World Cup 2014

[Brown Nose]

Personally I'd reduce that considerably on appeal, if only for the way he showed up Savage and Shearer for the hypocritical bellends they really are.

Quite right.

I don't condone what he did at all, it was dreadful. But was it worse than deliberately kicking someone in the head (Shearer) or deliberately trying to get an opponent sent off (Savage)? Who makes the rules on what is worse on a football pitch?

It happened before when Voller spat at Rijkaard. A massive uproar when it was nothing compared to a high two footed challenge or an elbow aimed at a jaw. I'd rather be bitten by Suarez or spat at by Voller than many other things I've seen on a pitch.

The fact that he's done it three times now means it's likely to be an instinct in him that he cannot control. He needs therapy and if that isn't successful, to be made to wear some kind of gum-shield. A lengthy ban serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

[fitz]

What punishment did Chris Morgan get for the elbow on Hume? I don't disagree with the punishment dished out for Suarez and wouldn't have objected to worse but we've had players like Shearer booting someone in the face and haven't had the suspensions people are demanding for a nibble. Perhaps if we had then the public might have got what they wanted here.

 

[Miles Away]

I think the suspension is fine and comparing his behavior to late tackles and flying elbows is a false equivalency.

As a footballer you are prepared and mentally ready to deal with certain things...I dare say getting bitten by an opponent is not one of them.

The fact that Suarez has done this twice suggests some measure of sociopathy at worst, a lack of control at best. He needs time away fromt he game to solve what is obviously an issue.

 

[Lako42]

According the Maradona the ban is a disgrace.

Even Cannelloni has come out and said it's harsh, ****ing idiot.

 

[M17TT C]

It is a bit harsh imo too and I believe I fit the description too!

Ban him from playing by all means, but from training etc is where they are going over the top imo and comes across as trying to damage his career rather than just punishing him.

Plus, it's hardly as if the first two bans have solved the issue so I highly doubt a 3rd will either so, as others have already mentioned, forced counselling or going to see a psychologist would have been much more worthwhile.

 

[Cate Fox]

I think the suspension is fine and comparing his behavior to late tackles and flying elbows is a false equivalency.

As a footballer you are prepared and mentally ready to deal with certain things...I dare say getting bitten by an opponent is not one of them.

The fact that Suarez has done this twice suggests some measure of sociopathy at worst, a lack of control at best. He needs time away fromt he game to solve what is obviously an issue.

Completely agree.

 

[Brown Nose]

I think the suspension is fine and comparing his behavior to late tackles and flying elbows is a false equivalency.

As a footballer you are prepared and mentally ready to deal with certain things...I dare say getting bitten by an opponent is not one of them.

The fact that Suarez has done this twice suggests some measure of sociopathy at worst, a lack of control at best. He needs time away fromt he game to solve what is obviously an issue.

Completely agree.

If only it were that simple though. I remember reading a piece from a sports psychologist after Suarez had bitten Ivanovic. He said that the act was primeval and linked to the aggression often associated with being a top class player. He also predicted that it would happen again.

A four month ban, therapy or whatever else isn't a simple answer that is going to solve this. It's probably linked to his childhood (as are most instinctive aggressive acts) and would take lengthy therapy to resolve.

Just giving him a lengthy ban and humiliating him in public isn't going to work. He's now done it three times in four years. Don't you think he'd have stopped doing it if he could? This one act will cost him millions and could potentially ruin his career. I feel for the bloke.

On the other hand, it isn't fair on opponents that they be at risk of him doing it again. Therefore, we either kick him out of the game which I think is unnecessarily harsh a would be a great shame for such a great player or we make him wear a gum shield type thing and begin to address it with therapy.

You can link the aggressive intent with someone like Joey Barton who also seems to have some demons that explode from him on occasions. I happen to think getting bitten is less damaging than getting a leg or jaw broken because of the impact. You also can't do anything to prevent JB from being able to smack someone whereas you can with Suarez.

 

[fitz]

A spot of dog obedience classes should do the trick

 

[M17TT C]

This could be a case for Cesar Millan.

 

[fitz]

This could be a case for Cesar Millan.

 

[Miles Away]

A four month ban, therapy or whatever else isn't a simple answer that is going to solve this. It's probably linked to his childhood (as are most instinctive aggressive acts) and would take lengthy therapy to resolve.

Just giving him a lengthy ban and humiliating him in public isn't going to work. He's now done it three times in four years. Don't you think he'd have stopped doing it if he could? This one act will cost him millions and could potentially ruin his career. I feel for the bloke.

On the other hand, it isn't fair on opponents that they be at risk of him doing it again. Therefore, we either kick him out of the game which I think is unnecessarily harsh a would be a great shame for such a great player or we make him wear a gum shield type thing and begin to address it with therapy.

You can link the aggressive intent with someone like Joey Barton who also seems to have some demons that explode from him on occasions. I happen to think getting bitten is less damaging than getting a leg or jaw broken because of the impact. You also can't do anything to prevent JB from being able to smack someone whereas you can with Suarez.

I agree with a lot of this, but you are getting into very murky Crime + Punishment waters. I'm, like you, a firm believer in rehabilitation and reform as opposed to punishment and banishment...but where is the line between personal responsibility and a genuine imbalance/inability. Additionally, you could make the argument that it's in the interests of the public (in this case...those that have to play football with him) to protect them from harm...and sometimes the only way to do that is to keep the offender away.

I'm waffling, because I don't have a clear answer to what the appropriate action is.

I suppose I'd say he should be out of the game for as long as it takes him to resolve this issue and thereby no longer being a "threat" on a football pitch.

 

[Matt_B]

If only it were that simple though. I remember reading a piece from a sports psychologist after Suarez had bitten Ivanovic. He said that the act was primeval and linked to the aggression often associated with being a top class player. He also predicted that it would happen again.

A four month ban, therapy or whatever else isn't a simple answer that is going to solve this. It's probably linked to his childhood (as are most instinctive aggressive acts) and would take lengthy therapy to resolve.

Just giving him a lengthy ban and humiliating him in public isn't going to work. He's now done it three times in four years. Don't you think he'd have stopped doing it if he could? This one act will cost him millions and could potentially ruin his career. I feel for the bloke.

On the other hand, it isn't fair on opponents that they be at risk of him doing it again. Therefore, we either kick him out of the game which I think is unnecessarily harsh a would be a great shame for such a great player or we make him wear a gum shield type thing and begin to address it with therapy.

You can link the aggressive intent with someone like Joey Barton who also seems to have some demons that explode from him on occasions. I happen to think getting bitten is less damaging than getting a leg or jaw broken because of the impact. You also can't do anything to prevent JB from being able to smack someone whereas you can with Suarez.

Apparently he has been having therapy with Liverpool since the last time.

 

[spionfox]

The fact that Suarez has done this twice ......

Three times.

 

[Motown Fox]

Three times.

There's a fourth one on FB as well.
:icon_bigg

 

[fox58]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28069689

Suarez says he lost his balance:icon_bigg

 

[Matt_B]

Cruel last 5 minutes for Mexico against the dutch.

 

[Jeff]

Cruel last 5 minutes for Mexico against the dutch.

Maybe Mexico could have got back into it again if the ref hadn't blown the final whistle far too early. It keeps happening in this world cup.

A minimum of six additional minutes were indicated. During that time a penalty was awarded, and the usual disruptive tactics meant it wasn't taken for well over a minute (with two players being booked between it being awarded and taken), then when the goal was scored it was over a minute before the match kicked off again. So I reckon there should have been another two to three minutes added to the six extra, but less than 30 seconds was added. I think it's time we had an independent time keeper, with the clock only running when the ball's in play. Even if the official match time was reduced to 80 minutes I'm sure we'd see more play than we do now.

 

[pork pie fox]

Maybe Mexico could have got back into it again if the ref hadn't blown the final whistle far too early. It keeps happening in this world cup.

A minimum of six additional minutes were indicated. During that time a penalty was awarded, and the usual disruptive tactics meant it wasn't taken for well over a minute (with two players being booked between it being awarded and taken), then when the goal was scored it was over a minute before the match kicked off again. So I reckon there should have been another two to three minutes added to the six extra, but less than 30 seconds was added. I think it's time we had an independent time keeper, with the clock only running when the ball's in play. Even if the official match time was reduced to 80 minutes I'm sure we'd see more play than we do now.

http://www.soccermetrics.net/team-performance/effective-time-in-football

 

[DesertFox]

Maybe Mexico could have got back into it again if the ref hadn't blown the final whistle far too early. It keeps happening in this world cup.

A minimum of six additional minutes were indicated. During that time a penalty was awarded, and the usual disruptive tactics meant it wasn't taken for well over a minute (with two players being booked between it being awarded and taken), then when the goal was scored it was over a minute before the match kicked off again. So I reckon there should have been another two to three minutes added to the six extra, but less than 30 seconds was added. I think it's time we had an independent time keeper, with the clock only running when the ball's in play. Even if the official match time was reduced to 80 minutes I'm sure we'd see more play than we do now.

Completely agree, I've thought this for years. It would take all time-wasting out of the game. As Porkie's link shows, maybe two 30 minute halves would be the way forward.

 

[Miles Away]

Yup.

The running clock is a stupid and antiquated system and has far too much room for error.