QuoteI think his 10th came after some expiry date though i could be wrong.Originally Posted by DeLorean
Liverpool
Everton
First biting offence: 7 game ban.
Second: Three more on top of it. Right and proper. Dogs bite people, not footballers.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
I think his 10th came after some expiry date though i could be wrong.
Lets talk about six baby
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.
Thanks. That must be it because all the reports are saying he's out for the first six games of next season.
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."
Lets talk about six baby
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!
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.
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.
On that matter I wrote
"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.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
What about the Mcgillycuddy Reeks?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks