raskolnikov
Well-known member
It wasnt at all.
9 - Luis Suárez - v1
- Thread starter Evil
- Start date
- Status
No, it wasn't. Neither was his punishment for a "racial abuse" accusation where the only "evidence" available was the supposed victim's word against his. Even more so when you take into account the NT captain of the FA of the country that handed out the verdict received less punishment for the same allegations WITH actual evidence of the 'crime' committed.
Vlom
Previously known as Mehssi
No it wasn't ! As others have said, the punishment was extremely exagerated for the crime commited.
Heisenberg is cooking
New member
Its politics involved obviously. It was easy to make an example out of him, to show some good ol FIFA strength.
In Spania we see the exact opposite problem, ronaldo likes to think he is real deal holyfield, and gets a ridicules two match ban. He is valuable for real and the leagues popularity Some thinks.
In Spania we see the exact opposite problem, ronaldo likes to think he is real deal holyfield, and gets a ridicules two match ban. He is valuable for real and the leagues popularity Some thinks.
Barcalove
Banned
He didnt get 4 months only because of this bite, but because he already had a history of agressions and it was the third time he bited someone, it was really needed for the good of the sport.
What makes me angry wasnt even the 4 months, but because Penaldo kicked and punched an entire defence and got away with very few games
What makes me angry wasnt even the 4 months, but because Penaldo kicked and punched an entire defence and got away with very few games
Maybe the 4 month ban was fair (+ obviously getting kicked out of the WC). And, if you really really really have it in personally for Suarez, then the Copa America ban is semi-understandable. But to continue banning him even into the qualifiers? For a bite ?! Now that's ridiculous.
FIFA would have executed him if they could (& I'm sure they wanted to). They didn't even offer him any psychiatric help. They tossed him out of the car, and drove away.
And, I'm sorry, I don't buy the (strangely) homophobic argument of "but a man...bit...another man! it's icky!". That seems to be what many advocates of the ban were most concerned with. I've actually heard people on the radio slam Suarez's "unnatural act", while seconds later defending leg-breakers because it's "normal". Please.
Stric
New member
Amen.
I'm appalled at how many people don't understand this. Football is a sport, and there is no room for this in sport. Especially in a freaking World Cup match. Plus, it wasn't his first time.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
The only issue I had with the ban was that the idea of repeat offending being taken into consideration for biting but not anything else.
Plenty of players have done the same type of thing more than once and never got increasing bans for it.
The ban was overly harsh at first as FIFA were looking to appease a lot of the negative press they were getting at the time in my opinion.
Plenty of players have done the same type of thing more than once and never got increasing bans for it.
The ban was overly harsh at first as FIFA were looking to appease a lot of the negative press they were getting at the time in my opinion.
barca1899
New member
Wasn't Zidane's first violent outburst and yet he got only a 3 match ban(retiring after it does not matter).
6 Ballons for Messi
but what if he wins 7??
DonAK
President of FC Barcelona
What if it's a clean tackle, but the player is really unfortunate and has his leg broken.
What then?
Suarez bit Otman Bakkal with Ajax and then bit Ivanovic with Liverpool and Chiellini with Uruguay at the World Cup.
He BIT them. To bite someone, that's just crazy.
Last edited:
- Status
Home of Barca Fans
