Group D: Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy

[Cabinet96]

I'd actually consider an international ban of the same length to be worth less than a club ban. Perhaps that's just me though.

 

[Spark]

Portrait of a serial winner - Luis Suarez is soccer's most beautiful player

A long form article for you. Picture I'm getting - and I mean this in the most non-pejorative way I can - is of a distinctly simple-minded fellow.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd actually consider an international ban of the same length to be worth less than a club ban. Perhaps that's just me though.

What if the ban is not for all international matches - just this world cup and the next world cup?

 

[GIMH]

What if the ban is not for all international matches - just this world cup and the next world cup?

Can't do that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is true on some levels, but again there is no consistency. Firstly, a tonne of other stuff that has nothing to do with the game and that are definitively assault (pinching, spitting, headbutting, punching, elbowing, etc) carry the same argument as the above. There are also plenty of tackles that have nothing to do with the spirit the game - i.e. trying to retrieve the ball with your feet - and are clearly malicious. Those aren't part of the game either, in fact, they're explicitly called fouls and depending on the circumstance can have added bans to the automatic ones. An illegal tackle is just another illegal act that is designed to gain an advantage. The notion that Suarez bit Chiellini because he "likes it" is laughable. He's a nutter, gets frustrated and wants to hurt his opponent either to get an edge or to draw a reaction to get the other guy sent off. Pretending as if being bitten is a bigger concern than getting a career ending tackle is similarly laughable. Do we actually care about the players' safety here or are we trying to point score on a technical difference? One happens far more than the other and is far more dangerous than the other, and it isn't biting. Ask any player if they'd rather be bit like Suarez has done or be on the receiving end of a knee-high two-footed challenge. It's not even an argument. If they're going to give high bans to deter people, then they should do it where it matters more.

Anyway the point is not that it should be condoned because it happened on the field, but the fact that if you're going to rule, then do it consistently. From what I've read on some sites Fifa are looking at this in the view of violent conduct and taking spitting bans as a base. For me, that's fair enough. What I was arguing against was the ludicrous 24 match or 2 year bans.

Yeah I do sort of agree with you. Knee high tackles, two footed, studs up lunges and stuff like Schumacher - Battiston can end careers, even lives. Those have nothing to do with football either, when they're done out of malice. While Suarez biting players is terrible, I can't honestly say it's close to as bad as some of the things I mentioned.

The problem is, he's done it before, not once but several times. And he was caught and punished heavily. He clearly doesn't repent and deserves a ban exponentially longer than the previous ones to knock sense into him. Talks if two year bans are ridiculous, but I'd say a 20-25 game ban is necessary. The bloke has some serious issues which need attention and a smaller ban wouldn't really have the desired effect. He needs time away from the sport with a psychiatrist.

He even tried to bite Gerrard once in an epl game once didn't he? But it went unnoticed by the majority because he missed his target.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Can't do that.

Not to mention it'd be fantastically stupid even by footballing suspension standards.

"You're banned for tomorrow's match, and if you lose you're free for the next four years."

 

[Ikki]

The problem is, he's done it before, not once but several times. And he was caught and punished heavily. He clearly doesn't repent and deserves a ban exponentially longer than the previous ones to knock sense into him. Talks if two year bans are ridiculous, but I'd say a 20-25 game ban is necessary. The bloke has some serious issues which need attention and a smaller ban wouldn't really have the desired effect. He needs time away from the sport with a psychiatrist.

What I'm trying to get at is that this distinction is arbitrary. A player can get sent off several times in his career for disgraceful tackles and yet no one will ever talk of him missing 24 games or 2 years. In football right now you can get away with this:

Mirallas only got a yellow card believe it or not and barely a talk of any substantial ban or media furore. Yet it's clearly not a tackle in the spirit of the game and it is also more likely to injure the player. And this isn't that rare to be frank. Look at De Jong's kung-fu kick on Alonso as another example.

Also, I think a 24 ban game on the international level is basically 2 years anyway - they're not as frequent as other games of course.

He even tried to bite Gerrard once in an epl game once didn't he? But it went unnoticed by the majority because he missed his target.

Why would he bite Gerrard, his teammate? I don't recall this ever happening.

 

[Uppercut]

Without wanting to go too far in the opposite direction, you're understating the potential impact of a bite by so much that your argument is completely ridiculous. From google:

Approximately 10%-15% of human bite wounds become infected because of multiple factors. The bacterial inoculum of human bite wounds is rich in oral flora, containing as many as 100 million organisms per milliliter that represent as many as 190 different species. Many of these are anaerobes that flourish in the low redox environment of tartar that lies between human teeth or in areas of gingivitis. Moreover, most of these injuries occur on the hands, and hand wounds of any cause have a higher infection rate than do similar wounds in other anatomic locations. (See Pathophysiology and Etiology.)

These infections are often far advanced by the time they receive appropriate care. Patients often wait until infection is well established before seeking medical treatment. Wounds that are reevaluated are frequently more extensive than estimated on initial examination by the inexperienced observer and are frequently managed inadequately. (See Prognosis, Presentation, Treatment, and Medication.)

Human bites have been shown to transmit hepatitis B, hepatitis C, herpes simplex virus (HSV), syphilis, tuberculosis, actinomycosis, and tetanus.

Evidence suggests that it is biologically possible to transmit the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through human bites, although this is quite unlikely.

 

[sledger]

Just look at the Hound. He was never the same after getting bitten and not letting Arya cleanse the wound with fire.

 

[sledger]

Without wanting to go too far in the opposite direction, you're understating the potential impact of a bite by so much that your argument is completely ridiculous. From google:

Yeah, completely agree. Pretty much the reason why the criminal penalties for biting someone carry such a high sanction.

 

[Johnners]

I'm staggered at the attempt to suggest that a terrible tackle is whilst obviously unfortunate and unwanted, is supposedly equally unexpected on a football field as some mad **** biting you.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Without wanting to go too far in the opposite direction, you're understating the potential impact of a bite by so much that your argument is completely ridiculous. From google:

Well yeah its obviously unacceptable. I think what me and ikki are trying to say here is that it's surprising that people consider this worthy of a two year ban, while at the same time obviously career or even life threatening tackles aren't looked at with the same degree of outrage. And don't tell me it's a contact sport so there's bound to be heavy tackles. The ones like Keane-Haaland, Schumacher-Battiston , and many other leg breakers which happen pretty often are done intentionally with the sole purpose of causing serious injury.

The point is that if Suarez's bites deserve year long bans, those dangerous tackles do so as well. And that's not what's happening right now. The only reason Suarez's horrific act is being looked at as so unacceptable is because it's completely unexpected and something which rarely happens on a football pitch. It doesn't make it worse . Tougher action on those intentional leg breakers is all I'm asking for really.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

What I'm trying to get at is that this distinction is arbitrary. A player can get sent off several times in his career for disgraceful tackles and yet no one will ever talk of him missing 24 games or 2 years. In football right now you can get away with this:

Mirallas only got a yellow card believe it or not and barely a talk of any substantial ban or media furore. Yet it's clearly not a tackle in the spirit of the game and it is also more likely to injure the player. And this isn't that rare to be frank. Look at De Jong's kung-fu kick on Alonso as another example.

Also, I think a 24 ban game on the international level is basically 2 years anyway - they're not as frequent as other games of course.



Why would he bite Gerrard, his teammate? I don't recall this ever happening.

The Mirallas tackle was revenge for Suarez causing the injury a year before which kept him out for 6 weeks when Suarez deliberately stamped on his ankle. He also did the same to Distin in the same game.

Anyone who tries to defend Suarez has almost as many issues as he has.

 

[GIMH]

I'm staggered at the attempt to suggest that a terrible tackle is whilst obviously unfortunate and unwanted, is supposedly equally unexpected on a football field as some mad **** biting you.

In general agree, but I think a Keane/Schumacher/Thatcher can reasonably be considered just as unexpected

 

[GIMH]

The Mirallas tackle was revenge for Suarez causing the injury a year before which kept him out for 6 weeks when Suarez deliberately stamped on his ankle. He also did the same to Distin in the same game.

Anyone who tries to defend Suarez has almost as many issues as he has.

Sorry fj but there's no place for revenge on the football pitch. Suarez's bite was probably in retalliation to something or another, having been kicked and battered all game (apparently he has a swollen cheekbone). Rightly, nobody has any sympathy because of the way he dealt with it. Same in this situation, you can't condone tackles like that regardless of anything.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The Mirallas tackle was revenge for Suarez causing the injury a year before which kept him out for 6 weeks when Suarez deliberately stamped on his ankle. He also did the same to Distin in the same game.

Anyone who tries to defend Suarez has almost as many issues as he has.

Can't agree with that at all. Retaliation doesn't justify horrific tackles, nor does it justify chomping on someone's shoulder.

And I'm not defending Suarez one bit . He deserves a ban. A lengthy one. But so do those intentional horror tackles which can potentially end careers.

 

[sledger]

It's just crazy that people are trying to downplay this imo. Comparing it to other on the field incidents like bad tackles and so on is nonsense.

At the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that HE ****ING BIT ANOTHER PERSON FFS.

There is no way that is acceptable, anywhere, ever. He should have the book thrown at him.

 

[Ikki]

Without wanting to go too far in the opposite direction, you're understating the potential impact of a bite by so much that your argument is completely ridiculous. From google:

Let's get some perspective. Suarez's bites have barely left marks let alone punctured the skin to then risk transmitting disease. You don't use the term bite wound to describe a few slight teeth indentations on the skin. If he had there would be no argument about it's severity compared to those of malicious tackles.

I'm staggered at the attempt to suggest that a terrible tackle is whilst obviously unfortunate and unwanted, is supposedly equally unexpected on a football field as some mad **** biting you.

Why does the fact that something is expected even matter here? If anything, the fact that many of those tackles occur too much lends to the theory that they're not punished enough. You seem to ignore the fact that I'm not talking about unfortunate tackles...I'm talking about clearly malicious ones which are basically concealed assaults.

Well yeah its obviously unacceptable. I think what me and ikki are trying to say here is that it's surprising that people consider this worthy of a two year ban, while at the same time obviously career or even life threatening tackles aren't looked at with the same degree of outrage. And don't tell me it's a contact sport so there's bound to be heavy tackles. The ones like Keane-Haaland, Schumacher-Battiston , and many other leg breakers which happen pretty often are done intentionally with the sole purpose of causing serious injury.

The point is that if Suarez's bites deserve year long bans, those dangerous tackles do so as well. And that's not what's happening right now. The only reason Suarez's horrific act is being looked at as so unacceptable is because it's completely unexpected and something which rarely happens on a football pitch. It doesn't make it worse . Tougher action on those intentional leg breakers is all I'm asking for really.

Hallelujah. They not only don't get the same punishment but they don't even garner the same concern or attention. Biting (like Suarez's, not cannibal-like acts to dig out flesh) is more weird than dangerous and the reaction to them on the whole is not really based on consistent logic. If you want to start putting a number on bans, then you should probably start banning the more frequent and dangerous thing.

 

[Ikki]

On a slightly related note, here's Will Ferrell crashing a USMNT party as the new player, and he promises to do everything "I will bite every German player"

 

[Ikki]

The Mirallas tackle was revenge for Suarez causing the injury a year before which kept him out for 6 weeks when Suarez deliberately stamped on his ankle. He also did the same to Distin in the same game.

Anyone who tries to defend Suarez has almost as many issues as he has.

You don't get it, that example just proves my point. I'm not defending Suarez, I'm saying that such stuff, as retaliation or otherwise shouldn't happen. Players shouldn't be allowed to think they can actively seek revenge by assaulting player in the act of "tackling".

Honestly, the responses to this simple logic have been more than disappointing. It's just deflection and re-trumpeting a standard that they themselves can't explain. "It's bad because it's bad".