Suarez a racist

[trooper 940]

If any of us had done that 3 times we'd be facing serious assault charges he should have been give a lifetime ban. If Liverpool have anything about them they'll sack him. Could a team refuse to play against Liverpool with him in the team . and what would happen if they did ?

[Monroe Transfer 0]

They'd be laughed at.

[trooper 940]

Really you dont think its that serious

[BLACKANDWHITEGEORDIE 0]

Really you dont think its that serious

Depends what you class as serious. If Suarez had broken one of our players legs he would get something like a 3 match ban. Our player could be out for months and Suarez action could cost us a number of games. Ciellini to my knowledge was certainly not seriously injured and if Italy had got through would have played the next game.

[Andrew 4748]

The seriousness of the injury is not important in this case, people using that as some sort of argument is nonsensical

[trophyshy 7083]

Aye. If Stevie Gee had lobbed his knob out, with a raging stot on, and spaffed in Pirlo's sexy locks no one would have been injured. But I suspect he may have been given a significant ban from the game all the same.

[trooper 940]

Well I think teams/players would probably have good case for refusing to play against him an essential thing in the team doctors bag will be anti tetanus jabs.

[Gemmill 44881]

Aye. If Stevie Gee had lobbed his knob out, with a raging stot on, and spaffed in Pirlo's sexy locks no one would have been injured. But I suspect he may have been given a significant ban from the game all the same.

I'd have give him a hero's welcome for that tbf.

[aimaad22 4156]

The seriousness of the injury is not important in this case, people using that as some sort of argument is nonsensical

 

True, but I still think its disgraceful that tackles obviously meant to injure are usually only dealt with with a 3 game ban. Mcmanaman De Jong etc etc

[Monkeys Fist 42449]

Aye. If Stevie Gee had lobbed his knob out, with a raging stot on, and spaffed in Pirlo's sexy locks no one would have been injured. But I suspect he may have been given a significant ban from the game all the same.

[Sonatine 11378]

[ADP 0]

 

True, but I still think its disgraceful that tackles obviously meant to injure are usually only dealt with with a 3 game ban. Mcmanaman De Jong etc etc

 

 

English legislation on sport and football leaves enough room for interpretation so that such tackles may be construed as within the 'spirit of the game' (which don't mean sportsmanship). Once you enter onto the pitch (or any other sporting building, area, court, boxing ring etc), you are effectively signing a contract that says you accept the risks posed by the sport you are participating in, you are consenting to the dangers, such as tackling that may result in serious injury because it is part of the game. Biting is not part of the game. It boils down to the fact that you do not expect to get gnawed on when you step on the pitch, that you aren't accepting that possible injury to you when you enter the stadium; you can however expect hard tackles (even malicious tackles are largely covered by legislation). That is why the argument of 'there are more dangerous things that happen on a pitch than that bite' is irrelevant. Under English law at least, and similarly in Canada, Australia, and the USA, the biting of a player goes beyond sports legislation and should in theory enter into criminal law.

 

When Roy Keane said in his autobiography or whatever that he wanted to end Alf Inge Haaland's career when he kicked him, he should have really been arrested. It satisfies the intent that goes beyond the 'sporting arena' and into GBH.

Edited June 28, 2014 by ADP

[Monkeys Fist 42449]

 

https://twitter.com/Marcotti/status/482742874

I was waiting for the translation, cheers.

[trophyshy 7083]

[aimaad22 4156]

 

 

English legislation on sport and football leaves enough room for interpretation so that such tackles may be construed as within the 'spirit of the game' (which don't mean sportsmanship). Once you enter onto the pitch (or any other sporting building, area, court, boxing ring etc), you are effectively signing a contract that says you accept the risks posed by the sport you are participating in, you are consenting to the dangers, such as tackling that may result in serious injury because it is part of the game. Biting is not part of the game. It boils down to the fact that you do not expect to get gnawed on when you step on the pitch, that you aren't accepting that possible injury to you when you enter the stadium; you can however expect hard tackles (even malicious tackles are largely covered by legislation). That is why the argument of 'there are more dangerous things that happen on a pitch than that bite' is irrelevant. Under English law at least, and similarly in Canada, Australia, and the USA, the biting of a player goes beyond sports legislation and should in theory enter into criminal law.

 

When Roy Keane said in his autobiography or whatever that he wanted to end Alf Inge Haaland's career when he kicked him, he should have really been arrested. It satisfies the intent that goes beyond the 'sporting arena' and into GBH.

 

Im aware of the logic, I was just saying its shit. The tackle on Haidara should have had a 6 month ban, because it could have ended his career.

[BLACKANDWHITEGEORDIE 0]

The seriousness of the injury is not important in this case, people using that as some sort of argument is nonsensical

So it is nonsensical that a player can end another player's career and get a 3 match ban. That betting by players is not allowed but it goes on. That tax avoidance schemes by players are not allowed but they go on. My argument was not that Suarez should have not got a ban but the huge gulf between the punishment for biting a player and ending a player's career is ludicrous.

[aimaad22 4156]

 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894]

So it is nonsensical that a player can end another player's career and get a 3 match ban. That betting by players is not allowed but it goes on. That tax avoidance schemes by players are not allowed but they go on. My argument was not that Suarez should have not got a ban but the huge gulf between the punishment for biting a player and ending a player's career is ludicrous.

You can end a career with a mis timed or just badly executed tackle. Biting is a sign of a personality disorder.

[aimaad22 4156]

You can end a career with a mis timed or just badly executed tackle. Biting is a sign of a personality disorder.

 

He should be told to go see a psychiatrist then. Bans wont cure the disorder, as we already seem to be seeing in Suarez's case. Not that I think the ban is harsh or anything, this kind of behaviour just cant be allowed. However the bastards who like breaking other people's legs also need the discouragement of a potential 6 month ban.

Edited June 29, 2014 by aimaad22

[Monroe Transfer 0]

 

He should be told to go see a psychiatrist then. Bans wont cure the disorder, as we already seem to be seeing in Suarez's case. Not that I think the ban is harsh or anything, this kind of behaviour just cant be allowed. However the bastards who like breaking other people's legs also need the discouragement of a potential 6 month ban.

 

I think the problem with dodgy tackles is that they're not always as 100% conclusively blatant as Suarez's bite was. Even when they're horrible and reckless, the disciplinary boards might have doubts over intent etc.

I do agree with your fundamental point though.

[aimaad22 4156]

Aye I agree with all of that. I just think in the rare case when intent is clear to see, like the Haidara one, then an exemplary ban should be handed out. The excuse they handed out for not doing so in that case was absolutely pathetic too. Load of rubbish. I'd much rather be on the end of a Suarez bite than a cowardly challenge like that.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Aye I agree with all of that. I just think in the rare case when intent is clear to see, like the Haidara one, then an exemplary ban should be handed out. The excuse they handed out for not doing so in that case was absolutely pathetic too. Load of rubbish. I'd much rather be on the end of a Suarez bite than a cowardly challenge like that.

Agreed, although that incident did at least lead to a rule change where players can be punished for incidents even if the referee has already dealt with the event. As should have always been the case.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Despise players getting booked for taking their shirts off and the like. Can sort of understand why they're not meant to celebrate with fans although it's not like there's a strong precedent of issues arising from doing so.

But for using your top to celebrate? If you're not advertising Paddy Power then what's the big deal? If you are advertising a company, then take action during or after the match.

[BLACKANDWHITEGEORDIE 0]

 

he shouldn't be allowed to play if it's a disorder if there's a known risk to other players then...

 

4month is a let off they should be over the fcking moon for it, fact is whether it's a bite a headbutt or a punch there's absolutly no comeback from it, no way to justify or defend it (like you could attempt for a mistimed tackle)

And it's the third time it's happened... 4months is a joke.

Why can you justify or defend a mistimed tackle, but not a mistimed punch, mistimed head butt or mistimed bite.

Edited June 29, 2014 by BLACKANDWHITEGEORDIE

[aimaad22 4156]