Group D: Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy

[Uppercut]

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

Yeah but tackles that explicitly brutal are properly rare. I think most people agree that those guys got off fairly easy. Schumacher especially.

There are pretty enormous differences with the Thatcher case. He didn't do it three times, didn't have a history of all manner of ****ish behaviour on the pitch, and was immediately fully apologetic about the incident. Suarez is a bizarre case in that he entirely refuses to admit that he has ever done anything wrong, insisting that he's the true victim of his own biting and racial abuse. With Thatcher, after that one incident you could reasonably believe that he was truly sorry and wasn't a danger to other players. With Suarez you just can't, and that's not fair on the people that have to play against him.

 

[Uppercut]

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..

you're beyond parody sometimes Ikki. You've now resorted to "he didn't even bite him that hard". I don't think that's even true, Chiellini says he was bleeding.

One step away from "he couldn't have bitten him because the Uruguayan economy isn't doing very well".

 

[GIMH]

Yeah but tackles that explicitly brutal are properly rare. I think most people agree that those guys got off fairly easy. Schumacher especially.

There are pretty enormous differences with the Thatcher case. He didn't do it three times, didn't have a history of all manner of ****ish behaviour on the pitch, and was immediately fully apologetic about the incident. Suarez is a bizarre case in that he entirely refuses to admit that he has ever done anything wrong, insisting that he's the true victim of his own biting and racial abuse. With Thatcher, after that one incident you could reasonably believe that he was truly sorry and wasn't a danger to other players. With Suarez you just can't, and that's not fair on the people that have to play against him.

Yeah look, and this goes for sledger's post too, I agree. I'm not downplaying what Suarez did. Because others have got away with wrong doesn't make what he did right. I just kind of agree that it's not the worst thing I've ever seen, nonetheless.

Please don't mention the racism again though. We could do without that entering the fray haha.,

 

[GIMH]

9 matches anyway. Not sure when Uruguay's next competitive fixture is after Colombia beat them, Copa America presumably, so could be quite lengthy timewise.

BBC Sport - Luis Suarez bite: Uruguay striker banned for nine matches

Also, ban will include Liverpool - banned from all football for 4 months - that is going to cause a stir IMO but I stand corrected on what I've said previously.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah look, and this goes for sledger's post too, I agree. I'm not downplaying what Suarez did. Because others have got away with wrong doesn't make what he did right. I just kind of agree that it's not the worst thing I've ever seen, nonetheless.

Please don't mention the racism again though. We could do without that entering the fray haha.,

Haha, I actually find it difficult not to bring it up more. Imagine it had been a Tranmere legend involved- you'd undoubtedly still be banging on about it long after Suarez's retirement .

 

[Uppercut]

On the ban, I think they've got it close to right. I'd have leaned towards 6 months because the summer months don't count, and there should be a requirement that he undergoes counselling, but they've done better than I expected.

Realistically it had to be worldwide. He still hasn't even served his Dutch ban.

 

[Cabinet96]

Ban will include three Champions League group games in what will be a tough group and will be well in excess of 20 matches. Don't think people can argue that it's lenient.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Ban will include three Champions League group games in what will be a tough group and will be well in excess of 20 matches. Don't think people can argue that it's lenient.

Of course they can. PITCHFORKS!!!!

 

[Ikki]

Yeah but tackles that explicitly brutal are properly rare. I think most people agree that those guys got off fairly easy. Schumacher especially.

There are pretty enormous differences with the Thatcher case. He didn't do it three times, didn't have a history of all manner of ****ish behaviour on the pitch, and was immediately fully apologetic about the incident. Suarez is a bizarre case in that he entirely refuses to admit that he has ever done anything wrong, insisting that he's the true victim of his own biting and racial abuse. With Thatcher, after that one incident you could reasonably believe that he was truly sorry and wasn't a danger to other players. With Suarez you just can't, and that's not fair on the people that have to play against him.

They're not rare. Mirallas on Suarez last year. Suarez on Mirallas the year before that. Callum McManaman. Bardsley breaking Pienaar's leg. Bosingwa studding Benayoun on the bank (while they were standing). Hangeland on Cattermole. Guthrie on Fagan. Nolan on Anichibe. Barton on Etuhu. Essien's ridiculous tackle on Carroll. These aren't ancient examples either.

And I'm not even talking about the Thatcher kind which caused Mendes to get knocked out and then go into a seizure. That actually got a proper reaction and ban from what I remember. Pepe and Ramos themselves have several incidences of malicious tackles where they're studding the opposition player and they've never gotten close to this kind of discussion. Pepe kicked and assaulted a player in La Liga back around 09 in which he got banned for 10 games. He's had several incidents since then that haven't generated even 1/10th of this reaction. A player like Keane, when was he in danger of missing out for 2 years of football?

Moreover, if you are talking about sanctioning a truly violent act, you don't wait until a player has done it 3 times. You deter it from the get-go. Especially since it is as widespread and common as this is in comparison to biting. That you don't think this isn't that common just shows how unmemorable a lot of it is because it goes on so much.

you're beyond parody sometimes Ikki. You've now resorted to "he didn't even bite him that hard". I don't think that's even true, Chiellini says he was bleeding.

One step away from "he couldn't have bitten him because the Uruguayan economy isn't doing very well".

Chiellini says what? There are photos right after he got bit, you could barely see the marks. I don't even know what you're getting at. The same way two tackles aren't the same, two bite marks aren't the same. Pretending as if Chiellini was at risk of getting Hep B is silly. You mentioned that I hadn't brought it up and I gave you my answer: if Suarez had actually cut Chielini's skin like that, then I wouldn't even be talking about this. That you choose to blur the lines as if the two are the same says more about you than me mate.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

On the ban, I think they've got it close to right. I'd have leaned towards 6 months because the summer months don't count, and there should be a requirement that he undergoes counselling, but they've done better than I expected.

Realistically it had to be worldwide. He still hasn't even served his Dutch ban.

Agree with this, banning him for July hardly matters does it but overall nobody can really complain about it.

Best wait to see what odds the bookies give on him doing it again.

 

[Ikki]

9 matches anyway. Not sure when Uruguay's next competitive fixture is after Colombia beat them, Copa America presumably, so could be quite lengthy timewise.

BBC Sport - Luis Suarez bite: Uruguay striker banned for nine matches

Also, ban will include Liverpool - banned from all football for 4 months - that is going to cause a stir IMO but I stand corrected on what I've said previously.

Incredible. Tassotti who broke Luis Enrique's nose by elbowing him only got 8 games in 1994. In the same tournament Leonardo broke Ramos' cheekbone and got 3 with an elbow as well.

 

[King Pietersen]

Chiellini says what? There are photos right after he got bit, you could barely see the marks. I don't even know what you're getting at. The same way two tackles aren't the same, two bite marks aren't the same. Pretending as if Chiellini was at risk of getting Hep B is silly. You mentioned that I hadn't brought it up and I gave you my answer: if Suarez had actually cut Chielini's skin like that, then I wouldn't even be talking about this. That you choose to blur the lines as if the two are the same says more about you than me mate.

Barely see the marks? Can't believe you're trying to defend someone that's bitten an opponent on the football field on the basis that he didn't bite him "that hard".

The ban includes all football activity, but FIFA have confirmed it doesn't include transfers, not that I can see Barca or Real being interested in buying someone for massive money that's suspended until October.

 

[Cabinet96]

By the end of the ban, Suarez will have missed almost a fifth of Liverpool's matches through suspension, despite never being sent off.

Impressive.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Most intentional leg breakers though are impossible to prove, and I don't think many leg-breakers are intentional because I don't think most people are deranged ****s like Keane/Suarez etc.

When someone like Keane admits he did it on purpose, then by all means throw the book at him. I doubt anyone here seriously thinks Keane was adequately punished, he should have got a similar sort of ban to Suarez.

 

[Cabinet96]

Barely see the marks? Can't believe you're trying to defend someone that's bitten an opponent on the football field because he didn't bite him "that hard".

The ban includes all football activity, but FIFA have confirmed it doesn't include transfers, not that I can see Barca or Real being interested in buying someone for massive money that's suspended until October.

I can't be the only one who's tried biting myself in the last couple of days to see what marks come up? Haven't managed to break the skin like that and still caused pain, so it must've been a considerable bite.

 

[Cabinet96]

Leg breakers are cloudy. I think some people go in intentionally hard and try to cause pain, but I doubt many would intentionally savage someones leg. Though I'm not sure I'll ever hate someone more than the bloke who ruined Diaby's career, even if it's impossible to tell if it was completely intentional.

 

[King Pietersen]

This angle shows it pretty nicely. Bit Chiellini bloody hard.

 

[Ikki]

Barely see the marks? Can't believe you're trying to defend someone that's bitten an opponent on the football field on the basis that he didn't bite him "that hard".

The ban includes all football activity, but FIFA have confirmed it doesn't include transfers, not that I can see Barca or Real being interested in buying someone for massive money that's suspended until October.

I'm not defending him on any basis. I said that I didn't consider Chiellini infection because he didn't bite him hard enough. And this is the photo that has been going round and the one I saw:

It's teeth indentations, as I said before.

Most intentional leg breakers though are impossible to prove, and I don't think many leg-breakers are intentional because I don't think most people are deranged ****s like Keane/Suarez etc.

When someone like Keane admits he did it on purpose, then by all means throw the book at him. I doubt anyone here seriously thinks Keane was adequately punished, he should have got a similar sort of ban to Suarez.

They're actually fairly easy to spot.

 

[Cabinet96]

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.

Here we go: https://twitter.com/FootballVines/status/482171810063339520

What ever he's trying to do, it's ****ing bat **** crazy.

 

[duffer]

Here we go: https://twitter.com/FootballVines/status/482171810063339520

What ever he's trying to do, it's ****ing bat **** crazy.

From that link "Man Eater." Heh.