Suarez bites | "sorry for falling into him and biting him and that"

Rafateria said:
A little perspective perhaps ? Though due to the tribal nature of football it's maybe asking too much. It was a weird, idiotic, unbelievable (this after all being the World Cup) and frankly totally insane act and fully deserving of a substantial ban and fine, there simply can be no defence, he doesn't deserve it. He didn't though eat a baby (though some say he would given the chance) or add cyanide to the aquifer. Therefore this makes interesting reading after the initial shock :

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...k-value-and-get-some-perspective-9563690.html

[article=[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/worldcup/luis-suarez-bite-lets-move-past-the-shock-value-and-get-some-perspective-9563690.html]Luis[/url] Suarez bite: Let’s move past the shock value and get some perspective

Glenn Moore

Danny Mills would send him to jail, Alan Shearer would ban him worldwide for “as long as I could”, which under Fifa statutes is two years. What heinous crime could Luis Suarez have committed to prompt such a response from two players who were not exactly shrinking violets on the field?

He bit someone.

He did not fix a match, which strikes at the very heart of sport. He did not use performance-enhancing drugs, which is the most insidious form of cheating. He did not go over the top and break an opponent’s leg, or shatter an opponent’s nose or cheekbone with an elbow. He did not attack a referee (he has done that, head-butting an official, but that was 11 years ago when he was playing youth team football at 16 and he received a long ban).

In my mind these are all worse acts than biting an opponent, especially given it was in the heat of the moment, and he did not pursue the act long enough to draw blood.

What he did was disgusting and horrible, sets a terrible example and would be deeply unpleasant to be a victim of. But Giorgio Chiellini played on. If Suarez had broken his leg with a reckless, even premeditated tackle (it happens) he would have been out until Christmas.

Suarez needs psychiatric help, not a jail sentence. He deserves to be banned, ideally for the duration of the World Cup with a longer sentence suspended on condition he has professional treatment, but is his offence really deserving of a longer ban than a player who has threatened the livelihood of another? It is the shock value, and the recidivism, which has accounted for the publicity and outrage.

There is also, clearly, a cultural issue. In Italy, according to a SkyItalia reporter, they are more interested in assessing who is to blame for the Azzurri being out of the World Cup at the group stage (Mario Balotelli appears to be receiving more blame than Suarez). In Brazil the incident seems to be regarded as comedy rather than horror.

In England, however, Suarez is beyond the pale. Diving, biting, cheating: he fits our stereotype of the South American footballing bad guy, the latest in a long line stretching back past Diego Maradona to Antonio Rattin. There is also a place, it should be said, for lovable South Americans, such as Ossie Ardiles, Gus Poyet, and all things Brazilian.

And yet, if the behaviour of Uruguayan Suarez is so reprehensible, how is it Dylan Hartley is still being picked for England’s rugby union team? The hooker was banned for eight weeks for biting the finger of Ireland’s Steven Ferris in a Six Nations international in 2012 – and a finger is rather more vulnerable than a shoulder. Nor was it his first, or last, offence. In 2007 Hartley was banned for six months for eye gouging, which, considering the possible consequences, is far worse than nibbling on a shoulder. He was also banned for punching an opponent and for abusing a referee. Last week this serial offender started for England against New Zealand, his 56th cap. No one seemed to be outraged.[/article]
Click to expand...

Really, you should stop this nonsense of this bite incident being laughed off at other places. Look at the twitter reaction over the globe, you start peddling this myth that it's the English media and it becomes true.

What was the name of the cnut Liverpool hack who wrote a bunch of bollocks about Evra and claimed it's all a social experiment?
 
Rafateria said:
A little perspective perhaps ? Though due to the tribal nature of football it's maybe asking too much. It was a weird, idiotic, unbelievable (this after all being the World Cup) and frankly totally insane act and fully deserving of a substantial ban and fine, there simply can be no defence, he doesn't deserve it. He didn't though eat a baby (though some say he would given the chance) or add cyanide to the aquifer. Therefore this makes interesting reading after the initial shock :

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...k-value-and-get-some-perspective-9563690.html

[article=[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/worldcup/luis-suarez-bite-lets-move-past-the-shock-value-and-get-some-perspective-9563690.html]Luis[/url] Suarez bite: Let’s move past the shock value and get some perspective

Glenn Moore

Danny Mills would send him to jail, Alan Shearer would ban him worldwide for “as long as I could”, which under Fifa statutes is two years. What heinous crime could Luis Suarez have committed to prompt such a response from two players who were not exactly shrinking violets on the field?

He bit someone.

He did not fix a match, which strikes at the very heart of sport. He did not use performance-enhancing drugs, which is the most insidious form of cheating. He did not go over the top and break an opponent’s leg, or shatter an opponent’s nose or cheekbone with an elbow. He did not attack a referee (he has done that, head-butting an official, but that was 11 years ago when he was playing youth team football at 16 and he received a long ban).

In my mind these are all worse acts than biting an opponent, especially given it was in the heat of the moment, and he did not pursue the act long enough to draw blood.

What he did was disgusting and horrible, sets a terrible example and would be deeply unpleasant to be a victim of. But Giorgio Chiellini played on. If Suarez had broken his leg with a reckless, even premeditated tackle (it happens) he would have been out until Christmas.

Suarez needs psychiatric help, not a jail sentence. He deserves to be banned, ideally for the duration of the World Cup with a longer sentence suspended on condition he has professional treatment, but is his offence really deserving of a longer ban than a player who has threatened the livelihood of another? It is the shock value, and the recidivism, which has accounted for the publicity and outrage.

There is also, clearly, a cultural issue. In Italy, according to a SkyItalia reporter, they are more interested in assessing who is to blame for the Azzurri being out of the World Cup at the group stage (Mario Balotelli appears to be receiving more blame than Suarez). In Brazil the incident seems to be regarded as comedy rather than horror.

In England, however, Suarez is beyond the pale. Diving, biting, cheating: he fits our stereotype of the South American footballing bad guy, the latest in a long line stretching back past Diego Maradona to Antonio Rattin. There is also a place, it should be said, for lovable South Americans, such as Ossie Ardiles, Gus Poyet, and all things Brazilian.

And yet, if the behaviour of Uruguayan Suarez is so reprehensible, how is it Dylan Hartley is still being picked for England’s rugby union team? The hooker was banned for eight weeks for biting the finger of Ireland’s Steven Ferris in a Six Nations international in 2012 – and a finger is rather more vulnerable than a shoulder. Nor was it his first, or last, offence. In 2007 Hartley was banned for six months for eye gouging, which, considering the possible consequences, is far worse than nibbling on a shoulder. He was also banned for punching an opponent and for abusing a referee. Last week this serial offender started for England against New Zealand, his 56th cap. No one seemed to be outraged.[/article]
Click to expand...

Whataboutery— n
(of two communities in conflict) the practice of repeatedly blaming the other side and referring to eventsfrom the past

The fallacy of relative privation is an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent's argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world - despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion
 
A worldwide ban will help Suarez in the long run provided he uses it to fix the serious issues he's got. Yes it's harsh on Liverpool in a sense, as this happened while playing for Uruguay, but Liverpool have contributed to this too. They've bent over backwards to defend him throughout all his misdemeanours, thus giving him the impression he's never been the guilty party.
 
Let's have some perspective, he didn't push a disabled pregnant woman out of a window, he didn't rape Jesus, he didn't steal the U.S. gold supply from Fort Knox to finance SMERSH. He actually deserves a medal for not doing these things.
 
Mrs Smoker said:
He's also a really really good lawyer.
UN1Jaqz.jpg
Click to expand...

FFS. :lol::lol::lol:
 
Rado_N said:
So they're actually going with the 'he didn't do anything' defence?

5 year olds all over the world with chocolate around their mouths soon learn that 'I didn't touch the biscuits' doesn't work.

What the feck is wrong with these idiots?
Click to expand...

Please share the better defence you would produce. Throwing him under the bus is not an option so all you can do is clutch at straws and hope to delay long enough. We already have exhibit 1 Sakho's elbow against Ecuador, which may well have proved the difference for Ecuador and not Switzerland going through.

If you are going to engage in retrospective punishment you have to do it across the board, surely.
 
antohan said:
Please share the better defence you would produce. Throwing him under the bus is not an option so all you can do is clutch at straws and hope to delay long enough. We already have exhibit 1 Sakho's elbow against Ecuador, which may well have proved the difference for Ecuador and not Switzerland going through.

If you are going to engage in retrospective punishment you have to do it across the board, surely.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Ecuador were on course for getting a 2-0 win against France before that.
 
antohan said:
Please share the better defence you would produce. Throwing him under the bus is not an option so all you can do is clutch at straws and hope to delay long enough. We already have exhibit 1 Sakho's elbow against Ecuador, which may well have proved the difference for Ecuador and not Switzerland going through.

If you are going to engage in retrospective punishment you have to do it across the board, surely.
Click to expand...

The pathetic attempt to deny something caught on video will only result in a longer ban if anything. Its pretty much impossible to defend this. Doing so only makes the incident worse.

Constantly indulging him will mean he will never learn.

Bringing Sakho into this is classic whataboutery.
 
dumbo said:
Let's have some perspective, he didn't push a disabled pregnant woman out of a window, he didn't rape Jesus, he didn't steal the U.S. gold supply from Fort Knox to finance SMERSH. He actually deserves a medal for not doing these things.
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure he would do any of the above if it meant winning a game of footy. Maybe he wouldn't rape Jesus, but that would be because IF Jesus ever existed, he probably had dark skin. That would put him in a spot of conflict..."Shall I rape him for the good of my nation or would that weaken my rascist point of view?"
 
dumbo said:
Let's have some perspective, he didn't push a disabled pregnant woman out of a window, he didn't rape Jesus, he didn't steal the U.S. gold supply from Fort Knox to finance SMERSH. He actually deserves a medal for not doing these things.
Click to expand...

Read again, they are relevant sports examples. I was bitten on a regular basis playing rugby in England. I just got on with it and never had an infection or some of the dreadful outcomes all the experts here go on about.

He is still an idiot, mind.
 
antohan said:
Please share the better defence you would produce. Throwing him under the bus is not an option so all you can do is clutch at straws and hope to delay long enough. We already have exhibit 1 Sakho's elbow against Ecuador, which may well have proved the difference for Ecuador and not Switzerland going through.

If you are going to engage in retrospective punishment you have to do it across the board, surely.
Click to expand...

how bout just "yes, I was wrong. I accept the blame"

Going to claim that other did it is worse and petty, and again... he did all those himself : Racist, playacting (more than once), horror tackle, handball, cheating, bringing things into disrespute

So even if he says that horror tackle is much worse than biting, he still did that. So he should have no complain.

And retrospective punishment is nothing new, it has been done before and will be done so again to deal with non football issue (nazi salute, slogan, spiting, racism, etc)

If Suarez launch a horror tackle, no one will claim he's a less of a human being, simply a dirty player, and that's all.

The world is not out against Suarez, he's just that crazy inside
 
Rafateria said:
In England, however, Suarez is beyond the pale. Diving, biting, cheating: he fits our stereotype of the South American footballing bad guy, the latest in a long line stretching back past Diego Maradona to Antonio Rattin. There is also a place, it should be said, for lovable South Americans, such as Ossie Ardiles, Gus Poyet, and all things Brazilian.
Click to expand...

He is all that. Its not the stereotype, he is a cheatling, lying, racist, biting, crazy, dirty tackling bastard.

And other countries regarding that as comedy is just bollocks. You're using the same defense as his lawyers - evil British press is out to get poor Suarez..
 
antohan said:
Read again, they are relevant sports examples. I was bitten on a regular basis playing rugby in England. I just got on with it and never had an infection or some of the dreadful outcomes all the experts here go on about.

He is still an idiot, mind.
Click to expand...

Well.. I was hit and punched regularly on a boxing match, but i just got on with it and never complains. Why should a footballer complains when he got punched once in a match
 
antohan said:
Read again, they are relevant sports examples. I was bitten on a regular basis playing rugby in England. I just got on with it and never had an infection or some of the dreadful outcomes all the experts here go on about.

He is still an idiot, mind.
Click to expand...

You are like a mildly saner version of Uruguay FA. Only a shade though. This isn't Werewolf games Anto.
 
As I've said before on this thread, I don't think psychiatric intervention would make any difference because he doesn't accept that biting someone is wrong. That's obvious from the statements he's come out with in the last couple of days. In these circumstances any enforced psychiatric intervention would only foster his sense at injustice at being punished for something he sees as just part and parcel of the game.

It's just like the habitual drunk who won't admit they're an alcoholic. Nobody can help them until they themselves realise what they are and ask for help. Suarez isn't at that stage and I don't see any likelihood that he ever will be.
 
What discipline procedures Rugby use has nothing to do with football. Its irrelevant.

I can't go to country A and commit and offense and claim I deserve the same sentence as I would get in Country B.
 
Rafateria said:
A little perspective perhaps ? Though due to the tribal nature of football it's maybe asking too much. It was a weird, idiotic, unbelievable (this after all being the World Cup) and frankly totally insane act and fully deserving of a substantial ban and fine, there simply can be no defence, he doesn't deserve it. He didn't though eat a baby (though some say he would given the chance) or add cyanide to the aquifer. Therefore this makes interesting reading after the initial shock :

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...k-value-and-get-some-perspective-9563690.html

[article=[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/worldcup/luis-suarez-bite-lets-move-past-the-shock-value-and-get-some-perspective-9563690.html]Luis[/url] Suarez bite: Let’s move past the shock value and get some perspective

Glenn Moore

Danny Mills would send him to jail, Alan Shearer would ban him worldwide for “as long as I could”, which under Fifa statutes is two years. What heinous crime could Luis Suarez have committed to prompt such a response from two players who were not exactly shrinking violets on the field?

He bit someone.

He did not fix a match, which strikes at the very heart of sport. He did not use performance-enhancing drugs, which is the most insidious form of cheating. He did not go over the top and break an opponent’s leg, or shatter an opponent’s nose or cheekbone with an elbow. He did not attack a referee (he has done that, head-butting an official, but that was 11 years ago when he was playing youth team football at 16 and he received a long ban).

In my mind these are all worse acts than biting an opponent, especially given it was in the heat of the moment, and he did not pursue the act long enough to draw blood.

What he did was disgusting and horrible, sets a terrible example and would be deeply unpleasant to be a victim of. But Giorgio Chiellini played on. If Suarez had broken his leg with a reckless, even premeditated tackle (it happens) he would have been out until Christmas.

Suarez needs psychiatric help, not a jail sentence. He deserves to be banned, ideally for the duration of the World Cup with a longer sentence suspended on condition he has professional treatment, but is his offence really deserving of a longer ban than a player who has threatened the livelihood of another? It is the shock value, and the recidivism, which has accounted for the publicity and outrage.

There is also, clearly, a cultural issue. In Italy, according to a SkyItalia reporter, they are more interested in assessing who is to blame for the Azzurri being out of the World Cup at the group stage (Mario Balotelli appears to be receiving more blame than Suarez). In Brazil the incident seems to be regarded as comedy rather than horror.

In England, however, Suarez is beyond the pale. Diving, biting, cheating: he fits our stereotype of the South American footballing bad guy, the latest in a long line stretching back past Diego Maradona to Antonio Rattin. There is also a place, it should be said, for lovable South Americans, such as Ossie Ardiles, Gus Poyet, and all things Brazilian.

And yet, if the behaviour of Uruguayan Suarez is so reprehensible, how is it Dylan Hartley is still being picked for England’s rugby union team? The hooker was banned for eight weeks for biting the finger of Ireland’s Steven Ferris in a Six Nations international in 2012 – and a finger is rather more vulnerable than a shoulder. Nor was it his first, or last, offence. In 2007 Hartley was banned for six months for eye gouging, which, considering the possible consequences, is far worse than nibbling on a shoulder. He was also banned for punching an opponent and for abusing a referee. Last week this serial offender started for England against New Zealand, his 56th cap. No one seemed to be outraged.[/article]
Click to expand...

I can't stand articles like this, all it seems to be is a journalist going against the grain and popular opinion to stand out and generate more "hits" or get a bit of attention. I don't know anything about Glenn Moore as a journalist but to me it seems similar to something that a journalist like Oliver Holt would write. Just doing it for the controversy.

The journalist has first found to extreme reactions to express his point. Mills went over the top. Was Shearer's reaction that bad though? The 2nd bit stuff is shite to, he just brushes it off "he bit someone" Shearer, and others, point was more to the fact he's done it repeatably. Therefore "smaller" bans aren't working. Maybe the only reaction is to ban him for a long time to give him the reality of what he's doing.

The comparisons he makes are stupid. No one accused him of doing any of that stuff. They accused him of biting people THREE TIMES which he has done. I love how he also brushes off the fact he head butted someone like it's ok to do that. I can't stand this logic of breaking people's legs which keeps coming out to. Do these reporters want to know the reason why no one is talking about any of that? Because none of it has happened in this World Cup. If it had then people would take about it. I watched Italy vs. Uruguay and to the credit of ITV they slated the Italy midfielder for the tackle he made calling it potentially dangerous, there was a bit of outrage in the Hondorous vs France game when something like that happened.

I don't get the heat of the moment nonsense either, he singled him out and did it. Watch it back, he goes out his way to go and do it and makes sure no one is watching. It's disgusting and extremely strange behaviour.

Why does he talk about England and Italy/Brazil and it being a cultural issue? It's implied we should almost be embarrassed by finding biting someone disgusting because they don't mind it. Equally Suarez has never done anything like this whilstp laying in their leagues. He has in England and he currently plays in England hence the reaction. HE also implies that Suarez is "playing the bad guy" it's not a film, it's real life and he blatantly cheats to get an advantage on top of doing some disgusting stuff like biting and racist abuse, which is seemingly fine because it's Suarez and he's apparently the bad guy.

A ban for the World Cup and the rest suspended is ridiculous. If they go out in the next round he's got a 1 game ban and that's not the correct punishment really.

I don't watch rugby and don't know who Dylan Hartley is....1 thing I do know about him though is his ban or whatever he got has nothing to do with Suarez. They're 2 different sports. It's just not the same. Rugby also isn't as big as football and hence there wouldn't be such a reaction. Glenn Moore is clearly implying this is some xenophobic or racist reaction to Suarez and trying to excuse him to look a bit controversial. In reality it's because the guy is just a horrible human being and seems against the idea of learning.

Is it that controversial what Shearer said where he should be banned for a long time? Probably not. If this journalist wants to compare it to other sports why not compare it to real life? If I came into work and bit someone I'd be sacked. On the off chance I wasn't sacked and did it 2 more times I'd either be sacked or arrested. Suarez needs some serious help in my opinion. Stuff like this article trying to excuse him does no one any favours.
 
Rednotdead said:
As I've said before on this thread, I don't think psychiatric intervention would make any difference because he doesn't accept that biting someone is wrong.
Click to expand...

It seems there are a lot of people who don't see it as wrong and that big of a deal, going by some of the responses in this thread alone I wouldn't be surprised if biting was acceptable and widespread in some countries, similar to racism.

Oggmonster said:
Why does he talk about England and Italy/Brazil and it being a cultural issue? It's implied we should almost be embarrassed by finding biting someone disgusting because they don't mind it.
Click to expand...

This then leads on to a lot more questions, not just about Suarez but those countries who don't mind it.
 
Last edited:
One thing is for sure; the English media has a lot to answer for in the case of the Italian bitten by a Uruguayan in a match that took place with a Mexican referee in Brazil over who goes on to face Colombia in the next round that will be decided by a disciplinary panel chaired by a man from Switzerland
 
Plugsy said:
One thing is for sure; the English media has a lot to answer for in the case of the Italian bitten by a Uruguayan in a match that took place with a Mexican referee in Brazil over who goes on to face Colombia in the next round that will be decided by a disciplinary panel chaired by a man from Switzerland
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Mali_Zeus said:
He is all that. Its not the stereotype, he is a cheatling, lying, racist, biting, crazy, dirty tackling bastard.

And other countries regarding that as comedy is just bollocks. You're using the same defense as his lawyers - evil British press is out to get poor Suarez..
Click to expand...
You do realise you are quoting The Independent and not me don't you ? You do know it was an article that you just read ?
 
Sarni said:
Yeah, Ecuador were on course for getting a 2-0 win against France before that.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. It was much much earlier in the game. Either way, it's still an assault on another player.

Are you condoning elbowing now?
 
Rudie said:
It seems there are a lot of people who don't see it as wrong and that big of a deal, going by some of the responses in this thread alone I wouldn't be surprised if biting was acceptable and widespread in some countries, similar to racism.



This then leads on to a lot more questions, not just about Suarez but those countries who don't mind it.
Click to expand...
But that notion is surely countered by the fact that there are plenty of Uruguayans playing in leagues all around the world and no others display this trait.
 
Plugsy said:
One thing is for sure; the English media has a lot to answer for in the case of the Italian bitten by a Uruguayan in a match that took place with a Mexican referee in Brazil over who goes on to face Colombia in the next round that will be decided by a disciplinary panel chaired by a man from Switzerland
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
antohan said:
Maybe, maybe not. It was much much earlier in the game. Either way, it's still an assault on another player.

Are you condoning elbowing now?
Click to expand...
Nope, but let's not get ridiculous with 'this might have cost Ecuador a place in the last 16'. It didn't, certainly not to an extent to which referee's bad decisions have swung the game from a draw to Uruguay win.

I didn't see the incident but if this was a deliberate elbow then Sakho should get a 3-match ban. It's not nearly as bad as biting but still deserves punishment.
 
antohan said:
Please share the better defence you would produce. Throwing him under the bus is not an option so all you can do is clutch at straws and hope to delay long enough. We already have exhibit 1 Sakho's elbow against Ecuador, which may well have proved the difference for Ecuador and not Switzerland going through.

If you are going to engage in retrospective punishment you have to do it across the board, surely.
Click to expand...
Yea, you're right, when seen on multiple camera angles by the whole world committing an offence the only possible response is to say you didn't do it.

It's utterly mental that they're being so brazen over it but it's actually even more mental that there are clearly people outside their camp who think it's a good strategy.

As for no other way to go, how about acknowledging he's done something wrong? Shocking suggestion I know but I'm a bit weird like that.
 
I don't see how anyone can defend this outragous act of stupidity. (Yes, some times it is unclear wheter or not it is a red card etc, but in this case there should be NO DOUBT.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.