9 - Luis Suárez - v1

[Ghosting]

Hence why the ban is unfair and other players have not been treated the same.

You can't compare decisions with terrible old decisions, otherwise things would never improve. Maybe Suarez was a little too harsh, but it was closer to fair than Zidanes was.

 

[Dave Saves]

you couldn't make this up. Marca should consider an anti-dumbassery clause for the interns who write this stuff.

"Anti-bite" clause is one way of putting it, but Barcelona should surely put in a clause for his disciplinary problems. I really wished Barcelona would not sign this guy because I respect Barcelona and hate this guy. When the going gets tough, he loses his head and will inevitably do something that will drag the club's name through the mud.

 

[JamDav1982]

You can't compare decisions with terrible old decisions, otherwise things would never improve. Maybe Suarez was a little too harsh, but it was closer to fair than Zidanes was.

Is that not exactly how these things work? They have to be fair and consistent.

If FIFA want to start taking past actions into account and force bans at club level then they need to have shown they were willing to do this in past. They havent and have handled Suarez unfairly compared to other players.

 

[Flavia]

Hence why the ban is unfair and other players have not been treated the same.

I think the ban was unfair to liverpool, not to Suarez. They should had limited the punishment to the nt. But what should change, imo, is everyone getting harsh sanctions for any act of violence, not Suarez getting a lighter punishment.

 

[Tomchin]

I think the ban was unfair to liverpool, not to Suarez. They should had limited the punishment to the nt. But what should change, imo, is everyone getting harsh sanctions for any act of violence, not Suarez getting a lighter punishment.

But would you have been in favor of Neymar getting a 3-games-ban for his elbow on the first match-day?

 

[Alarcón]

The point is that they will not start to punish every player like this. They punished him so severely because they have a bad rep at the moment, the incident was all over the press and the internet so they wanted to improve their image,

 

[Dave Saves]

Is that not exactly how these things work? They have to be fair and consistent.

If FIFA want to start taking past actions into account and force bans at club level then they need to have shown they were willing to do this in past. They havent and have handled Suarez unfairly compared to other players.

Fair and consistent?

Okay, I'll bite. He got banned for 8 matches (I think) at Ajax for biting, 10 matches at Liverpool, and since this is his third bite (feels ridiculous even saying that), the punishment will be more. That Zidane got banned for less games is 1) not relevant here and 2) more due to the fact that they didn't care much about the ban because he had already retired.

 

[JamDav1982]

I think the ban was unfair to liverpool, not to Suarez. They should had limited the punishment to the nt. But what should change, imo, is everyone getting harsh sanctions for any act of violence, not Suarez getting a lighter punishment.

Possibly but do FIFA not need to come out and announce that acts of violence will result in bans at club level and past history will be taken into account?

They have changed the way they treat players.

Even Zidane red carded 14 times pevious reds for head butting and violent conduct in the WC. Yet people would not of thought he got off lightly with a three game ban at the time.

 

[Ghosting]

Is that not exactly how these things work? They have to be fair and consistent.

If FIFA want to start taking past actions into account and force bans at club level then they need to have shown they were willing to do this in past. They havent and have handled Suarez unfairly compared to other players.

The only thing you can compare with is someone else biting someone for the 3rd time, if someone else did that and got a 2 month ban and Suarez got 4, then yeah we could be in uproar that Suarez got treated badly, but there is no precedent for a 3 time bite offence.

Maybe you can say, but blah blah punched someone and only got 3 games, but it is still not the same offence.

 

[JamDav1982]

Fair and consistent?

Okay, I'll bite. He got banned for 8 matches (I think) at Ajax for biting, 10 matches at Liverpool, and since this is his third bite (feels ridiculous even saying that), the punishment will be more. That Zidane got banned for less games is 1) not relevant here and 2) more due to the fact that they didn't care much about the ban because he had already retired.

I think we all understand the ban is for three bites. It has been the basis of the debate.

The Zidane incident is relevant and whether he was retiring or not has nothing do with ban given.

No one at time said 'three games?.... lucky he has retired as it would have been a lot longer'.

People would have accepted that as a fair ban had he played on.

 

[Flavia]

But would you have been in favor of Neymar getting a 3-games-ban for his elbow on the first match-day?

Yep. But they should make a clear rule, stating the obvious. With elbowing getting "n" match bans and a fine, and so on. They can even grade it soft, medium and hard, as not all elbowings are the same. And have something for heavy tackles, punches, biting as well. It's not that hard, and should be universal(fifa/uefa/rfef/cbf, etc competitions). Leaving it open as they do, accomplishes nothing, and leads to unfair punishments.

 

[JamDav1982]

The only thing you can compare with is someone else biting someone for the 3rd time, if someone else did that and got a 2 month ban and Suarez got 4, then yeah we could be in uproar that Suarez got treated badly, but there is no precedent for a 3 time bite offence.

Maybe you can say, but blah blah punched someone and only got 3 games, but it is still not the same offence.

Not at all. It doesnt have to be three bites. Why is that any different from three repeated actions resulting in increased bans?

So Suarez could have destroyed the cruciate ligaments of Chiellini or smash his skull and deserve less a ban than he has just got?

 

[JamDav1982]

The point is that they will not start to punish every player like this. They punished him so severely because they have a bad rep at the moment, the incident was all over the press and the internet so they wanted to improve their image,

Exactly.

 

[Dave Saves]

I think we all understand the ban is for three bites. It has been the basis of the debate.

The Zidane incident is relevant and whether he was retiring or not has nothing do with ban given.

No one at time said 'three games?.... lucky he has retired as it would have been a lot longer'.

People would have accepted that as a fair ban had he played on.

Still doesn't change the fact that he has already gotten banned for 10 games for a similar offense earlier. That was the minimum punishment he was looking at.

 

[JamDav1982]

Still doesn't change the fact that he has already gotten banned for 10 games for a similar offense earlier. That was the minimum punishment he was looking at.

Not sure of your point.