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.
)
