Mike K wrote:bbms wrote:The football has very violent plays by its own nature. Every game there are seriously dangerous plays that can end a player's carreer, and to my account, that is worse than what Suárez did. What makes what Suárez did this bad in your eyes, is just the aesthetics of the act, not the damage itself. If you make a courthouse ban to Suárez, than, a lot of really worse attacks, like the Marchisio one, which imposes a bigger threat to Arévalo's health, and is also antidesportive behaviour (lol if you think Marchisio wanted to get the ball on that play), will have to be courthoused' too. This is consistency. Not wanting the head of just one player. I don't want any of them to happen. I want the guy to miss the following game like any red card would do. Because that's one of the rules of this sport, one of the 11. The football should be run by referees not judges, jury and exectioneers.
Look, it's simple. Tackles are a part of the game even if they happen to be dangerous - that's part of football being a contact sport. Biting someone is not part of any sport. It's not an acceptable thing for a human being to do on a football pitch or anywhere else. It has nothing to do with risk of injury. The governing bodies of football and the majority of fans do not want biting to become a part of football. I would have though this had been made pretty clear to certain mr. Suarez with the two long term bans he has already received from two different FA's, but apparently he's not getting the message. So the message needs to be even clearer this time. Luis Suarez is not being victimized. He has no one to blame for this but himself.
Agreed. The message has not been learned (and is likely to never be. There are some acts that are unconscious, Suárez has bitten, was predicted to bite again, and is likely to bite again). Biting isn't part of the football. So why should be applied FOOTBALL SANCTIONS on a NON-FOOTBALL ACT? If acts like this are such PERSONAL acts, why should be applied a COLLECTIVE sanction? Is that really tough to understand that a CRIMINAL LAWSUIT OF AGGRESSION is much better suited, and does the job of disciplining Suáres much better than a disciplinar charge that only takes effect on his PROFESSIONAL life? A sanction on his PERSONAL LIFE disciplines. A sanction on his PROFESSIONAL life, would only discipline if he was unable to still earn lots of millions of pounds per year.
That's just irrational thinking you are doing. It's just regurgitation of pre-made thinking. That's exactly what Fifa will do and guess what? Suárez will be the less affected by the sanction between him, the WC quality of football (how many times you heard "what a shame Suárez did that, now he's likely to miss the world cup... if not you said that"), and most of all, the people who are buying the entertainment circus of the WC.
NOBODY needs a rule or sanction to know that they SHOULD NOT BITE. It's STUPID, it's NOT ETHICAL. If you asked Suárez before the game started "do you think it's wise to bite someone in this match", he would not answer because it's a effing STUPID question. He won't bite because it's not right, because he doesn't want to get bitten next game, and a sanction, a law, a rule will not make any difference in that judgement. Red card is enough punishment in the soccer level, and further punishment is IRRATIONAL, because it hurts who are around him more than the player himself. These players simply don't **** care about the next match. They have their money locked up in long contracts. Common justice, if you want punishment for his actions and just that, is more effective.
Unless you are just afraid of him. I'm not Uruguayan, and I'm
DYING to see Suárez and Uruguay's asses kicked. But with Suárez playing on a great match.
I won't follow the subject, it's getting on anyone's nerves.