Expect the next days to be filled with debate over whether Luis Suárez's 10-match ban by a Football Association independent commission for biting Branislav Ivanovic is a reasonable tariff.
The sense is that, apart from the player, Liverpool and a section of their fans, most will view a penalty that ends Suárez's 2012-13 campaign and eliminates him from the opening six domestic matches of next season as a strong statement.
Liverpool's reaction left their position in no doubt, as an immediate response on their website said: "Suárez took swift action on Sunday to make an unreserved apology for his behaviour and accepted the charge of violent conduct from the FA."
The managing director, Ian Ayre, said: "Both the club and player are shocked and disappointed at the severity of today's Independent Regulatory Commission decision. We await the written reasons tomorrow before making any further comment."
What surprises here is that Suárez, Ayre and Liverpool are "shocked". For one player to bite another is beyond the boundary of what the usual three-match ban for violent conduct caters for, as the FA maintained.
Yet Liverpool's stance falls in line with their strategy since Suárez sunk his teeth into Ivanovic during the 2-2 draw with Chelsea at Anfield on Sunday. The post-game mea culpa, telephoned apology to Ivanovic, club fine of two weeks' salary and declaration from Ayre that "the most important thing is we acted swiftly", were all revealed as damage limitation exercises from the moment Suárez denied he should face any more than three matches out.
The sense that the response from player and club were choreographed was heightened by a significant omission: Liverpool's decision not to level their own internal ban on Suárez before the FA judgment.
As a PR move and a pre-emptive strike against the independent commission's ruling Suárez's assertion that three games was adequate proved a double fail. If the striker hoped to avoid a longer sentence then the seven-match suspension he received for biting Otman Bakkal when at Ajax – "unbelievable" was the Dutch midfielder's verdict when he learned that Suárez was now a repeat offender – then the news he will be unavailable for 10 games should concentrate minds.
For Liverpool and Ayre there may be a shudder when the latter's comments on Monday are reviewed. Discussing Suárez's future, Ayre stated then: "As we keep saying, he signed a new four-year contract last summer and we'd all love to see him here throughout that contract. He's a fantastic player, top scorer and everything we'd want in a striker, so there's no change there."
Everything? No matter how talented, if a player's actions make him unavailable – Suárez, remember, got an eight-match ban last season for racially abusing Patrice Evra – then unqualified statements of support for their on-field qualities become oxymorons.
Perhaps the alarm should have sounded when Mike Tyson began offering solace to Suárez. Iron Mike infamously bit Evander Holyfield's ear in a world heavyweight title fight in 1997. This week he said: "He [Suárez] bit someone, it happens. I am sure he will make amends with this guy. I made amends with Evander and we got on with our lives."
The Professional Footballers' Association has also been caused some collateral damage by the affair, offering anger management help to Suárez but now facing the prospect of him being crowned its player of the year.
But it is Liverpool and Suárez who must now weigh their next move carefully. Open to them is the option to appeal. But that risks the ban being extended, and of the club creating a public relations blunder to rival their mishandling of the fall-out from the Suárez-Evra incident.