Luis Suarez

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

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.

I think you're mixing up the act (dangerous tackle, biting someone) with the consequences of that act (broken leg, bite marks). When deciding how long to ban someone you should only look at the act and how much intent there was to harm the player, not what happened to the intended victim.

For example leg breaking tackles happen a lot. The fact that the victim doesn't break his leg doesn't mean the aggressor should be given a lesser punishement because his intended victim got lucky to have not broken his leg.

Also biting isn't something a sane person does and it's the third time he's done this. That also comes into play when deciding how long to punish him.

I actually feel he should have been punished longer.

The guy just has mental problems.

Oh and the attitude of the Uruguyan Coach and that one player is just disgracefull. Pretending like Suarez didn't bite Chiellini and calling him a liar. 1 word for that : Classless

[zolayes 14,489]

I think you're mixing up the act (dangerous tackle, biting someone) with the consequences of that act (broken leg, bite marks). When deciding how long to ban someone you should only look at the act and how much intent there was to harm the player, not what happened to the intended victim.

For example leg breaking tackles happen a lot. The fact that the victim doesn't break his leg doesn't mean the aggressor should be given a lesser punishement because his intended victim got lucky to have not broken his leg.

Also biting isn't something a sane person does and it's the third time he's done this. That also comes into play when deciding how long to punish him.

I actually feel he should have been punished longer.

The guy just has mental problems.

Oh and the attitude of the Uruguyan Coach and that one player is just disgracefull. Pretending like Suarez didn't bite Chiellini and calling him a liar. 1 word for that : Classless

excellent logic

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

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?

You really shouldn't underestimate the effect this has on Children.

Children are extremely prone to copying (famous) people they look up too.

[Jype 6,398]

[zolayes 14,489]

FLANDERS and SWANN sang it "EATING PEOPLE IS WRONG"

[Special Juan 27,093]

The fact he has children makes it all the more worse what this bloke has done.

[iseah100 5,612]

The fact he has children makes it all the more worse what this bloke has done.

"Dad, what the fuck, man? Why'd you do that? You never let me bit anyone."

[Special Juan 27,093]

"Dad, what the fuck, man? Why'd you do that? You never let me bit anyone."

Exactly.

[zolayes 14,489]

read the words of The Reluctant Cannibal.. the song is a classic

[robsblubot 3,205]

I think you're mixing up the act (dangerous tackle, biting someone) with the consequences of that act (broken leg, bite marks). When deciding how long to ban someone you should only look at the act and how much intent there was to harm the player, not what happened to the intended victim.

For example leg breaking tackles happen a lot. The fact that the victim doesn't break his leg doesn't mean the aggressor should be given a lesser punishement because his intended victim got lucky to have not broken his leg.

Also biting isn't something a sane person does and it's the third time he's done this. That also comes into play when deciding how long to punish him.

I actually feel he should have been punished longer.

The guy just has mental problems.

Oh and the attitude of the Uruguyan Coach and that one player is just disgracefull. Pretending like Suarez didn't bite Chiellini and calling him a liar. 1 word for that : Classless

I am not mixing them, I'm using both as information.

Make up your mind... is he insane or does he show intent?! Because by law, intention demands sanity.

The intent of the tackle does not matter as much as people make it out to be - in the rules: players can and will be shown red cards due to excessive force regardless of intent. Same reason if your hand touches the football inside the box it's a handball even without intention (esp if changes direction etc). You lunge at a player with both feet, studs up, you may get a red regardless whether you touch the football or not.

So, based on your logic, we are (severely) punishing Suarez for being insane? Isn't making the same mistake over and over again (costing him a lot) proving that he has no control over it? That it is NOT about intent?!

[zolayes 14,489]

If he IS Sane he should be looked up .

If he isn't Sane he should be locked .

just a different institution ..

[Fernando 6,375]

I am not mixing them, I'm using both as information.

Make up your mind... is he insane or does he show intent?! Because by law, intention demands sanity.

The intent of the tackle does not matter as much as people make it out to be - in the rules: players can and will be shown red cards due to excessive force regardless of intent. Same reason if your hand touches the football inside the box it's a handball even without intention (esp if changes direction etc). You lunge at a player with both feet, studs up, you may get a red regardless whether you touch the football or not.

So, based on your logic, we are (severely) punishing Suarez for being insane? Isn't making the same mistake over and over again (costing him a lot) proving that he has no control over it? That it is NOT about intent?!

If he's insane, he should not be playing professional futbol period.

[robsblubot 3,205]

If he's insane, he should not be playing professional futbol period.

insanity is not that simple - not black and white.

Check how the law deals with it - "not simple" is an understatement.

I don't have the answers, but I'm not so sure that the punishment given is adequate.

The solution to deal with the "slightly" insane isn't to throw them in jail, especially when they not dangerous. Is Suarez dangerous? How so?

[Fernando 6,375]

Luis Suarez is a god over in Uruguay.

He could slap the president and people still will clap him.

Never thought I would meet more delusional people then Liverpool fans in my life.

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

I am not mixing them, I'm using both as information.

Make up your mind... is he insane or has the intent?! Because by law, intention demands sanity.

The intent of the tackle does not matter as much as people make it out to be - in the rules: players can and will be shown red cards due to excessive force regardless of intent. Same reason if your hand touches the football inside the box it's a handball even without intention (esp if changes direction etc). You lunge at a player with both feet, studs up, you may get a red regardless whether you touch the football or not.

So, based on your logic, we are (severely) punishing Suarez for being insane? Isn't making the same mistake over and over again (costing him a lot) proving that he has no control over it? That it is NOT about intent?!

You don't consider biting someone as excessive ?

Well let me put it this way if he's insane and can't control the urge to bite people then he should be put in a mental institution and undergo tests before he's allowed back on a football pitch.

If he's sane then he had intent to hurt another player and should be banned for a long time.

Also you keep comparing dangerous tackles to biting but with dangerous tackles you can still argue that the intent was there to get the ball. It's still part of football.

Suarez biting someone, the intent to hurt (or insanity) is crystal clear. You can't say he was trying to get the ball, got caught up in the moment and then bit Chiellini.

Don't really get why you're trying to hide behind what to label the action. Insanity or intent to hurt. Both reasons should result in no football (for a long time) for Suarez.

and like i said if it's intent to hurt then he's a repeat offender. 3 freaking times !

[Eidur the Spider 4,515]

[robsblubot 3,205]

You don't consider biting someone as excessive ?

Well let me put it this way if he's insane and can't control the urge to bite people then he should be put in a mental institution and undergo tests before he's allowed back on a football pitch.

If he's sane then he had intent to hurt another player and should be banned for a long time.

Also you keep comparing dangerous tackles to biting but with dangerous tackles you can still argue that the intent was there to get the ball. It's still part of football.

Suarez biting someone, the intent to hurt (or insanity) is crystal clear. You can't say he was trying to get the ball, got caught up in the moment and then bit Chiellini.

Don't really get why you're trying to hide behind what to label the action. Insanity or intent to hurt. Both reasons should result in no football (for a long time) for Suarez.

and like i said if it's intent to hurt then he's a repeat offender. 3 freaking times !

I'm not hiding behind anything. This isn't about me - I don't bite people (unless required and I have a strict policy about females only).

Of course it's excessive! It's also ridiculous and he deserves a ban.

There is no hurt! We have to agree to disagree, because I for one agree that what he's done is not comparable to a dangerous tackle: the dangerous tackle is, by definition, dangerous, while what he has done isn't.

What we disagree about is how important the intent is. And that there is intent behind Suarez' actions - there is no intent there only slight insanity.

What could Suarez possible gain by biting Chiellini? Woudl that incapacitate Chiellini in any way? Show Chiellini that Suarez really really wanted to win it? Reckon he kinda knew that already.

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

I'm not hiding behind anything. This isn't about me - I don't bite people (unless required).

There is no hurt! We have to agree to disagree, because I for one agree that what he's done is not comparable to a dangerous tackle: the dangerous tackle is, by definition, dangerous, while what he has done isn't.

What with disagree about is how important the intent is. And that there is intent behind Suarez' actions - there is no intent there only slight insanity.

There is no hurt ? So someone sinking there teeth into your skin doesn't hurt at all ?

Again a dangerous tackle is part of football. With a dangerous tackle there is still the intent to get the ball while when biting someone there is only one intent, hurting the player.

There is no intent ? How can you say that ? He bit someone, unprovoked and the ball wasn't anywhere near them. What other intent could he have but to hurt the player ?

Even if it's only slight insanity. He still can't control himself biting other people which means he's insane and shouldn't be allowed on a football pitch untill it's sorted out.