Suarez Gets 10 Games For Bite

[Rudi]

And Liverpool released a statement saying they are "shocked" at the ban :suarez2:

The England Football Association issued Liverpool forward Luis Suarez a 10-match ban for biting Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic during a Premier League match Sunday.

Club managing director Ian Ayre said: "Both player and club are shocked and disappointed by the severity. We await the written reasons tomorrow before making any further comment."

Suarez has until midday Friday to appeal the additional suspension above the standard three matches. With four EPL matches remaining on the calendar, Suarez is ruled out for the rest of the season.

The sanction was imposed 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 bit Ivanovic on the upper right arm during the 2-2 draw at Anfield on Sunday. He wasn't sent off because the referee didn't see it.

It's not Suarez's first offense for biting an opponent. In November 2010, he was banned for seven matches for biting a PSV Eindhoven player in the Dutch league, earning the nickname "Cannibal of Ajax."

On that occasion, the 26-year-old sank his teeth into Otman Bakkal, and although that incident did not form any part of the FA's case as it was in a different country, the commission had the discretion to take his personal disciplinary history into consideration.

There is no standard minimum or maximum punishment for biting in football's disciplinary code, unlike rugby union, which has a 12-week recommended suspension for first offenses up to a four-year ban for the most serious biting offenses.

Suarez also was suspended for eight games in December 2011 for making racist insults toward Manchester United defender Patrice Evra during a match.

SOURCE: ESPN

 

[killgod]

still probably won't wake the dumbass up.

 

[wingsfan77]

What a loser.

 

[nickp50010]

 

[1ke]

I honestly dont understand how people can be shocked at this. Even the most staunch RAWKite.

 

[Anthony]

First let me go ahead and say that Suarez trying to bite Ivanovic was wrong, irresponsible, moronic, and totally deserving of a ban.

Having said that, Suarez and Liverpool have a right to feel aggrieved. Don't believe me? Just ask Fergie, "I can understand how Liverpool are aggrieved at it". Hell even Rio Ferdinand took offense to the severity of the ban. The FA have clearly suggested that biting a player is more grievous than racial abuse, elbowing a player, punching a player, or even breaking another player's leg (intentional or not).

Those suggesting that Suarez's previous transgressions played a part are off base considering the FA said they played no part. So then how do they come up with 10 games? Apparently he had the gall to challenge the FA by suggesting that the FA were wrong to suggest that a three match ban was insufficient. OH NOES! The FA also indicated that Suarez's punishment is more severe because of his impact on the game. Had he not scored would his ban have been shorter? I doubt it.

Was Suarez wrong? Yes. Should he be banned? Yes. Was the ruling excessive? Yes.

It reeks of a FA that arbitrarily hands out punishment on the whim of the governing body and based on how they personally feel with no transparency.

Maybe the majority agree with that sliding scale of punishments, but it seems strange and sinister to me.

Yes, they’re both wrong but the FA has decided that one is more wrong than the other.

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.

This is the same FA, after all, who turned the other way when they were told England fans had sung a racist song at a World Cup qualifying tie in San Marino.

So this is where they stand.

They consider biting someone on the arm a more serious footballing crime than racial abuse.

It’s moral relativism, sure, and, once again, there is no point trying to defend Suarez.

No one’s ever done that.

Yes, the yummy mummy on top of the Clapham Omnibus might be yah-yahhing her approval for the punishment meted out to a football wretch.

When he was banned for eight games for racially abusing Evra, some Liverpool fans said he was being victimised by the FA.

They were wrong.

Now, many are saying the same thing.

This time, they are right.

The FA has picked on an easy target.

It has taken the easy decision.

It has pleased the crowd.

And in the process, it has set a dangerous, depressing precedent.

 

[Bigpapa42]

Is the FA inconsistent with stuff? Absolutely. But does that make this wrong? Not necessarily. The problem here is that there is no directly comparable situation. The Defoe incident can't be used because of the stupid "if the ref saw it" bullshit rule.

Its not really comparable to a leg-breaking tackle. At all. Tackles are a part of the game. So a leg-breaker can be anything from bad luck where there is no contact or very little to a vicious tackle that had malice. But intent is impossible to prove unless the player admits it. I'm a big proponent of the idea that bad tackles that result in injury significant injury to the tackled player should receive heavier punishment. But bad tackle or not, tackles are a part of football.

Racism is not part of football but its a tough thing to address. The effort of the FA are weak and inconsistent, but at there are some efforts. Its completely ignored by many FAs still. And again, its a bit tough to compare - harming someone with words versus harming someone with your teeth...?

The report actually does a decent job of justifying the ban. The emphasis seems to be on the fact that its an action "alien to football" and points out both that the incident got worldwide attention (it was a headline on the front page of ESPN.com when it happened) and carries a health risk (beyond what the game normally would). The report also says that they did not take into account any previous disciplinary incidents - that seems odd and unlikely to me. Because given the disciplinary history of Suarez - particularly the fact that he has done this exact same thing before - it was makes me feel like the punishment is relatively just.

 

[Anthony]

Its not really comparable to a leg-breaking tackle. At all. Tackles are a part of the game. So a leg-breaker can be anything from bad luck where there is no contact or very little to a vicious tackle that had malice. But intent is impossible to prove unless the player admits it. I'm a big proponent of the idea that bad tackles that result in injury significant injury to the tackled player should receive heavier punishment. But bad tackle or not, tackles are a part of football.

As that Goldilocks Robbie Savage pointed out, a leg breaking tackle and Suarez biting Ivanovic aren't similar at all. A player breaks his leg and he's out for months. Ivanovic was right back in training making light of the situation. Biting someone is fucking daft, agreed on that point. Breaking someone's leg is far worse than biting someone. In fact I do believe I remember you claiming Shawcross shouldn't be allowed to play until Ramsey can play again.

In the end it is what it is, Suarez is banned as he should be. I don't think he can complain about the length of the ban, but the FA really hurt their case of impartiality when they come out and admit things like "We increased the ban because of his impact on the Chelsea match" or "We increased the ban because he had the balls to challenge our thought that three matches was insufficient".

 

[Bigpapa42]

As that Goldilocks Robbie Savage pointed out, a leg breaking tackle and Suarez biting Ivanovic aren't similar at all. A player breaks his leg and he's out for months. Ivanovic was right back in training making light of the situation. Biting someone is fucking daft, agreed on that point. Breaking someone's leg is far worse than biting someone. In fact I do believe I remember you claiming Shawcross shouldn't be allowed to play until Ramsey can play again.

In the end it is what it is, Suarez is banned as he should be. I don't think he can complain about the length of the ban, but the FA really hurt their case of impartiality when they come out and admit things like "We increased the ban because of his impact on the Chelsea match" or "We increased the ban because he had the balls to challenge our thought that three matches was insufficient".

You remember me saying that Shawcross - or anyone who makes a bad tackle that results in serious player injury - should face a longer ban than what a possible red card entails. Which I still believe. A bad tackle is a bad tackle, but the consequences should be taken into consideration. Out the same length wasn't a suggestion - perhaps a comment - but definitely 5 to 10 matches depending on how bad it all is.

Once again, tackling is part of the game. You cannot remove it without fundamentally altering the game. The difference between a good tackle and a bad tackle can be slight - the player being tackled having teh agility to move the ball away but not get themselves entirely out of the way. With the typical bad tackle the intent is to win back the ball, but the timing is poor or the player goes in studs up. There may be malice, but again, that's almost impossible to prove. So fundamentally, the intent behind almost every bad tackle is to do something fundamental to the game - win back the ball.

What can be the intent of biting someone? Can it be done with anything but malice?

 

[Anthony]

You remember me saying that Shawcross - or anyone who makes a bad tackle that results in serious player injury - should face a longer ban than what a possible red card entails. Which I still believe. A bad tackle is a bad tackle, but the consequences should be taken into consideration. Out the same length wasn't a suggestion - perhaps a comment - but definitely 5 to 10 matches depending on how bad it all is.

Once again, tackling is part of the game. You cannot remove it without fundamentally altering the game. The difference between a good tackle and a bad tackle can be slight - the player being tackled having teh agility to move the ball away but not get themselves entirely out of the way. With the typical bad tackle the intent is to win back the ball, but the timing is poor or the player goes in studs up. There may be malice, but again, that's almost impossible to prove. So fundamentally, the intent behind almost every bad tackle is to do something fundamental to the game - win back the ball.

What can be the intent of biting someone? Can it be done with anything but malice?

I'm sure if you ask Ramsey, he'd rather have been bitten than have had his leg broken. The point is simply that in the grand scheme of things a bite, while fucking absurd and moronic, isn't nearly as violent as some things that happen on a pitch, yet was punished far more severely.

In the end Suarez can't really complain. The only thing that is in question, is the random nature of the length of bans. It's been highlighted by nearly everyone. The FA needs a bit of consistency if they want to portray themselves as impartial. That's all I'm getting at.

 

[Bigpapa42]

The FA Report is actually a very interesting read. I'd recommend anyone to check it out. Especially CaribbeanJoseph - I'm sure it will help him feel extra-victimized.

I'm sure Ramsey would rather be bitten. But that's faulty logic. Because if all you use to compare the two possible scenarios is the resulting physical damage and inherent violence, then why does racism warrant punishment at all? There can be no possible physical damage from words. Like I said, you cannot make direct comparisons because the logic falls apart when you try to follow through on the justifications.

The FA does need to be more consistent. But bans are always going to be controversial. They are controversial in hockey and NFL football. Unless you have absolutely set-in-stone rules that do not (or do not have to) take the circumstance or any context into account, then there is going to be controversy. And those kind of rules don't work in soccer.

I have been curious - for those I've seen decrying the ban as massively harsh and the worst thing ever to happen to soccer (obviously not you, A)... how long did they expect it do be? Once Suarez admitted the violent conduct, it was going to be 3 for sure. Did they really think it would just be one extra match? None? How could you possibly expect that?

 

[Anthony]

The FA Report is actually a very interesting read. I'd recommend anyone to check it out. Especially CaribbeanJoseph - I'm sure it will help him feel extra-victimized.

I'm sure Ramsey would rather be bitten. But that's faulty logic. Because if all you use to compare the two possible scenarios is the resulting physical damage and inherent violence, then why does racism warrant punishment at all? There can be no possible physical damage from words. Like I said, you cannot make direct comparisons because the logic falls apart when you try to follow through on the justifications.

The FA does need to be more consistent. But bans are always going to be controversial. They are controversial in hockey and NFL football. Unless you have absolutely set-in-stone rules that do not (or do not have to) take the circumstance or any context into account, then there is going to be controversy. And those kind of rules don't work in soccer.

I have been curious - for those I've seen decrying the ban as massively harsh and the worst thing ever to happen to soccer (obviously not you, A)... how long did they expect it do be? Once Suarez admitted the violent conduct, it was going to be 3 for sure. Did they really think it would just be one extra match? None? How could you possibly expect that?

I don't believe that racism is considered violent conduct so it's a completely different thing. I may be wrong though. I guess I see it as, if you're going to give different length bans for assaulting another player, you should give bans in proportion to the type of assault and the resulting harm. Just as in a real court of law.

I would fully expect more than a 3 match ban. What I think needs to be done, is simply say that if you're found guilty of violent conduct (regardless of the type of incident) you get a set in stone number of games. Rather than the haphazard way the bans are given now. That would prevent everyone from being able to say "well you found Fellaini guilty of violent conduct for a headbutt and only gave him 3 games why does Suarez get 10 for a bite?".

 

[Bigpapa42]

I don't believe that racism is considered violent conduct so it's a completely different thing. I may be wrong though. I guess I see it as, if you're going to give different length bans for assaulting another player, you should give bans in proportion to the type of assault and the resulting harm. Just as in a real court of law.

I would fully expect more than a 3 match ban. What I think needs to be done, is simply say that if you're found guilty of violent conduct (regardless of the type of incident) you get a set in stone number of games. Rather than the haphazard way the bans are given now. That would prevent everyone from being able to say "well you found Fellaini guilty of violent conduct for a headbutt and only gave him 3 games why does Suarez get 10 for a bite?".

I can see where you come from, but "violent conduct" is basically the overriding charge. They then look at the circumstances of the incident and specify what exact rules they feel the person has violated. So two different incidents that result in violence conduct charges are not "the same charge" any more than two separate accused indivudals charged with "homicide" (for separate incidents) are the same. Whether they decide to go above the automatic 3 match ban for the charge depends on the circumstsances.

Personally, I don't think you can put hard-fast rules into place. The game and the circustmances are just too varied. Context has to be taken into account.

I honestly expected 4-5 matches above the 3 for the violent conduct charge. So 7 above the 3 doesn't seem that overtly harsh to me given that he has done it before. I do find it counfoudning that the FA report says they didn't take any previous incidents into account at all, which actually makes me question the ban a bit. But the rest of the justification in the report is relatively solid in my view.

BTW, Pool are winning 4-0 over Newcastle right now. Maybe being without Suarez will actually be a good thing in some ways.

 

[CaribbeanJoseph]

 

[CaribbeanJoseph]