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?

CFCNick wrote:I'm trying to stay away from the discussion. I got a three day ban on another forum because of Robben.

It's a dive. Nowhere close to being a foul. The contact is so so so minimal that if it's enough to trip him I suggest he learns how to walk/run properly.

How's that going?

As you can see not very well. Hahaha!

It is minimal contact, it is a trailing foot intentionally left to ensure contact is made.
But minimal contact or not, there is contact.

Yes it's not something that is nice to see in the game but he's tactically won the penalty.

He hasn't won a penalty. He's conned the ref and robbed the Mexicans. He's a disgrace.

The sooner they use instant replay in football the better.

Kurt N. Jurqa wrote:It is minimal contact, it is a trailing foot intentionally left to ensure contact is made.
But minimal contact or not, there is contact.

Yes it's not something that is nice to see in the game but he's tactically won the penalty.

Ok SO are you saying that all contact is a foul? You keep saying that there is a contact so it is a foul so that to me looks like you are saying all contact is a foul.

CFCNick wrote:He hasn't won a penalty. He's conned the ref and robbed the Mexicans. He's a disgrace.

The sooner they use instant replay in football the better.

Instant replays would probably cause more aggro, seeing as we're still split 50/50 on this incident!

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Kurt N. Jurqa wrote:It is minimal contact, it is a trailing foot intentionally left to ensure contact is made.
But minimal contact or not, there is contact.

Yes it's not something that is nice to see in the game but he's tactically won the penalty.

Ok SO are you saying that all contact is a foul? You keep saying that there is a contact so it is a foul so that to me looks like you are saying all contact is a foul.

I thought I already answered you on this?

Would the word 'trip' provide less confusion for you? As that will be the one of ten reasons for a penalty will be awarded:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent
holds an opponent
spits at an opponent
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Kurt N. Jurqa wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Kurt N. Jurqa wrote:It is minimal contact, it is a trailing foot intentionally left to ensure contact is made.
But minimal contact or not, there is contact.

Yes it's not something that is nice to see in the game but he's tactically won the penalty.

Ok SO are you saying that all contact is a foul? You keep saying that there is a contact so it is a foul so that to me looks like you are saying all contact is a foul.

I thought I already answered you on this?

Would the word 'trip' provide less confusion for you? As that will be the one of ten reasons for a penalty will be awarded:

   kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
   trips or attempts to trip an opponent
   jumps at an opponent
   charges an opponent
   strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
   pushes an opponent
   tackles an opponent
   holds an opponent
   spits at an opponent
   handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Exactly.

Clear penalty.

Kurt N. Jurqa wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Kurt N. Jurqa wrote:It is minimal contact, it is a trailing foot intentionally left to ensure contact is made.
But minimal contact or not, there is contact.

Yes it's not something that is nice to see in the game but he's tactically won the penalty.

Ok SO are you saying that all contact is a foul? You keep saying that there is a contact so it is a foul so that to me looks like you are saying all contact is a foul.

I thought I already answered you on this?

Would the word 'trip' provide less confusion for you? As that will be the one of ten reasons for a penalty will be awarded:

   kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
   trips or attempts to trip an opponent
   jumps at an opponent
   charges an opponent
   strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
   pushes an opponent
   tackles an opponent   
holds an opponent
   spits at an opponent
   handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

I'm not sure the referee would give a penalty for a tackle

Duty281 wrote:

Kurt N. Jurqa wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Kurt N. Jurqa wrote:It is minimal contact, it is a trailing foot intentionally left to ensure contact is made.
But minimal contact or not, there is contact.

Yes it's not something that is nice to see in the game but he's tactically won the penalty.

Ok SO are you saying that all contact is a foul? You keep saying that there is a contact so it is a foul so that to me looks like you are saying all contact is a foul.

I thought I already answered you on this?

Would the word 'trip' provide less confusion for you? As that will be the one of ten reasons for a penalty will be awarded:

   kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
   trips or attempts to trip an opponent
   jumps at an opponent
   charges an opponent
   strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
   pushes an opponent
   tackles an opponent
   holds an opponent
   spits at an opponent
   handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Exactly.

Clear penalty.

Nope, not clear, the defender didn't trip Robben, Robben "tripped over his leg" There was a clear opportunity for Robben to avoid contact with his leg (given he'd just done the same thing approximately 2 seconds earlier) but Robben decided to let both his legs make contact and then hurl himself to the floor in a manner utterly disproportionate with the contact he was claiming had been made.

How can it be a foul if Robben is the one initiating contact?

He's a cheat and anyone saying different is basically scum and a possible sex offender and dole cheat to boot. I'm just saying.............
Still it doesn't say anything about biting.....

It's quoted from here, but I know what you mean, Hampo.

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290868.html

And Dave, you missed out gambling addict!

Duty281 wrote:It's quoted from here, but I know what you mean, Hampo.

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290868.html

And Dave, you missed out gambling addict!

The red mist had descended and I couldn't see the keyboard....

People who ignore diving make me so mad, I can hear my own heart attack coming

DAVE667 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Kurt N. Jurqa wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Kurt N. Jurqa wrote:It is minimal contact, it is a trailing foot intentionally left to ensure contact is made.
But minimal contact or not, there is contact.

Yes it's not something that is nice to see in the game but he's tactically won the penalty.

Ok SO are you saying that all contact is a foul? You keep saying that there is a contact so it is a foul so that to me looks like you are saying all contact is a foul.

I thought I already answered you on this?

Would the word 'trip' provide less confusion for you? As that will be the one of ten reasons for a penalty will be awarded:

   kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
   trips or attempts to trip an opponent
   jumps at an opponent
   charges an opponent
   strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
   pushes an opponent
   tackles an opponent
   holds an opponent
   spits at an opponent
   handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Exactly.

Clear penalty.

Nope, not clear, the defender didn't trip Robben, Robben "tripped over his leg" There was a clear opportunity for Robben to avoid contact with his leg (given he'd just done the same thing approximately 2 seconds earlier) but Robben decided to let both his legs make contact and then hurl himself to the floor in a manner utterly disproportionate with the contact he was claiming had been made.

How can it be a foul if Robben is the one initiating contact?

He's a cheat and anyone saying different is basically scum and a possible sex offender and dole cheat to boot. I'm just saying.............
Still it doesn't say anything about biting.....

I'm not arguing the point that he dived. It's clear as day he dived. He did indeed trip over his opponent and intentionally but without the tripper there he would not have been the tripee (woo new made up word!).
He tactically/intelligently won the penalty and it was the correct decision based upon what warrants a penalty whether it's bad etiquette or not.

I agree, the guy stuck his leg there and he made contact with Robben.

I didn't like the arm waving as he was going down, but it was a clear penalty imo.

If that's a clear penalty then I give up on the sport.

CFCNick wrote:If that's a clear penalty then I give up on the sport.

You'll have to give up on the sport then.

Tripping, or attempting to trip, is an offence.

But the defender made contact when he didn't have to.

Yes Robben played for it, but it was still a foul.

Robben made the contact. He was already on his way down. The defender never attempted to trip him.

When did football become netball? Frak ridiculous. No way that's a foul in a million years.

Yeah, I still think its a pen

Scrumpy wrote:But the defender made contact when he didn't have to.

Yes Robben played for it, but it was still a foul.

Here is where the debate lies, did the defender make contact with Robben or did Robben make contact with the defender.

Having just watched it again it does look like the defender made contact with robben (looks like he stood on robben's foot) so it is a penalty.

However Robben did make about 3/4 dives in that game and so should have been sent off earlier.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28090057

the second one was a clear pen, well imo.

Now what will Fifa do to Robben as he has admitted he did dive in the game? Will they ban him for cheating?

They've already stated there will be no further action.

After seeing it again, I have to say it's clear as day.

He should have had three penalties, all in all, and only his honesty, ironically enough, stops me from saying he should have four penalties.

He did take one dive; outside the box, which was pretty poor, but at least he admitted it.

No matter, it all worked out right in the end.

The second one was an absolute shocker of a tackle.Do that in the middle of the park, but not in or anywhere near the box. Thinking about it, the Mexicans went to ground easier than Robben did.

There was a reason behind Mike Tyson bite, there was a reason behind Zidane biting Mat, what exactly is the reason for Saurez biting in that Italy encounter?

Was Saurez hungry so much that referee didn't allow him to have a small tea break?

DirectView2 wrote:There was a reason behind Mike Tyson bite, there was a reason behind Zidane biting Mat, what exactly is the reason for Saurez biting in that Italy encounter?

Was Saurez hungry so much that referee didn't allow him to have a small tea break?

Yeah, Mike was getting his ass kicked from pillar to post and when he realized he couldn't bully Holyfield liked he'd bullied other opponents he decided to adopt thuglike street fighting tactics which have no place in a boxing ring.

Suarez struggles to keep his composure when he can't get his own way, he's playing (by his standards) poorly or he's desperate to get the win. His winner mentality is superb when he applies his footballing skills yet his winner mentality sometimes leads to appalling acts which overshadow anything else he does.

Yeah, there was no real reason as to why Tyson bit Holyfield. Twice actually.

Clamp him with these  

Available at all good retail stores