Jump to content

Luis Suarez


Blueboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Third BITE doesn't mean FIFA should threat him like a criminal and take out his WC credentials. No one is questioning the punishment here, just the kind of punishment.

why not? if he was to stay in brazil with uruguay team, he would provoke a reaction from the fans, the opposition etc during matches and looking at how he acted like a massive twat on the touchline 4 years ago vs Ghana (after getting sent off) , FIFA are spot on to send him packing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's not what he means and you know it isn't.

I'm a football coach and last night at an under 8s training session, I had dozens of kids laughing and joking saying they were going to bite someone. It only takes one bad tackle or push and that bite becomes a reality in the heat of the situation.

And you're saying a bite isn't assault? :blink:

Exactly, what I was going to say. So many kids look to him, and he bites people, they are going to do the same. And what if he or them, God forbids, bite an artery, and do something to the other player. He is a magestic footballer, wacked in the head tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also as for Leonardo after his elbow he visited Ramos in hospital and was crying when he apologized. Suarez's action wasn't as severe but has shown absolutely no remorse and in fact believes there is a conspiracy against him. All the more reason to punish him if he doesn't see his faults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henrique's posts do get more bites than a defender marking Suarez don't they.

It was his third time doing this, he's already had two bans so of course it was going to be heavy especially doing it in the biggest international tournament going.

As for his credentials being removed, what choice did FIFA have? What reason did he have for still being there? HE HAS NO BUSINESS HAVING CREDENTIALS. That's why they were removed and why he was told to fuck off. That doesn't mean he's being treated like a criminal.

He's being treated like a person without appropriate credentials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm leaving this topic.

I like psychedelic stuff, but thats enough for me.

go to your local shopping centre and bite people at random. see for yourself if its an assault or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm leaving this topic.

I like psychedelic stuff, but thats enough for me.

Next time someone bites you at the office don't call it an assault. Be a gentleman, give the man your whole arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third BITE doesn't mean FIFA should threat him like a criminal and take out his WC credentials. No one is questioning the punishment here, just the kind of punishment.

Yes it does.

Because if you do it a third time it means you will never learn. So you have no choice but to throw the book at him, or some chiellini. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is - if he HAD ADMITTED IT and apologised - I think his punishment would have been less.

Not admitting it, threatening to sue FIFA etc is never going to end well

That's why he's a MASSIVE BELL END along with all of his supporters.

Admit you did something wrong, take the punishment like a man and move on...

I mean the video evidence is there - why even deny it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To honest I don't get this kind of argument. If you think what he did offended Children, then kids should not be allowed to watch football.

So Suarez should be banned from football because parents with kids have a lot of explaining to do?

I guess you don't have kids?

Monkey see, monkey do - is how children are influenced, parenting and education provide a filter for behaviour - along with children finding 'role models'

Suarez did something that was so out of the ordinary for a football match, it's hard for parents to explain (rationally) and to ensure kids don't think this behaviour is acceptable.

Football has worked hard (especially in the UK) to get rid of racism, fighting and bad language - so that the sport millions of children follow can be enjoyed by the whole family - this is a good thing.

I'm sure you can twist my words to suit your agenda - fair play - I always read your posts and try to understand the different angle you take, I like that - it challenges my thoughts and opinions. But, I'm really struggling to understand your perspective on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To honest I don't get this kind of argument. If you think what he did offended Children, then kids should not be allowed to watch football.

So Suarez should be banned from football because parents with kids have a lot of explaining to do?

Rooney's son :)

9b86681aa318.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Chielini, the victim, is saying the punishment is excessive.

Because it is not an easy one...

One one hand it's a ridiculous thing, he's done before, and he is a role model (yeah right!). If we go that route then many will have to be banned for life (Balotelli).

On the other hand, is Chiellini unable to play? What was the actual long-term effects caused by the sick act. He did not break a leg, or went over the ball to hurt the player: it was something very silly and that's why we have all these jokes over the internet.

He certainly deserves a ban, but I still find it ironic that he gets 4 months, while players who literally and intentionally break the leg/knee/ankle of a colleague get a couple/handful of matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He certainly deserves a ban, but I still find it ironic that he gets 4 months, while players who literally and intentionally break the leg/knee/ankle of a colleague get a couple/handful of matches.

Suarez would also normally just get a handful of matches but this is his third offence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, and no. Intentional violent tackle is not what football is about. Take the Aguero/Luiz incident two seasons ago. Thats definitely not what you should expect to see on the pitch. You are basically saying if the agressor using his foot in FOOTball, its more acceptable than using his teeth. I can't accept that. I agree, bitting is totally out of place, but again, I said he deserved the punishment, I'm just saying FIFA just went too far, specially with the 4 month ban, and taking out his WC credentials and treating him like a criminal.

Its not the only problem here. What was the criterion used to punish him? Who punished him? Why 9 games and not 10? Why 4 months and not 3, 5, 6, or even 1 year?

Punishment with no rules to regulate the punitive power is always some kind of authoritarianism.

His football activity ban is totally out of place. FIFA should only ban players from international duties. His aggression happened in a WC. Why he should be banned from club competition? Competitions that FIFA is not involved?

But in the last sentence you said FIFA should obligate Suarez to see some psychiatrist. It seems you love an authoritarianism, just like most part of Brazilians.

Using his foot is also unacceptable. But in the scale of unacceptable things, it is lower than biting. Unless we're talking about kicking someone with no ball involved, then it is about the same. But I was talking about those cases when a players is already doing a sliding tackle, for example, and when he notices he won't reach the ball, he hits the other player "just because". His first motive was legit, but frustration with the game or for not being able to reach the ball with that tackle made him decide to hit the opponent. That's one thing. Most violent plays we see fall into that, tackles, elbowing, you name it. His bitings incidents are totally different. He wasn't challenging for the ball in any of them, they were gratuitous aggressions, totally uncalled for. In addition, he chose to do it in the most bizarre and out of the place way he could find, which makes everything even more shocking. As a law student or lawyer yourself you should know that the means you choose to commit a crime and the circumstances are taken in consideration too. It's not only about potential damage. It also matters whether it is your first incident or your third, fourth... And you also know when someone behaves in a manner one would question his sanity, he should undergo some sort of psychiatric evaluation. It is not authoritarianism, he brought it upon himself. He should be only allowed after being cleared from a psychiatrist in order to protect other players. Who's to know when will he attack again. The part where you question why 9 and not 10, why 4 months and not 6, I agree with. However that is not exclusive to Suarez, that could have been asked in many other cases. Punishment in football seems to be chosen with a heavy dose of subjectivity, unfortunately. I think how they sentenced Suarez was reasonable though. By the way, he IS sort of a criminal for biting people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You