The Suarez Bite

[xerxes]

a man having a 'nip' (without a mark I refuse to accept bite) .......... An act that is indefensible ...... Shows you where society is these days.

 

Biting is wrong. The level of interest reflects how unusual it is in society as a whole, let alone on the football field, doing it twice unheard of.

 

Defending biting on the grounds of whether it was a nip, just left teeth imprints, drew blood, or drew flesh is pretty desperate and would get short shrift from any parent or teacher. Calling it a first offence because the other ofence was committed abroad risible.

 

Using Ivanovic's sportsmanlike silence to mitigate a nasty offence is pretty perverse, if he had been mouthing off he would be accused of making a meal of it.

 

The Club, and Louis, have played it right. Apologise, don't excuse.

 

Society does not accept biting, quite right too, and neither should we.

[Guest davelfc]

Dave can you remove the 'stating the fucking obvious' plug-in from the site please?

[Antynwa]

I'm still in two minds about this.

 

Part of me thinks he needs help though.

[Whelan]

Society does not accept biting, quite right too, and neither should we.

 

But society actively embraces leg breaking, headbuttin, elbows into the face? Is that what you are saying?

 

Because, that sort of seems to be what you are saying?

[ChrisM]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but there is also a precedent for a straight three game ban, Charlie Oatway (whose full name, bizarrely enough, is Anthony Philip David Terry Frank Donald Stanley Gerry Gordon Stephen James Oatway, named after the 1973 QPR first team) of Brighton & Hove Albion, was sent off in 1999 for biting the face of Brian Atkinson, of Darlington. Trevor Jones, the referee, described the offence as violent conduct and the player received a three-match suspension.

[Jack the Sipper]

Of course they're going to fuck him because the FA are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

 

The FA claimed that they couldn't retrospectively punish Defoe because the referee had seen it and it has to be an exceptional case (cf Ben Thatcher on Mendes) for them to take retrospective action in those circumstances.

 

However Suarez's bite, though not seen by the ref, is deemed an exceptional case worthy of more than the usual 3 match ban.

 

So despite the Defoe and Suarez bites being for all intents and purposes identical, only the latter is considered exceptional by the FA!

 

The FA pick and choose when and how to apply the rules, and it stinks to high heaven. In any other walk of life we would call this corruption.

 

Yep. It's hard to see how the FA can sustain thier position (that a three game ban for a bite is clearly insufficient) if and when it's pointed out to them that, when Defoe did the same, they judged otherwise. Contrary to what some have argued, the FA could have taken the Defoe incident further despite the fact he was yellow-carded. They'd have to explain why Suarez's bite is deemed expectional when Defoe's wasn't.

 

Biting is wrong. The level of interest reflects how unusual it is in society as a whole, let alone on the football field, doing it twice unheard of.

 

Defending biting on the grounds of whether it was a nip, just left teeth imprints, drew blood, or drew flesh is pretty desperate and would get short shrift from any parent or teacher. Calling it a first offence because the other ofence was committed abroad risible.

 

Using Ivanovic's sportsmanlike silence to mitigate a nasty offence is pretty perverse, if he had been mouthing off he would be accused of making a meal of it.

 

The Club, and Louis, have played it right. Apologise, don't excuse.

 

Society does not accept biting, quite right too, and neither should we.

 

I think you're missing the point others are making. It's not the level of interest that riles many LFC fans, it's the level of condemnation for the incident. The idea that Suarez's bite (or two in three years if you prefer) is a more heinous crime than putting an elbow into someone's eye socket or snapping a players leg out of malice is ridiculous - yet that's exactly how the media (and fucking Downing Street FFS) think it should be seen.

 

It's unusual, yes, but that dosen't mean it's worse than a dozen other incidents that receive far less in the way of outrage.

 

And the extent of the bite is significant. If Suarez had come away with a chunk of Serb flesh, or even drew blood it would be a worse offence than it was. You can't seem to differentiate though. What if a player lightly presses his head against anothers in a display of anger - is that to be treated the same as someone giving it the full Duncan Ferguson treatment?

[ChrisM]

This is the paragraph we need to keep repeating over and over and over again with our fingers in our ears today, with reference to why Defoe wasn't charged -

 

"The only exception to that is in terms of a very serious case, such as that of Ben Thatcher, where if the offence is deemed to be such that even if he had been sent off it would have warranted a further charge. In such a situation we can then bring that further charge. I don't think anyone is suggesting that that is the case here."

 

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA....

 

[Trumo]

No problem with that Carragher article. Nobody of sound mind would back Suarez to the extent that they deny he did anything wrong at all, but there have been several pieces published decrying the hysteria surrounding the incident. Ollie Holt has actually written a balanced piece suggesting that many people seem to want to punish the man regardless of whatever the incident actually merits in terms of punishment. Granted, he does bring up the Evra thing again (because he cannot let it go and 'move on') and the hypocrisy of his own stance on Suarez is evident, but the point is that we are still seeing more of a balanced consensus in the media.

 

Incidentally, it's also the first time I can recall someone from the club publicly calling out Itandje for his general bad attitude.

 

As for Suarez needing some sort of help, that is true to a certain extent. The man's will to win is absolutely fantastic and one of the key reasons - besides his ability to make things happen - why he is generally loved by supporters of any team he represents. His own teammates attest to his fantastic attitude frequently too. His problem is that he doesn't always channel this will to win in the right way and it gets him into trouble sometimes. What he needs is for his coaches (and perhaps some sports psychologists) to help him channel this will to win in a way that lets him focus more on the positive aspects of his game. Even something simple like teaching him to count to three and takes a few steps back when he feels the blood pressure rising might help.

[Jack the Sipper]

This is the paragraph we need to keep repeating over and over and over again with our fingers in our ears today, with reference to why Defoe wasn't charged -

 

"The only exception to that is in terms of a very serious case, such as that of Ben Thatcher, where if the offence is deemed to be such that even if he had been sent off it would have warranted a further charge. In such a situation we can then bring that further charge. I don't think anyone is suggesting that that is the case here."

 

 

I'm aware of their ruling (which confirms that they could've taken further action against Defoe if they wished), I want to know why they came to a different decision with Suarez. Or are you saying that, because the press are suggesting that the Suarez case be treated as exceptional, the FA have made their decision on that basis?

[The Golden Eel]

The fact is that they have come out and said that it is clearly insufficent before the case has even been heard. So, what's the point in this panel looking at it? Ridiculous.

[Jack the Sipper]

No problem with that Carragher article. Nobody of sound mind would back Suarez to the extent that they deny he did anything wrong at all, but there have been several pieces published decrying the hysteria surrounding the incident. Ollie Holt has actually written a balanced piece suggesting that many people seem to want to punish the man regardless of whatever the incident actually merits in terms of punishment. Granted, he does bring up the Evra thing again (because he cannot let it go and 'move on') and the hypocrisy of his own stance on Suarez is evident, but the point is that we are still seeing more of a balanced consensus in the media.

 

Incidentally, it's also the first time I can recall someone from the club publicly calling out Itandje for his general bad attitude.

 

It's always good to see our players putting things into perspective, especially when they're as articulate (don't laugh) as Carra. The onlt thing that concerned me a tad was his admission that players (in this case Itandje and Plessis) are punished differently according to how much we need them. Yeah, I know it goes on in all walks of life, but still...

[Barzini]

The fact is that they have come out and said that it is clearly insufficent before the case has even been heard. So, what's the point in this panel looking at it? Ridiculous.

 

Zig has posted a few times that they have to word it like this. Hazard's was the same but he ended up only getting the three game ban.

 

Suarez, of course, will get longer.

[Whelan]

Read like a compromise, his desire to support against the Mail's desire to rant. Like two drunks finally agreeing.

 

Bloke and Coke: The angry brigade: why are Liverpool fans perpetually annoyed?

 

I agree with a lot of what this guy says, and I also disgree with a lot of it.

[Tony Moanero]

Read like a compromise, his desire to support against the Mail's desire to rant. Like two drunks finally agreeing.

 

Bloke and Coke: The angry brigade: why are Liverpool fans perpetually annoyed?

 

I agree with a lot of what this guy says, and I also disgree with a lot of it.

 

What do you disagree with?

[navbasi]

A good piece

I just wished he highlighted the Defoe incident,though that may have been looked at as a cheap shit seeing as he is still playing.

 

Here. Done by none other than our "friend" Martin Samuel aka Bluto.

 

 

The quivering FA hide when real men of honour would take the lead

By MARTIN SAMUEL

 

Clearly insufficient. Don’t you just love the Football Association when they come over all masterful? According to the guardians of our game, the standard ban of three matches for violent conduct would, in the case of Luis Suarez, be inadequate. How times change. When Jermain Defoe did much the same thing in 2006 the offence was deemed worthy of no more than a yellow card. Off you go you little scamp, said the FA, it really is none of our business. For an organisation with a media arm so grand it may shortly qualify as an independent nation in the European Championship group stages, the FA behave as if we exist in the pre-internet age. In the good old days before Google, discipline could be dispensed on the hoof, after a lively lunch and with scant regard for precedent or consistency.

 

To question the FA’s stance required both a cuttings library and a damn good memory. Garrincha was sent off in the 1962 World Cup semi-final for Brazil against Chile. At his FIFA hearing it was claimed he had acted only under severe provocation and had never been dismissed in his career. By a vote of five to two, he received a ‘symbolic reprimand’ and was cleared to play in the final, which Brazil won. In fact, Garrincha had already been sent off three times for his club, Botafogo, twice in Brazil and once against Barcelona of Spain. In 1962, though, who knew? Yet the moment Suarez sank his teeth into Branislav Ivanovic, a rudimentary search for ‘football biting’ immediately turned up an incident between Defoe and Javier Mascherano in October 2006. And also the FA’s scandalous reaction to it.

 

From this we know that Defoe’s manager, Martin Jol, dismissed it with a joke, that Defoe downplayed the seriousness of it in his half-hearted apology and that, most appallingly, the FA considered the matter closed with the issue of a yellow card by referee Steve Bennett. Seen and dealt with was the official line. Can’t re-referee the game, old chum. No mention of a punishment that was clearly insufficient. No citing of a rule, highlighted this week by former FA compliance officer Graham Bean, that gives the governing body power to issue a misconduct charge ‘if the penalty does not fit the crime’. A rule that would appear to trump the mealy mouthed excuse of not wishing to undermine officials by pronouncing twice on the same event.

 

For if the FA have a get out of jail card linking crime and suitable punishment then the inertia we have witnessed over violent conduct in recent weeks — and for months and years before that — is inexcusable. The FA witness tackles that could break legs, see arms thrown that cause brain damage, and pretend to be powerless to act. Then they alight on a show case and pounce. If they can weigh off the odd unsympathetic character like Suarez or John Terry, it makes them look decisive and principled.

 

The reality is they hide behind the skirts of FIFA, quivering when men of honour would take a moral lead. We know what should have happened to Callum McManaman of Wigan Athletic, to Manchester City’s Sergio Aguero, to Sheffield United captain Chris Morgan many years ago when he left Iain Hume of Barnsley with a fractured skull. We know what should have happened to Defoe, too. Instead, the FA will get their day in court and, amid a blaze of self-serving publicity, call it justice.

 

Suarez will miss the rest of this season and as much as one month of next because, randomly, referee Kevin Friend was unaware of the extent of his transgression. Had he followed Bennett’s lead and merely booked Suarez, we presume nothing would be done. The governance of football cannot rely on oversights or bizarre twists of fate. The FA must be putting their hands together in thanks for Friend’s ineffectuality. With an attentive referee they would not be able to indulge another favourite pastime: responding to big headlines. There is nothing the FA loves more than a steaming, great call for something to be done. Always providing they are in the mood to do something.

 

Remember when Eden Hazard of Chelsea kicked that ballboy at Swansea City? Disgraceful. Yet when Matt Ritchie of Swindon Town did the same to a teenager at Oxford United less than a year earlier? No further action required. No headlines, no glory, not worth the fuss. Hazard’s was another punishment that the FA considered clearly insufficient, yet they never consider addressing the problem in their rule book. A player is bitten and the FA issue statements as if the inadequacy of the system has come as a total shock. They were forced to climb down over Hazard when their double standards were exposed, but this will be different. There was wider public sympathy for the Chelsea player than exists for Suarez, so the FA can don the black cap with confidence.

 

Certainly, only the most one-eyed admirer of the Uruguayan, or of Liverpool, is building a case for the defence. Biting is one of those offences that goes beyond the pale. Gus Poyet, Suarez’s compatriot and manager of Brighton and Hove Albion, has attempted to debate why English football abhors it, yet often indulges a vicious tackle that could shatter bones, but few are ready for nuance just yet. They want Suarez brought to book and the FA are puppy-dog eager to oblige. Yet is this the way forward for the game? Are we merely to rely on a set of haphazard circumstances falling fortuitously if justice is to be served?

We will act, say the FA, always providing an offence has been clearly committed, the referee hasn’t seen it, an old rule can be dug up and a man of principle is running the show that day. Otherwise, they are their own Mr Loophole, getting miscreants off the hook with jargon and technicalities. So what if FIFA frown on additional punishments meted out from on high? This is about what is right, not what is vaguely written. Bring it on. If the FA take a lead in administering fitting penalties for exceptionally violent behaviour, they will be on the right side of the argument and the rest of football will follow. Some braver associations are halfway there already.

 

And the rules are in place. Everyone knows that McManaman should have been severely punished for his tackle on Massadio Haidara of Newcastle United. Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, pointed out the provision in FA rules to review a decision in extraordinary circumstances. It is the same clause Bean identified about the penalty fitting the crime. It could be enforced for any challenge that resulted in serious injury, whether seen by the referee or not. A player might receive a red card for a reckless or foul challenge, but if it is stunningly malicious, the coupling of crime and punishment surely permits the FA to extend the ban.

 

When former Manchester United captain Roy Keane took out Alf-Inge Haaland of Manchester City, the straight red card shown by referee David Elleray was, to coin a phrase, clearly insufficient considering the savagery of the tackle. Yet it was not until Keane wrote about it in his autobiography, revealing the brute nature of his intentions, that the FA could levy the longer suspension he deserved. This has to stop. We hear so much about the fine stewardship of FA chairman David Bernstein and how it is such a pity that he will soon be standing down but, like the rest of his number, he has failed to address one of the key issues of the modern game.

 

With the benefit of technology, we can see the challenges and instances that require further attention. We can differentiate between fouls, even bad ones, and more outrageous extremes. We understand that a referee can see an incident — as Bennett did Defoe’s reaction to Mascherano — without computing its enormity. Bennett probably thought Defoe put his head towards Mascherano, without realising he had sunk his teeth into his upper arm. He should not have been hostage to that mistake. This is for the FA to resolve and to fail in this duty would be insufficient. Not to mention pathetic, cowardly, and very, very wrong.

 

 

Read more: Luis Suarez - the FA hide behind FIFA rules: Martin Samuel column | Mail Online

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[xerxes]

I think you're missing the point others are making. It's not the level of interest that riles many LFC fans, it's the level of condemnation for the incident. The idea that Suarez's bite (or two in three years if you prefer) is a more heinous crime than putting an elbow into someone's eye socket or snapping a players leg out of malice is ridiculous

 

Agreed.

 

And a yellow card for taking your shirt off? A fine maybe, but not disciplinary points.

[Redder Lurtz]

doing it twice unheard of.

 

CHANGE THE RECORD OR SHUT THE FUCK UP

[Whelan]

What do you disagree with?

 

It seems that in his rush to defend Rodgers and Ayre from unfair criticism (rightly in my opinion) he simply goes over the top regarding Suarez and ignores/misses the reasons why he is supported as he is.

 

Also - I don't think there is that much call for Rodgers to leave, I think that what we are seeing is fans holding fire and waiting for him to do something before they proclaim him as the 'one' - which, if we are being honest we have been guilty of doing in the previous years, Ged, Rafa and Kenny were all seens as idols within a couple of years.

[xerxes]

Also - I don't think there is that much call for Rodgers to leave, I think that what we are seeing is fans holding fire and waiting for him to do something before they proclaim him as the 'one' -

 

Good point, well made.

 

I feel sorry for Rodgers, he has backed and bigged up Louis all the way, then Luis lets him down by getting himself banned, as he let KK down over the handshake.

 

Rodgers statement that there is no-one bigger than the club was right, but just now, without Suarez, we would be mid table and Rodgers would be out of a job.

 

The line between EL qualification and failure tends to be a few points, if Luis's ban is such that it carries into three or four games at the start of next season too, we could be facing another barren season before it has hardly started.

[Nightcat]

but just now, without Suarez, we would be mid table and Rodgers would be out of a job

 

But, we are mid table team with Suarez. Without Suarez we are...

[Whelan]

Good point, well made.

 

I feel sorry for Rodgers, he has backed and bigged up Louis all the way, then Luis lets him down by getting himself banned, as he let KK down over the handshake.

 

Rodgers statement that there is no-one bigger than the club was right, but just now, without Suarez, we would be mid table and Rodgers would be out of a job.

 

The line between EL qualification and failure tends to be a few points, if Luis's ban is such that it carries into three or four games at the start of next season too, we could be facing another barren season before it has hardly started.

 

His statement was taken out of context - it was in response to the criticism that we are going easy on Luis becaue of his importance - Rodgers was actually responding to that, rather than warning Luis.

 

I saw Jim Boardmen criticising Ayre on Twitter for undermining the newly appointed Director of Communications! But he has been very slow in praising Ayre for his response, which has been good - as we can see today with the articles criticising the FA.

 

I am far more confident with Coutinho and Sturridge than I would be without those two. Next season may see Eriksen, or someone else - again, lessening our reliance upon Luis.

 

The way I see it - Luis will line up next season at the start in a Liverpool Shirt. Which is how it should be.

[Barnesey]

The handshake was evras fault, not luis'

[xerxes]

I am far more confident with Coutinho and Sturridge than I would be without those two. Next season may see Eriksen, or someone else - again, lessening our reliance upon Luis.

 

The way I see it - Luis will line up next season at the start in a Liverpool Shirt. Which is how it should be.

 

The pressure on Luis to perform and score has been intense. You are right to point out that if the two you mention come on next season, Borini settles in, and we make a shrewd forward signing, that pressure will reduce significantly.

 

I have no doubt that Luis will, and should , be with us next season. Whether he will be able to start it remains to be seen.

[Red Banjo]

Anyone know what time the ban is announced?

[Lee909]

Probably right at the end of the day so the FA can piss off home and not comment about it.