• Liverpool Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Paddy Paddy Apr 24, 2013 18:51 Flag


    Hi Robert

    I have no problem with the idea of banning him for 10 games if this was a precedent to discouraging bad behaviour in football full stop. I suspect though, that it will be just this incident that is treated this way.

    As an example, and in no way taking away from what Suarez did, in the same game I saw what looked to me like two dives and an elbow. There seems to be no reaction at all to those incidents.

    I suspect you're right in your view that Suarez has a win at all costs mentality which is clearly wrong. It should be equally wrong to cheat in other ways in professional football in my opinion.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I don't see what banning the guy will achieve.

      Dave Steer posted that he might need professional help, I agree.

      To ban him and let him come back without help would be cruelty on a par with bear baiting.

      This is beyond football, IMHo.

      • 1 Reply to Ralf S
      • You don't see what banning him will achieve?

        1. It's a punishment. What he did was wrong.
        2. It's a message to him and everyone else that biting is considered unacceptable and will be punished.

        It seems to me that those saying he needs help (from JC downwards) are suggesting he is mentally ill in some way. My view is that he is just a **** who never learned to balance reward against responsibility properly. Perhaps a sociopath, as I suggested earlier.


    • I suspect another bite wouldn't get ten matches, just as JT got four where Suarez got eight. This is not because Suarez gets picked on but because it is a repeated offence. But we need to see the FA's reasoning later today.

      I don't remember either dives or an elbow from the match. But then I was watching on Sky with the sound off and I didn't know anything about the bite until well after the match. I saw Carragher whingeing and whingeing and whingeing at the referee and get the impression that was about the alleged elbow.

      The worst thing I saw in the match was Sturridge's foul on Bertrand. That could easily have been a red.

      Where you and I differ is you talk about all cheating being equally wrong, where I think, as I said above, there is an unwritten code. In life, all bad behaviour is not equally wrong. I don't see why it should be on the football field.


      • 2 Replies to Robert M
      • Hi Robert

        Yes - the elbow was on Carra and Torres also dived to get him booked. Mata dived to get Lucas booked in the build up to the second goal. You're quite right - I missed off the most serious of all of them - Sturridge's tackle which could have broken Betrand's leg.

        I know you and I disagree that cheating is cheating but, taking the last example as a jumping off point, wouldn't you be at least as upset if you were on the end of the sort of tackle that Betrand got as Ivanovic was? I know I would.

        Like I say, none of this takes away from the fact that Suarez deserves to be castigated for his actions but the ban does, without the benefit of seeing the reasoning yet, seem unduly harsh when compared with other offences.

      • Robert, just for clarity can you tell me specifically what you mean by Suarez being a repeat offender?

        I'm assuming either the Dutch case or the racial abuse case. But as what happened in Holland is outside the FA's jurisdiction, and racial abuse and violent conduct to me don't see related I'm not sure why he's being treated in your mind as a serial offender.

    • There's an interesting parallel with boxing here. The purpose of boxing is to try to cause brain damage to your opponent (which is what every knockout does) and you are applauded by the boxing world if you do this. However, bite your opponent and you become a complete pariah. That's regarded as completely below the belt. Even more so than hitting someone below the belt.