided further punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
On that matter I wroteQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
"I seriously doubt that this demonstrates that Defoe has/had mental issues. It was a one off."
Defoe can be a 'normal' person in general and can do a stupid act on one occasion on the field of play in the heat of a game. That does not mean he has mental issues nor does it mean biting is 'normal'.
As opposed to Suarez who clearly has some mental issues with his actions on the pitch.
I'm trying to ascertain under what circumstances it is normal for a person to sink their teeth into somebody outside the privacy of the bedroom.
It's never normal, we're just saying there are levels of abnormality.
Well... I'd do it if I crashed on a pane in the Andes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
What about the Mcgillycuddy Reeks?Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Seems like the FA are continuing their system of making disciplinary decisions based on what they think would satisfy the public.
I'm not sure he's put it in that much perspective. He's perpetuated the line that there is a grand conspiracy to hound him out of the country, and the implication that a reduced ban of, say, three matches would be enough to keep him in England.
I think there's a lot of common sense in there, and it's extremely balanced considering he's a team mate.
I can't stand Liverpool but the way Redknapp and Souness were carrying on afterwards about tarnishing the club's great name is a load of pretentious nonsense. They've had plenty of incidents in their history that would dwarf Suarez's antics.
I wouldn't agree with them either, but Carragher is still representing the other extreme. Sure he makes the grudging concession that biting people isn't right, but the basic point is Suarez is, once again, the victim. Liverpool fans have a particularly cultured taste for victimhood (some of it justifiably so).
I was given a slight reminder of the Souness era Liverpool team while watching the performance of the 2 Bundesliga teams in the CL semi final. Maybe they would be fit to lace one of Liverpool's boots from that era.
To a certain extent but there is a bit of sense to what he is saying. The calls for Liverpool to get rid of Suarez were ridiculous and I think he makes good points in relation to that side of it. That's what I meant by 'putting things into perspective' really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I more or less agree with that but I think he went beyond a grudging concession. This is about as scathing as it gets when talking about a current team mate (even if they will never play together again!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
"Now I am not for one moment trying to sugar-coat the incident in which Luis bit Branislav Ivanovic. It was wrong on all levels. You simply don't expect to see a grown man bite another grown man - that is behaviour you would associate with nursery school."
He could have toned that down easily enough if he was really playing the victimised game. I find Carragher pretty refreshing in general anyway. The victimisation game was never going to be far away though!
I agree with Gary Lineker when he said that the idea further punishment can't be handed out if a card was given out already or the ref didn't put anything in his report is a complete joke. Incidents like the Defoe one warrented further action along with ones like Rooney smashing his elbow into James McCarthy's head. That was serious dangerous play. If he connected with the wrong part of his head that day anything could have happened to McCarthy. People may laugh it off but it's dangerous play. Loads more incidents over the last few seasons that could be added to the list.
It is a stupid rule alright, even more stupid when they abide by it sometimes but not always, as Edmundo pointed out with the Ben Thatcher case.
I agree with the main points in Carragher's article.
I don't see where Carragher's points to Suarez being a victim. He points out that Suarez a recipient of a heavy punishment but that does not imply victimisation, instead that implies Carragher disagrees with the extent of the punishment.
Furthermore, I don't regard that Carragher makes a "grudging concession" that biting is wrong, he states emphatically that biting is wrong.
When one argues against the extent of the punishment meted out, one is accused of supporting/encouraging biting.
Crazy stuff indeed.
I think he's right to point out that Suarez isn't the first one to do something bizarre and crazy, and that one incident alone shouldn't lead to people calling for the player to be sold. That I agree with, and Souness can go suck an egg for what it's worth. However, I think some people are legitimately questioning whether it's worth having a player who can't be trusted not to get suspended for a good chunk of the season.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
He could have been far more scathing if he wanted to - saying it was childish is hardly a measured response.Quote:
I more or less agree with that but I think he went beyond a grudging concession. This is about as scathing as it gets when talking about a current team mate (even if they will never play together again!)
"Now I am not for one moment trying to sugar-coat the incident in which Luis bit Branislav Ivanovic. It was wrong on all levels. You simply don't expect to see a grown man bite another grown man - that is behaviour you would associate with nursery school."
He could have toned that down easily enough if he was really playing the victimised game. I find Carragher pretty refreshing in general anyway. The victimisation game was never going to be far away though!
He implies that Suarez is being "hounded" out of England. That implies that there are people actively trying to unsettle him or worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Except I didn't say that :)Quote:
When one argues against the extent of the punishment meted out, one is accused of supporting/encouraging biting.
Crazy stuff indeed.
I think your toning down his comments by suggesting he was merely calling it childish. Maybe it just reads differently to you than to me. Of course he could have been more scathing but he definitely could have been a lot less scathing, if victimisation was his agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I think he's talking more about the comments by people (formerly or otherwise) associated with the club when saying they should be trying to help him, not hound him. I don't think he's pointing any fingers at the FA or even the broader media for their treatment of Suarez.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
How could he have been less scathing?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
I really doubt Suarez gives a fig about what Graeme Souness has to say. Perhaps Carragher is directing his column at those people, but it's hard to see why that merits an entire column.Quote:
I think he's talking more about the comments by people (formerly or otherwise) associated with the club when saying they should be trying to help him, not hound him. I don't think he's pointing any fingers at the FA or even the broader media for their treatment of Suarez.
If one argued that Suarez deserves a 10 match ban for the cowardly ankle busting stamps he got away with, I'd have no problem agreeing.
Graeme Souness? Absolute garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
http://i33.tinypic.com/qn9og3.gif
I think that's the one where afterwards Souness starts pointing out to some damage done to his sock.
"Now I am not for one moment trying to sugar-coat the incident in which Luis bit Branislav Ivanovic."Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
He could have left it at that like most do, including Rodgers, but he went on to say...
"It was wrong on all levels. You simply don't expect to see a grown man bite another grown man - that is behaviour you would associate with nursery school."
It's remarkably timid. He might as well have said "it's just not cricket, old boy."
Admittedly, that would be worth it for the novelty value.
Graeme Souness,
"but this is embarrassing and puts Liverpool in a bad light in this week of all weeks [the 24th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster].
The ultimate hypocrisy.
I thought he was a great player but i lost all respect i had for him in April 1992.
Most others lost all respect for him in April 1986 :)