How to solve a problem like Suarez?

First topic message reminder :

Suarez for the third time in his career bit another footballer during a match.
The first for Ajax in 2010 when he bit a PSV player (Bakkal) on the shoulder and received a 7 game ban.
The second for Liverpool v Chelsea in 2013 on Ivanovic for which he received a 10 game ban.
And now on the grandest stage of all he's sunk his fangs into Chiellini.

What though should his punishment be?

Fernando wrote:Please tell me that isn't a serious question SF. Watch the incident again and you will see why

What should I be looking for, Fernando? Give me a pointer. I've seen the incident many times at this point.

You don't see Chiellini elbow him in the face then? Quite frankly Suarez is lucky it was only an elbow.

Fernando wrote:You don't see Chiellini elbow him in the face then? Quite frankly Suarez is lucky it was only an elbow.

Chiellini elbowed him in the face before or after he bit into Chiellini's shoulder? Suarez is lucky it was only an elbow, you're right there. A guy bit me in the shoulder and I'd take a red card by decking him with a fist.

You watch Chiellini's reaction to being bitten about :30 into the video shows it clearly

Fernando.  I'm not clear on which side you are on this.  Who do you think is mostly at fault here?  Suarez or Chielinni?  
What I'm saying is that Suarez provokes the instinctive reaction from Cheilinni by biting him on the shoulder without provocation.  Is that what you're saying?  If it is then we're not disagreeing with each other.  We believe the same thing if you think Suarez was instigator.

But I'm confused.  You seem to be sometimes saying Suarez is innocent and at other times saying Cheilinni reacted to Suarez with an elbow.

Everyone knows Suarez is instigator not sure why it seems otherwise. I was more aiming at you question where you said he was holding his teeth hence i pointed out the elbow was why he was holding them.

Personally id like to see a long ban 10 wasn't enough last time so id probably triple it and carry it worldwide tbh. Nothing against Liverpool but the guy needs to learn it's not acceptable on the pitch.

I'm intrigued as to whether people are genuinely outraged at this. Given that the World Cup is meant to be pure enjoyment for those of us not actually playing and given that none of us are the ones who've been bitten why would we really be that bothered?

The guy who's been bitten clearly hasn't been seriously hurt so isn't it just pretty amusing in the same way that Cantona's drop kick was very very funny?

Personally in terms of crimes against humanity it comes pretty low down.

Fernando wrote:Everyone knows Suarez is instigator not sure why it seems otherwise. I was more aiming at you question where you said he was holding his teeth hence i pointed out the elbow was why he was holding them.  

oh it's the teeth thing!? Okay, now I finally understand you.

I'll clarify the teeth thing then. As far as I know, I think Suarez is claiming he was elbowed in the face, one side of the face. I think he has swelling around the right eye socket.
So that's why I talk about how carefully he examines his teeth, both sides - front side and back side of his front upper teeth - and gums. That wasn't an examination that was required after being hit mostly on the right side of the face and mostly higher around the eye area.
The area he examined didn't correspond to the area he was elbowed in... but he wanted to be seen to be concerned about the teeth area to have a cover story for the bite.

Hibbz wrote:I'm intrigued as to whether people are genuinely outraged at this. Given that the World Cup is meant to be pure enjoyment for those of us not actually playing and given that none of us are the ones who've been bitten why would we really be that bothered?

The guy who's been bitten clearly hasn't been seriously hurt so isn't it just pretty amusing in the same way that Cantona's drop kick was very very funny?

Personally in terms of crimes against humanity it comes pretty low down.

We're all laughing about it. The jokes are all out there. It IS part of the usual WC drama and controversy fun. Don't think anyone is denying that. But it's still a bite. It's still a dirty cheap shot in a game where nobody else feels the need to bite. It still needs Suarez to learn a lesson that his biting won't be just brushed off as Suarez being the player he is - 'oh let him get on with it, it's just his personality'.

So people are saying he should be finally given a lesson he will learn from this time, after three times committing the same act. But yes, it's part of the WC circus that we enjoy watching and discussing.

I do think it would be pointless to ban him from international football and no domestic ban.

I'm all for no action at all. Provides me with far more entertainment than any other player.

There seems to be many people who are prepared to turn a blind eye to Suarez's diet preferences in the hope that they'll continue to see a great player play the game.  Greed overcoming justice as it were.

So seriously then - let's offer Suarez one of two possible conditions then and let him choose.

Two year ban from football or the indignity of being forced to wear a face mask for two years on the field.  It's obvious he can't be trusted not to bite, regardless of the risks he faces about his career.  For a guy to do something three times when he knows the controversy it throws up, and how it endangers his career, shows us that he doesn't simply care about or comprehend the seriousness of the offence.  

Weird kid with that attitude and perhaps genuine psychological issues there but okay - so be it.  He wants to play on, a section of the world wants him to play on.  Play on then, with mandatory face mask worn for the duration of all games for two years.  No joking.  Do it.  Players already wear masks to protect damaged jaws and noses and what have you - a mask to protect opponents is just another step down that line

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Suarez would love to take a taste of Stefan Kuntz...I'm sure!

Although David Seaman might leave a nasty taste in his mouth...

The question is - will Suarez swallow like a man, or spit like a girl?   

SecretFly wrote:There seems to be many people who are prepared to turn a blind eye to Suarez's diet preferences in the hope that they'll continue to see a great player play the game.  Greed overcoming justice as it were.

So seriously then - let's offer Suarez one of two possible conditions then and let him choose.

Two year ban from football or the indignity of being forced to wear a face mask for two years on the field.  It's obvious he can't be trusted not to bite, regardless of the risks he faces about his career.  For a guy to do something three times when he knows the controversy it throws up, and how it endangers his career, shows us that he doesn't simply care about or comprehend the seriousness of the offence.  

Weird kid with that attitude and perhaps genuine psychological issues there but okay - so be it.  He wants to play on, a section of the world wants him to play on.  Play on then, with mandatory face mask worn for the duration of all games for two years.  No joking.  Do it.  Players already wear masks to protect damaged jaws and noses and what have you - a mask to protect opponents is just another step down that line

I guess I'm being slightly facetious but he hasn't actually injured anyone with his biting has he so why the need to wear the mask? Should Valencia (or any of the other serial two footed lungers) now be issued the same option with regards to wearing slippers? Or John Fashanu alikes be given elbow pads?

Still seems a big deal to me given no one has been hurt.

Duty281 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Suarez would love to take a taste of Stefan Kuntz...I'm sure!

Although David Seaman might leave a nasty taste in his mouth...

The question is - will Suarez swallow like a man, or spit like a girl?    

You are hanging out with the wrong type of girls dootie.

Hibbz wrote:

SecretFly wrote:There seems to be many people who are prepared to turn a blind eye to Suarez's diet preferences in the hope that they'll continue to see a great player play the game.  Greed overcoming justice as it were.

So seriously then - let's offer Suarez one of two possible conditions then and let him choose.

Two year ban from football or the indignity of being forced to wear a face mask for two years on the field.  It's obvious he can't be trusted not to bite, regardless of the risks he faces about his career.  For a guy to do something three times when he knows the controversy it throws up, and how it endangers his career, shows us that he doesn't simply care about or comprehend the seriousness of the offence.  

Weird kid with that attitude and perhaps genuine psychological issues there but okay - so be it.  He wants to play on, a section of the world wants him to play on.  Play on then, with mandatory face mask worn for the duration of all games for two years.  No joking.  Do it.  Players already wear masks to protect damaged jaws and noses and what have you - a mask to protect opponents is just another step down that line

I guess I'm being slightly facetious but he hasn't actually injured anyone with his biting has he so why the need to wear the mask? Should Valencia (or any of the other serial two footed lungers) now be issued the same option with regards to wearing slippers? Or John Fashanu alikes be given elbow pads?

Still seems a big deal to me given no one has been hurt.

I'd argue the case he's been particularly fortunate he's not pierced the skin and therefore saliva to blood contact which is then a real risk to careers with Hepatitis etc.

Hibbz wrote:

SecretFly wrote:There seems to be many people who are prepared to turn a blind eye to Suarez's diet preferences in the hope that they'll continue to see a great player play the game.  Greed overcoming justice as it were.

So seriously then - let's offer Suarez one of two possible conditions then and let him choose.

Two year ban from football or the indignity of being forced to wear a face mask for two years on the field.  It's obvious he can't be trusted not to bite, regardless of the risks he faces about his career.  For a guy to do something three times when he knows the controversy it throws up, and how it endangers his career, shows us that he doesn't simply care about or comprehend the seriousness of the offence.  

Weird kid with that attitude and perhaps genuine psychological issues there but okay - so be it.  He wants to play on, a section of the world wants him to play on.  Play on then, with mandatory face mask worn for the duration of all games for two years.  No joking.  Do it.  Players already wear masks to protect damaged jaws and noses and what have you - a mask to protect opponents is just another step down that line

I guess I'm being slightly facetious but he hasn't actually injured anyone with his biting has he so why the need to wear the mask? Should Valencia (or any of the other serial two footed lungers) now be issued the same option with regards to wearing slippers? Or John Fashanu alikes be given elbow pads?

Still seems a big deal to me given no one has been hurt.

Nobody has been hurt yet because as soon as they're bitten, they take some sort of defensive action like pulling away or pushing Suarez away from them. Biting people is dangerous.

I see his lawyer/teammates/manager and President have come out and said it's the nasty Italians and English that have just got it in for him.

I just can't believe that people are still trying to defend him and hopefully Fifa see's this and comes down like a ton of bricks.

Says everything when a player needs a lawyer.

The Special Juan wrote:Says everything when a player needs a lawyer.

Why not, your ordinary member of the public is entitled to Legal Representation irrespective of whether or not they're bang to rights. Like I said, I don't condone what he's done for a second but should we dispense with Due Process simply because it's Luis Suarez?

No, sorry that's my own fault. From the way it's worded, it appears he has a full-time lawyer (rather than hiring one as and when needed)!!

The Special Juan wrote:No, sorry that's my own fault.  From the way it's worded, it appears he has a full-time lawyer (rather than hiring one as and when needed)!!

Which is turning out to be a full-time job!!!!!!!!

DAVE667 wrote:should we dispense with Due Process simply because it's Luis Suarez?

Well, you might say Suarez himself already did when he took his teeth to a football game - again.  Due Process in football is that you use your feet or head, not your teeth.  But that would be only a humourous allusion.  

On a more serious note, you could say many people across the world now, and not just in Uruguay or South America! - would love to dispense with Due Process simply because it is Luis Suarez.  There is a strong argument in certain circles that suggests Suarez should get away with a minimal punishment so that they - in their selfish desires - get to see a Great Player play on.  In a sense, they say "To Hell with justice or Due Process, the game needs Luis Suarez and he should be pardoned in the interests of our desire to see him play"

SecretFly wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:should we dispense with Due Process simply because it's Luis Suarez?

Well, you might say Suarez himself already did when he took his teeth to a football game - again.  Due Process in football is that you use your feet or head, not your teeth.  But that would be only a humourous allusion.  

On a more serious note, you could say many people across the world now, and not just in Uruguay or South America! - would love to dispense with Due Process simply because it is Luis Suarez.  There is a strong argument in certain circles that suggests Suarez should get away with a minimal punishment so that they - in their selfish desires - get to see a Great Player play on.  In a sense, they say "To Hell with justice or Due Process, the game needs Luis Suarez and he should be pardoned in the interests of our desire to see him play"

The flip side of that is that many people want to see him hung out to dry without the formality of a proper hearing. I often ask people in my job if (the shoe was on the other foot) they be happy to be sentenced without a fair trial...they tend to screw their faces up and start spluttering. Despite what we think, know or can prove, surely we must be able to hold ourselves up to a higher standard otherwise we are in no position to judge anyone.

Whether or not FIFA can be trusted to do the right thing is another matter entirely and more than likely a suitable topic for the forum.

In a Court of Law (and I'm not for a second suggesting FIFA have a process in anyway comparable) you must look solely at the evidence/the facts (not conjecture or supposition) and judge a person's guilt or innocence based on that. However, when it comes to sentencing, it's at that point that a person's previous transgressions can be cited in order to mete out an appropriate punishment.

FIFA must examine the evidence and decide whether or not Suarez is guilty of deliberately biting/trying to bite an opponent. They may take into account any mitigating circumstances (although few if any can come up with any) before deciding on the punishment and then they may wish to take into account his previous transgressions.

However, to decide his guilt and punishment without the appropriate formalities is make us no better than a person who decides to ignore the rules of the game in the first place.

As I say, I'm not convinced FIFA have the appropriate moral fibre to undertake such a task

Of course he needs to be able to have a mechansim to defend himself. I was merely pointing out the irony inherent in your "dispense with Due Process simply because it is Luis Suarez" point, given how many people have openly suggested Luis might be bigger than the crime he's accused of and should possibly be allowed play on because he's an entertaining player and his name is Luis.

Just pointing out how 'dispensing with Due Process' is very much a relative term in the debate.

Banned for nine international games and for four months from ANY football activities, includes stadium bans, training etc I presume.

More balls than I expected from fifa

Seems the punishment fits the crime overall.

Now I hope nobody questions the idea in the future that he's had his fair share of leniancy on this issue of biting. He's had his nine lives.
Another incident of a similar nature and he should be in real danger of being banned for life. He's been given enough opportunities to learn that he doesn't create the rules of engagement for his sport. No more excuses after this.

DAVE667 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:should we dispense with Due Process simply because it's Luis Suarez?

Well, you might say Suarez himself already did when he took his teeth to a football game - again.  Due Process in football is that you use your feet or head, not your teeth.  But that would be only a humourous allusion.  

On a more serious note, you could say many people across the world now, and not just in Uruguay or South America! - would love to dispense with Due Process simply because it is Luis Suarez.  There is a strong argument in certain circles that suggests Suarez should get away with a minimal punishment so that they - in their selfish desires - get to see a Great Player play on.  In a sense, they say "To Hell with justice or Due Process, the game needs Luis Suarez and he should be pardoned in the interests of our desire to see him play"

The flip side of that is that many people want to see him hung out to dry without the formality of a proper hearing. I often ask people in my job if (the shoe was on the other foot) they be happy to be sentenced without a fair trial...they tend to screw their faces up and start spluttering. Despite what we think, know or can prove, surely we must be able to hold ourselves up to a higher standard otherwise we are in no position to judge anyone.

Whether or not FIFA can be trusted to do the right thing is another matter entirely and more than likely a suitable topic for the forum.

In a Court of Law (and I'm not for a second suggesting FIFA have a process in anyway comparable) you must look solely at the evidence/the facts (not conjecture or supposition) and judge a person's guilt or innocence based on that. However, when it comes to sentencing, it's at that point that a person's previous transgressions can be cited in order to mete out an appropriate punishment.

FIFA must examine the evidence and decide whether or not Suarez is guilty of deliberately biting/trying to bite an opponent. They may take into account any mitigating circumstances (although few if any can come up with any) before deciding on the punishment and then they may wish to take into account his previous transgressions.

However, to decide his guilt and punishment without the appropriate formalities is make us no better than a person who decides to ignore the rules of the game in the first place.

As I say, I'm not convinced FIFA have the appropriate moral fibre to undertake such a task

Interesting post. Suarez probably never had a fair trial because the trial and sentence took 2/3 days. If he had a fair trial he would have longer to form a defence etc.

Least he wont be playing us in September then.

Lambert will be playing more than he hoped then.

Fair enough punishment.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
If he had a fair trial he would have longer to form a defence etc.

He had longer than he gave Cheilinni to form his

Duped by the fouling Italians. I feel very sorry for him.Let's be honest-if he'd been a Brazil player FIFA would have done nothing. It's always the little countries that get bullied.

Too right, Azabache! Save the Whale and Save Suarez's Canines

If Uruguay were to win the World Cup, would Suarez still get a Winner's Medal?

If that was to happen, would he "bite" it to check it was real like a lot sportspeople do with their medals?

Would people then think he was a **** for taking the mickey?

DAVE667 wrote:If Uruguay were to win the World Cup, would Suarez still get a Winner's Medal?

If that was to happen, would he "bite" it to check it was real like a lot sportspeople do with their medals?

Would people then think he was a **** for taking the mickey?

Would he be disappointed that the medal tasted only of metal?

So many questions.

But of course the miracle would be that Uruguay would win it without him.  If they did that, the shock would be such that nobody would even be looking at the guy chewing the hand that presented the medal.

Well he'll not be able to try a shoulder of Lahm if they meet Germany

On the serious side...uruguay are a one man team. They aint going no further in this tournament.

Not a terrible decision from FIFA (thought they might completely bottle it and give him a 2 mtch ban or something...)

Guilty of biting an opponent for the third time and with the bans increasing in severity each time - I think somewhat longer would have been justified, but it would be unfair to punish Liverpool too much for the actions of a player on international duty. 4 months sounds a lot, but after the WC there will be 6 weeks or so down time anyway, so I'd like to have seen a somewhat longer ban (6 months, or for the 4 months to only apply during the time of competetive matches).

Hopefully Liverpool will get rid and make some good money, and can replace this idiot with someone more in keeping with the status and history of LFC.

Hibbz wrote:I'm intrigued as to whether people are genuinely outraged at this. Given that the World Cup is meant to be pure enjoyment for those of us not actually playing and given that none of us are the ones who've been bitten why would we really be that bothered?

The guy who's been bitten clearly hasn't been seriously hurt so isn't it just pretty amusing in the same way that Cantona's drop kick was very very funny?

Personally in terms of crimes against humanity it comes pretty low down.

I have to say that Hibbz has a point (and we don't often agree on anything, but that's another story).

I don't mean to condone anything that Suarez has done but in the bigger picture, Chiellini hasn't been that badly hurt.   I wonder what the punishment would have been if Suarez had put in a flying tackle that broke Chiellini's leg or threw an elbow that shattered his cheekbone.   That would probably have led to a red card and a one or two match ban, we'd have all tut-tutted and that would have been the end of it.

For this latest biting incident though, Suarez has been given a nine match international ban by FIFA and that obviously rules him out of the rest of the world cup, and in so doing probably also (conveniently for Brazil and Argentina) puts paid to any outside chances that Uruguay might have had of repeating their feat of 1950.

As a footballer, Luis Suarez is a very talented player.  We should be enjoying watching him do what he does best... score goals.  Instead we are once again embroiled in discussing-to-death an unsavoury incident that has completely detracted from the good things he does.

As a human being he is deeply flawed and not only does these things, but seems to admit no responsibility, or have any sense of remorse for his foolish and, frankly, repugnant behaviour.

I have mostly treated this latest incident of his with ridicule and derision and will continue to do so, but that doesn't mean I don't fully understand the issues.

It is worth pointing out, that nobody has died here. If this is worth a nine match ban, what punishment should be meted out to somebody who does something truly, seriously injurious.?  Sometimes, we can get things a little out of proportion.

Suarez is as good a footballer as he is repugnant a human being.

Uruguay are going to appeal his punishment. Be funny if FIFA made it bigger.

I saw a similar advertisement in today's paper and couldn't resist..........



Chiellini





Cannelloni




Should have gone to Specsavers, Luis

A Life ban, given he has done it more than once now, very shameful indeed.

DirectView2 wrote:A Life ban, given he has done it more than once now, very shameful indeed.

  

Stick to reading the Sun newspaper that is my advice.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Hibbz wrote:I'm intrigued as to whether people are genuinely outraged at this. Given that the World Cup is meant to be pure enjoyment for those of us not actually playing and given that none of us are the ones who've been bitten why would we really be that bothered?

The guy who's been bitten clearly hasn't been seriously hurt so isn't it just pretty amusing in the same way that Cantona's drop kick was very very funny?

Personally in terms of crimes against humanity it comes pretty low down.

I have to say that Hibbz has a point (and we don't often agree on anything, but that's another story).

I don't mean to condone anything that Suarez has done but in the bigger picture, Chiellini hasn't been that badly hurt.   I wonder what the punishment would have been if Suarez had put in a flying tackle that broke Chiellini's leg or threw an elbow that shattered his cheekbone.   That would probably have led to a red card and a one or two match ban, we'd have all tut-tutted and that would have been the end of it.

For this latest biting incident though, Suarez has been given a nine match international ban by FIFA and that obviously rules him out of the rest of the world cup, and in so doing probably also (conveniently for Brazil and Argentina) puts paid to any outside chances that Uruguay might have had of repeating their feat of 1950.

As a footballer, Luis Suarez is a very talented player.  We should be enjoying watching him do what he does best... score goals.  Instead we are once again embroiled in discussing-to-death an unsavoury incident that has completely detracted from the good things he does.

As a human being he is deeply flawed and not only does these things, but seems to admit no responsibility, or have any sense of remorse for his foolish and, frankly, repugnant behaviour.

I have mostly treated this latest incident of his with ridicule and derision and will continue to do so, but that doesn't mean I don't fully understand the issues.

It is worth pointing out, that nobody has died here. If this is worth a nine match ban, what punishment should be meted out to somebody who does something truly, seriously injurious.?  Sometimes, we can get things a little out of proportion.

great post   

If a bite is worth perhaps only a two match ban, regardless of the number of times one player committed the act, then I don't see why we shouldn't and wouldn't expect to see the Phantom of the Incisors in action again later in the year back at Liverpool - sinking into someone else in the knowledge that it's no big deal.

People talk about the comparisons with other offences and the 'lack of seriousness' of the specific bite on Chielinni.

So let me throw this one out then.  The leg break then.  A player breaking another player's leg by willfully rushing in without going for the ball and leaving his foot and studs in to do the damage on his opponent's leg.

Serious enough stunt?

Yeah, lengthy enough ban.

After the ban.  Same player repeats the same stunt on another unfortunate player.  No doubt in it - camera's see the true intention.  

Another lengthy enough ban?  Of course.  Dangerous.  Longer ban than the last one.

After the ban.  Same player somehow and bizarrely repeats the same stunt on yet another poor player a year later.  Cameras prove it wasn't an accident.  It was sheer malicious intent to damage the leg of another player.

Are some here really saying that such an act repeated for a third time is merely yet again another yawn and another reasonably long ban, but no fuss and no publicity and no time for false anger from a media.  "Just leave him alone...he'll serve his time... there are other serious things hapening on a field.  Don't over dramatise it.  Actually, didn't Suarez bite players three times and he's still playing?  What about him?  Leave the leg breaker alone."

Repeat that experiment for headbutts or any of the other offences mentioned here.  Same player doing it three times, blatantly - right where cameras can see it with no chance of it being called an accident.

That's the issue.  Biting might seem insignificant to some... not to others and certainly not when it's committed by the same player three times.

I recall some years ago a German nearly killing an opponent with a blatant forearm smash that I think did literally smash the opponent's jaw etc. But of course the Masters of Cynical Gamesmanship got off lightly.

No-I think the Uruquayans are right-this is all about racism, neo colonialism, the odious British press etc.....

Hypothetically; if the ref had seen it and sent him off, how long would he have been suspended for? I wonder if the outcry would have been any different if he'd been sent off, or if Uruguay had lost.

SecretFly wrote:If a bite is worth perhaps only a two match ban, regardless of the number of times one player committed the act, then I don't see why we shouldn't and wouldn't expect to see the Phantom of the Incisors in action again later in the year back at Liverpool - sinking into someone else in the knowledge that it's no big deal.

People talk about the comparisons with other offences and the 'lack of seriousness' of the specific bite on Chielinni.

So let me throw this one out then.  The leg break then.  A player breaking another player's leg by willfully rushing in without going for the ball and leaving his foot and studs in to do the damage on his opponent's leg.

Serious enough stunt?

Yeah, lengthy enough ban.

After the ban.  Same player repeats the same stunt on another unfortunate player.  No doubt in it - camera's see the true intention.  

Another lengthy enough ban?  Of course.  Dangerous.  Longer ban than the last one.

After the ban.  Same player somehow and bizarrely repeats the same stunt on yet another poor player a year later.  Cameras prove it wasn't an accident.  It was sheer malicious intent to damage the leg of another player.

Are some here really saying that such an act repeated for a third time is merely yet again another yawn and another reasonably long ban, but no fuss and no publicity and no time for false anger from a media.  "Just leave him alone...he'll serve his time... there are other serious things hapening on a field.  Don't over dramatise it.  Actually, didn't Suarez bite players three times and he's still playing?  What about him?  Leave the leg breaker alone."

Repeat that experiment for headbutts or any of the other offences mentioned here.  Same player doing it three times, blatantly - right where cameras can see it with no chance of it being called an accident.

That's the issue.  Biting might seem insignificant to some... not to others and certainly not when it's committed by the same player three times.

All 3 bites that Suarez has done have caused no damage whatsoever. Comparing it to a leg breaking malicious tackle is not something that should be done.

Plenty of players do intentional off the ball fouls such as foot stomps or blocking a players run with your shoulder so their face hits your shoulder which receive no publicity but cause just as mich damage (sometimes more) than Suarez's bites.

Yes ban the player but people saying he should be banned for life need to get a grip of the actual minor damage caused.

Lowlandbrit wrote:Hypothetically; if the ref had seen it and sent him off, how long would he have been suspended for? I wonder if the outcry would have been any different if he'd been sent off, or if Uruguay had lost.

Well Song intentionally elbowed a player in the back and got a 1 match suspension due to a red card which fifa increased to 3.

Song's elbow is far more dangerous than suarez's bite and yet suarez gets a lot bigger suspension.

I agree to some extent, but its the repeat offender thing that means its worth a lengthy (and 4 months is still lengthy by standards) ban.

I don't didn't say ban for life.  But I do say it should be on the card if he does it again.  Yep, I categorically say that.  He's had his chances.

Again, it's your opinion that a bite isn't serious, Champagne.  It's mine and many other people's opinion that it is.  That's why it is such a newworthy incident - human beings react to certain things.  

Like I also said before, Tyson - a boxer who had a lethal and killer instinct for finding the most vulnerable points on a human body and repeatedly attacking them not just to win a fight but to seriously injure.  He admitted it, his intention when fighting was to seriously injure his opponent - but in a sense people accepted his reasoning because boxing is a sport that is all about the fight - it's expected that a fighter will go for jaws and ribs etc and want to hurt.

And yet, even in this brutal world of boxing, what did boxing fans most respond to with disgust?  His ear bite.  A bite.  Men who know all about blood and broken bones and even brain damage, and heavy head hits, and dangerous jaw snaps... but Tyson shamed himself because of a bite.
A bite rates in human terms as low and dirty and underhand and cowardly.  A bite rates because that's our instincts as humanbeings and especially when it drifts into sport.
Broken bones are part of team field sports, in football as much as rugby.  Yes, serious intent demands serious punishment but all players expect the kinds of dangers they face on a football field, and on a rugby field and in a boxing ring.  Very very few of them seem to accept that biting should be part of the usual list of usual offences committed.