• Liverpool Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Robert M Robert M Apr 25, 2013 07:19 Flag


    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.


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • He does deserve a ban, of that I think few doubt. The only question is how long that ban should be, which is where there seems to be disagreement.

      However to Ralf's point, and here I agree with him, a ban alone is not going to be enough imo. I have no doubt that Suarez is someone who will look to bend the rules in order to win, the handball Sunday, and the World Cup is evidence of that. However the bite Sunday and in Holland, while deliberate I see not as some master plan to unnerve defenders, but an act by someone who cannot fully control his emotions.

      It really comes down to, if you believe Suarez acts out in an effort to influence the result, that he's a rational actor. By diving, talking to defenders (which almost all players do) or hand balling he thinks he can gain advantage with no or minimal cost. the WC handball is a perfect example. He knew by handling he would save the goal and give his team a chance. But he also knew he'd be sent off, banned for the next fixture, and that he'd only given the team a chance as there was no guarantee the penalty would be saved. But he made a rational choice. Other players have handled on the line, and the subsequent penalty has resulted in a goal, and the incident is quickly forgotten, but for some reason because the Ghanaian missed the spot kick we think Suarez somehow got away with some dastardly deed.

      But where is the rational behavior in either biting cases? Its obvious he'd be caught and punished, and hard to see what advantage he'd gain for himself or his team. That is even more clear in the Holland case where it happened 3 or 4 feet away from the onlooking ref.

      Which is why I don't see either as premeditated, or some master plan of a scheming Suarez. And, therefor why I think Suarez needs some help with how to handle his emotions on the pitch. But that is not the job of the FA, but I do hope its something the player himself seeks out, and the club helps him with. And, remember he's not the only one with this issue. Biting maybe unusual, but the so called "Red Mist' inflicts many players, they just don't act out in the same way.

      • 2 Replies to dsteer_lfc_68
      • I think the goalline handball was pure reaction. There was no time to think at all. Either way, it's a similar offence to a player hauling back a striker who has got past him.

        The bite, if not pre-meditated, was done knowingly. If not, it's not a question of needing help, it's more a question of needing restraint.

        It's not a job for the FA to control him? The FA might be observing that the last time he was in big trouble, he lied about it repeatedly in many ways, before the enquiry, during the enquiry and after the enquiry. And his employers did too, as is clear from the FA report. His employers backed him up as fully as they were able, even to the extent of slandering Evra, and didn't accept the FA report. So why should the FA believe that LFC and Suarez between them will fix his behaviour now?

        In fact, we now have Rodgers coming out and saying, before hearing the FA's reasons, that he is "shocked and bitterly disappointed" with the ban. That's rather stronger than his reaction to the offence. And the mood music from LFC is "we're backing our player".


      • The handball may have been an instinctive reaction, but still a rational act - "stop them from scoring". However I think you understand what premeditated means, so don't think your suggesting he thought ahead of time about who he was planning biting that day. But it was also no accident either, so I'd place it in the category as many violent acts on the football field at stem from the so called red mist.

        Some kick out, some might throw a punch, some might stick their foot in next time they get chance, and while I'm not condemning any of these nor the bite, and some might put them in a certain order based on severity (or some other measurement) I would put them all in the same category, deliberate violent conduct.

        As for who should control them i think you've miss understood my point here. There are two parts, their is punishment, where I don't agree with the sentence I do think your right the FA has the responsibility to hand out some sanction for the offense committed. But second and separate is what the player needs as a human being, which imo is some kind of professional counselling to help him manage his anger/emotions when on the pitch. The FA is not responsible for this part, but I think the club is.

        As for the lying, not sure where your going here. By this logic anyone who has appealed to the FA and failed in that appeal should be treated differently than everyone else. For example the French striker from Arsenal recently had his appeal of his red card turned down as the FA panel did not believe his story that he slipped into the player. So now it's "proven" he lied, if he's ever charged with an offense by the FA, should we expect the sanction to be at least tripled from the standard sanction?

        Lastly on BR, I think all you've heard, is his opinion based on a question posed to him. You may or may not agree with him, but what he actually said seems to echo a lot of what I've read from various written opinions reacting to the length of the ban. Opinion is varied on this issue, which does not seem surprising when it comes to Suarez, however the fact one person is shocked and disappointed at how long the ban is, is balanced by those who are shocked and disappointed that he only got 10 games, but i'm not sure I'd read much into either view.