Suarez bite v2

[xerxes]

That is the problem in the world mate, fixation on the fucking trivial.

There is nothing trivial about biting someone else. It's not permitted in the street, or on any sports field.

 

No pro player in the history of football, or any other sport as far as I m aware, has been guilty of biting a fellow player three times on different occasions. It's not trivial.

 

Suarez is a fabulous player, but clearly has some serious psychological issues. His claim that he is the victim of an international conspiracy is embarrassing.

 

If he had said that he apologised to his team mates, his country, his employers LFC, and LFC fans, who have backed him and supported in the past and done such good work in helping him with his issues, to all football fans and children for setting such a poor example it would have been a start. But three bites in he just doesn't get it.

 

My own view is still that there should be no domestic ban, but that he should be banned for the rest of the WC tournament, with a suspended further ban, if he should do it again. It is such a shame that a player who aspired to be one of the world greats, let alone an LFC great, should have demeaned himself with such a spectacular display of self-destruction.

 

As a fan part of me revels in having such a great goal scorer and hate figure for other fans on our side, it is meat and drink to tribal rivalries. But another part says football is a game, and LFC is about values, tradition and integrity, and I have to shelve that when I support him as an LFC player, which I do.

[Major Tom]

The media smell blood with things like Suarez though, they're expecting some kind of 'closure' that will probably involve some shocking departure. It's why they work so hard to keep the likes of Justin Bieber on the news agenda because he's so clearly mental, they fully expect him to top himself or die of a drugs overdose and have probably already got the obituaries written (seriously).

News is nuggets now, nothing more. Terrorism news is 'ISIS a threat to Britain!' and 'The White Widow!' Football news is 'biting Suarez needs help says Jude Law', political news is 'Pole-axed, real ale fan Farage pledges crackdown on migrant labour', the royal debate is 'bums rush, Kate fumes over Pippa arse pictures'.

We've basically turned into an even more extreme version of the American media. Tat, one liners, histrionics. All analysis replaced by one headline.

Where is the in depth analysis of England's exit? It's in the same late 90s dollar bin as the newspaper with anything serious to say about Iraq. It's why EastEnders actors are invited on Question Time and why Match of the Day pundits start most of their insights with 'we don't know much about this team'.

I definitely agree the media has become more sensationalised - the BBC is a good example of this - but most of the stuff you are quoting there is the exclusive domain of the tabloids. Justin Bieber never appears in the papers I come across, and I know nothing of his mental problems. I actually know nothing of him at all, except his name. Perhaps he does, though, and I don't read the articles.

 

There will be in depth analysis of England's failure; of course there will. Maybe the Sunday papers will be more exhaustive. But everyone will put in their 10 pence.

[xerxes]

The media smell blood with things like Suarez though...Where is the in depth analysis of England's exit?

On the first point Suarez has driven this through Jaws3, not the media, he has only himself to blame.

 

On the second, the papers and radio have been awash with coverage and analysis of our exit from the sublime to the ridiculous.

[Bjornebye]

True. A land of no cities save London (who's streets are paved with gold), just small villages with cricket greens, rolling hills, and tea and scones. All presided over by the sword of truth and the trusty shield of fair play.

That gold you talk about? Its tramps piss. It fucking stinks

[Bjornebye]

On a sidenote, Giorgio Chiellini calling for behind-the-play incidents to be scrutinised more closely is about as lacking in self-awareness as Sepp Blatter calling for a fully independent inquiry into his many offshore bank accounts.

On the money

[El Dangerous]

Funny how people are quick to point out we can't defend him when nobody really is. Unless pointing out the hysterical over reaction compared to other forms of violent misconduct in football is the same as saying "Suarez is innocent guv!" Is the same as defending him.

 

The truth is people are quicker to shrug their shoulders at a rapey cretin like Ched Evans coming back to football whilst Suarez who happens to play for one of the most hated teams in the league should be banned from football. The two thing are obviously unconnected but the lack of reaction to one and over reaction to the other speaks volumes.

[Stickman]

Sensible article in todays Independent...by Glenn Moore, particulary loved the last paragraph as sums up the double standards in this country and how Rugby Union is classed as a gentleman's game and gets very little publicity when they do fuck up.

 

 

 

"Danny Mills would send him to jail, Alan Shearer would ban him worldwide for “as long as I could”, which under Fifa statutes is two years. What heinous crime could Luis Suarez have committed to prompt such a response from two players who were not exactly shrinking violets on the field?

 

He bit someone.

 

He did not fix a match, which strikes at the very heart of sport. He did not use performance-enhancing drugs, which is the most insidious form of cheating. He did not go over the top and break an opponent’s leg, or shatter an opponent’s nose or cheekbone with an elbow. He did not attack a referee (he has done that, head-butting an official, but that was 11 years ago when he was playing youth team football at 16 and he received a long ban).

 

In my mind these are all worse acts than biting an opponent, especially given it was in the heat of the moment, and he did not pursue the act long enough to draw blood.

What he did was disgusting and horrible, sets a terrible example and would be deeply unpleasant to be a victim of. But Giorgio Chiellini played on. If Suarez had broken his leg with a reckless, even premeditated tackle (it happens) he would have been out until Christmas.

Suarez needs psychiatric help, not a jail sentence. He deserves to be banned, ideally for the duration of the World Cup with a longer sentence suspended on condition he has professional treatment, but is his offence really deserving of a longer ban than a player who has threatened the livelihood of another? It is the shock value, and the recidivism, which has accounted for the publicity and outrage.

There is also, clearly, a cultural issue. In Italy, according to a SkyItalia reporter, they are more interested in assessing who is to blame for the Azzurri being out of the World Cup at the group stage (Mario Balotelli appears to be receiving more blame than Suarez). In Brazil the incident seems to be regarded as comedy rather than horror.

In England, however, Suarez is beyond the pale. Diving, biting, cheating: he fits our stereotype of the South American footballing bad guy, the latest in a long line stretching back past Diego Maradona to Antonio Rattin. There is also a place, it should be said, for lovable South Americans, such as Ossie Ardiles, Gus Poyet, and all things Brazilian.

And yet, if the behaviour of Uruguayan Suarez is so reprehensible, how is it Dylan Hartley is still being picked for England’s rugby union team? The hooker was banned for eight weeks for biting the finger of Ireland’s Steven Ferris in a Six Nations international in 2012 – and a finger is rather more vulnerable than a shoulder. Nor was it his first, or last, offence. In 2007 Hartley was banned for six months for eye gouging, which, considering the possible consequences, is far worse than nibbling on a shoulder. He was also banned for punching an opponent and for abusing a referee. Last week this serial offender started for England against New Zealand, his 56th cap. No one seemed to be outraged".

[Lee909]

55 seconds

 

[Lee909]

[Major Tom]

But football is higher profile than rugby and Suarez is higher profile than Tuilagi or Hartley. Hartley, himself has been banned for biting. I think, twice.

 

So, it's not exactly rocket science. Sure there's a shoddy xenophobic element to the coverage, but Suarez (Suarez!) bit someone at a world cup. A fucking world cup. Of course it's going to be big news. Everywhere. And it is.

[A_S]

I've heard about that Shearer incident a number of times but that is the first time I've seen it. What did he get for it again?

[Anubis]

A quick observation.

 

Another of our players did something reprehensible yesterday. Sakho - while the ball was not in play, and not in the course of making a challenge, or to maintain balance (so it cannot possibly be construed as within the framework of the game) - deliberately drew back an elbow and forcefully rammed it into the cheekbone of an opponent. An action which could have had much more serious consequences for that opponent than Suarez's bite.

 

The reaction to this was muted, and one imbicile on the BBC couch even suggested that it wasn't so serious because he was being held and was 'trying to get free.'

 

The cynic in me says the difference between the responses is tempered by a single fact - Sakho is black, and so the media are much more cautious in their approach.

[Anubis]

I've heard about that Shearer incident a number of times but that is the first time I've seen it. What did he get for it again?

 

A free ride.

[Lee909]

I've heard about that Shearer incident a number of times but that is the first time I've seen it. What did he get for it again?

 

Nothing,rumoured to have told the FA if they suspended him he would not play for the national team again and they let him off

[Cardie]

I've heard about that Shearer incident a number of times but that is the first time I've seen it. What did he get for it again?

Lennon got a 6 month ban for headbutting the England Captain in the foot.

 

[ngogswilly]

BBC using the well known photoshopped image in their story here. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28023882

 

Almost tempted to make some form of complaint

[Tony Moanero]

This contract clause/Real Madrid/Barcelona business is boring as fuck. 

 

Fantastic player but I won't lose any sleep if and when he goes. 

[bonesman]

A quick observation.

 

Another of our players did something reprehensible yesterday. Sakho - while the ball was not in play, and not in the course of making a challenge, or to maintain balance (so it cannot possibly be construed as within the framework of the game) - deliberately drew back an elbow and forcefully rammed it into the cheekbone of an opponent. An action which could have had much more serious consequences for that opponent than Suarez's bite.

 

The reaction to this was muted, and one imbicile on the BBC couch even suggested that it wasn't so serious because he was being held and was 'trying to get free.'

 

The cynic in me says the difference between the responses is tempered by a single fact - Sakho is black, and so the media are much more cautious in their approach.

 

Is there really any need ?

[Anubis]

 

Is there really any need ?

 

 

To be cynical? 

[Major Tom]

A quick observation.

 

Another of our players did something reprehensible yesterday. Sakho - while the ball was not in play, and not in the course of making a challenge, or to maintain balance (so it cannot possibly be construed as within the framework of the game) - deliberately drew back an elbow and forcefully rammed it into the cheekbone of an opponent. An action which could have had much more serious consequences for that opponent than Suarez's bite.

 

The reaction to this was muted, and one imbicile on the BBC couch even suggested that it wasn't so serious because he was being held and was 'trying to get free.'

 

The cynic in me says the difference between the responses is tempered by a single fact - Sakho is black, and so the media are much more cautious in their approach.

Logic - flawed or otherwise - suggests to me that elbows are ten-a-penny in football while biting really isn't. And a biting serial offender is going to be top billing.

 

It's the actions, not the outcome, which are under scrutiny here. Rightly or wrongly.

[xerxes]

The cynic in me says the difference between the responses is tempered by a single fact - Sakho is black, and so the media are much more cautious in their approach.

The differences are many, amongst them:

 

Elbows are common, biting is very rare. Sakho is not a convicted serial elbower. Sakho is a relative unknown internationally.

 

I agree that serious foul play should be punished more severely, but not that biting should be taken less seriously.

 

Louis can't have it both ways, if you want a superstars salary, you get a superstars scrutiny.

[xerxes]

BBC using the well known photoshopped image in their story here. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28023882

 

Almost tempted to make some form of complaint

Why is Louis holding his mouth and teeth and grimacing? Did this one not taste as nice as the others?

 

What complaint did you have in mind?

[Anubis]

This isn't about fair scrutiny. It's about singling out one sportsman and launching an unprecedented attack on him bordering on incitement of public violence, while at the same time ignoring the indiscretions of those it's convenient to ignore.

 

I'm sorry, but arguments such as saying rugby is not as popular as football doesn't cut it. Rugby is a world sport with many millions of fans, and an England international sportsman is well known to the English press corps. 

[Jairzinho]

Here's my two cents on the matter:

 

I think some are on dangerous ground here; getting to the stage of defending the indefensible. As Section said earlier, you can't just come out and cite 'Vinnie Jones and Billy Whitehurst blah blah blah' as a way of justifying or demeaning what Suarez has done; as if there's a scale of wrongness here. Certain actions whether they be an awful challenge to deliberately injure a player or to sink your teeth into them are reprehensible in themselves. You can't say 'that challenge was worse than that because he only broke one leg instead of two' or 'the bite didn't draw blood'. It's missing the point and as mongy a statement as anything you'd find in the papers.

 

The thing with tackles and elbows is that they're within the framework of the game itself.

 

Nobody is justifying what Suarez has done. People are pointing out the inconsistency of the coverage of his incident with others. You absolutely can ask the question, why weren't there calls for player x to be banned for two years when he stamped on someone's head? Or elbowed them in the face.

 

This "within the framework of the game" is pretty flimsy for me, as well. A lot of them come down to honesty. Somebody honestly trying to win the ball, or using their arms for leverage, is fine, and you're correct, it's within the framework of the game. But someone elbowing someone else in the face, when the ball is 40 yards away is nothing to do with sport. Players, like Valencia yesterday, who make a coward's challenge with their studs up, to prevent the chance of themselves getting injured, and drastically increase the chance of their opponent get injured, also in my opinion "not within the framework of the game". Its the action of a shithouse.

 

I think people are also well within their rights to point out that being nibbled on the shoulder is unlikely to do as much damage as having an elbow to the head, or a studs up challenge to the ankle/shin/knee. So therefore the outrage at this incident has absolutely nothing to do with protecting players.

 

It shouldn't happen, and he clearly needs help, and also punishment. But talk of two year worldwide bans, and even fucking mongs like Danny Mills saying he should go to jail, is utterly absurd. It is interesting that we're the only country that has gone full retard over this. Italy, the country he actually did it against, and knocked out in the process, preferring to concentrate on their own failings. Their media preferring to concentrate on football rather than "the spectacular". The South American media, laughing it off, and expecting a similar ban of a few games, as you would get for any other violent conduct. So why is it just the English press, and because of that, the English public, that are apoplectic with rage. I think a lot of it has to do with our general view of the sport. The endless cringe worthy comparisons with war, the concept of "being hard". The idea of "putting yourself about". Here we laugh off studs up challenges, headbutts, and elbowing people. Or, worse still, celebrate what a warrior that player must be. Where we allow people like Alan Shearer to give his moral verdict of Luis Suarez. A man that kicked someone in the head. Someone that was lying on the ground at the time. A nation that brushes over Wayne Rooney elbowing McCarthy in the head, 30 or 40 yards away from the ball. A nation that brushes over Shawcross' stamp on Suarez. And what was the public's reaction to the latter? "Go on, son, injure him". We've had our panto villain picked for us, and now we want him out in the stocks.

 

So, yeah, I think we're well within our rights to question the response to the incident.

[Major Tom]

This isn't about fair scrutiny. It's about singling out one sportsman and launching an unprecedented attack on him bordering on incitement of public violence, while at the same time ignoring the indiscretions of those it's convenient to ignore.

 

I'm sorry, but arguments such as saying rugby is not as popular as football doesn't cut it. Rugby is a world sport with many millions of fans, and an England international sportsman is well known to the English press corps.

 

Well, it may not cut it for you but it's just the way things work. The more high profile the sport, the more column inches and airtime it will demand.