La Coupe Du Monde

[Isaac]

3 match ban plus a few for it being unusual I reckon and that wouldn't be unreasonable.

What, even if you keep doing it every couple of years? THREE TIMES since 2010 he has bitten an opponent. His bans thus far have been 7 games and 10 games. Of course he should get considerably more than that for a third offence. Otherwise what's the point? He's obviously not being deterred - his whole rant after the Uruguay-England game about people in the UK treating him badly proved that he has a warped concept of right and wrong.

Biting has no place on a football pitch. Full stop. And yes, if you don't clamp down hard on behaviour like this and make it clear that it's completely unacceptable then kids WILL start copying him. Specially when he's voted Premier League Player of the Season - despite two biting offences and a racial abuse ban in the previous 3 years. And now another one surrounded by pathetic denials and whinging. Some role model eh?

You've not made any reference to my point - which is, if he'd headbutted someone (broken a nose, or a cheekbone, or worse), he'd get a 3 match ban - maybe more if it was his 3rd offence in 4 years.
If he bites someone (and doesn't even draw blood), we want a far worse punishment. Just seems a bit inconsistent. Unless we're saying headbutting is less serious.

[Yankee Clipper]

This is a pretty decent article............

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 63690.html

[GodalmingYellow]

9 games and 4 months is not enough IMHO.

Biting is a serious matter. Hog may correct me, but I believe it falls under the crime of ABH in the UK. I was attacked 15 years ago on my own doorstep by two men and was badly bitten, and had to go into hospital because of the risks of hepatitis, HIV and other transmittable diseases. It is very unpleasant. Biting can lead to transfer of disease from the biter to the recipient, not to mention potential infection and the simple pain and grievance caused by the injury.

Comparing different offences is irrelevant.

This is a player who has now been found guilty of the same grievous offence three times. He has denied the offence and play acted and tried to avoid his punishment. A minimum 6 month ban and more like 1 year ban would have been appropriate.

The fine of circa £65k is woefully inadequate as well.

[Kernow Yellow]

You've not made any reference to my point - which is, if he'd headbutted someone (broken a nose, or a cheekbone, or worse), he'd get a 3 match ban - maybe more if it was his 3rd offence in 4 years.
If he bites someone (and doesn't even draw blood), we want a far worse punishment. Just seems a bit inconsistent. Unless we're saying headbutting is less serious.

Well I addressed some of your points, but not that one admittedly. The problem with the offences you mention is that contact between heads and legs is something that happens regularly in football. People break bones through completely accidental challenges, and there is then a sliding scale of tackles via 'robust' and 'reckless' to 'deliberately violent'. And it's often not possible to tell, even with repeated replays, what someone's intention was. Look at Antonio Valencia's red card challenge yesterday - very dangerous, but you can't be sure that he meant to cause injury or even commit a foul. Likewise the elbows being flung around by the French players against Ecuador, who appeared mainly to be trying to break free from the unfair attentions of their markers. But if it is completely clear that a player has gone out of their way to assault someone instead of playing the ball, then yes of course they should get a longer ban. And this is what happens - Tassotti got 8 games for elbowing Luis Enrique at the 1994 WC, and that was his first offence as far as I'm aware.

Suarez has gone out of his way to commit an assault of a particularly cowardly and unpleasant nature, not in any way part of the general action of the game. And he has done it three times in a few short years. Despite serving lengthy bans the first couple of times. He obviously has not learnt to curb this pernicious side to his game and must be punished more severely. The 4 month ban is frankly at the lower end of what he might have expected (given that the maximum available was 2 years), but I'm just glad that Fifa hasn't ducked the issue and Suarez hasn't got away with his ridiculous pretence that he didn't bite Chiellini at all.

[Snake]

The fine of circa £65k is woefully inadequate.

Regardless of the punishment then Suarez has been pronounced guilty for now (pending the appeal) but the fine is nothing compared to the wage drop he will take in future contracts or more immediate deductions as he's in breach of his Liverpool contract. I assume that the Uruguay appeal will at best only win a reduction of the punishment and he will still be found guilty, so Brendan Rogers and Co. will be busy on their tablets tonight trying to find the best psychiatrist that money can buy.

[Snake]

Another reason why maybe FIFA approved the World Cup in Qatar as they could run commercials on the telly that would bring in a small fortune during the mid-half break for the heat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28075216

[Kernow Yellow]

So the legacy of the last World Cup was the introduction of goal-line technology. I reckon post-match bans for diving will be this one's.

I reckon Mexico will certainly be lobbying for it!

[Snake]

So the legacy of the last World Cup was the introduction of goal-line technology. I reckon post-match bans for diving will be this one's.

I reckon Mexico will certainly be lobbying for it!

I really don’t see why some sort of decision review system could not have been tried at something as mega as the WC. Ok, so it would break up the game up bit but it works in tennis and cricket. For example each team would have one opportunity to call on a “5th video official” and if the decision was overturned then that team would retain the right to use their review again later. The clock could be stopped or added to injury time. If nothing else it would cut down on the post-match criticism of incorrect decisions of the officials by the so called experts (who have studied such incidents from different camera angles and in slow motion).

[Hog]

Shit happens!

[SmileyMan]

Interesting here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28100892 and I've heard the same sentiment in other places - if the 'flopping' was cut out (we should adopt the term!) then the US audiences would grow.

FIFA couldn't give a toss about fair play or the inequal punishments, but 'growing the market in the USA' is a pretty massive carrot.

[Snake]

After last night’s game I’m not surprised that anyone has commented on it because even I (for once) am lost for words.

[recordmeister]

I'm in no way surprised. Brazil haven't been great for the whole show so far, diving all over the place and generally grinding out results. I don/t think Germany have been much better, and last night I didn't think they were even *that* good; they were just much better than a very, very poor Brazil side.

I don't know what it is that people are surprised at. Brazil were very, very poor (why should that be a surprise, they have no godgiven right to be an amazing football team, just because they have a history of being brilliant, and football teams can be awful at times) and Germany were much better. Ergo, the scoreline.

I've seen more *shocking* 0-0 draws. I wish the Brazillian nation woudl grow up and get over themselves. Your football team, who aren't anywhere near as good as previous versions, lost a game because they were crap. Wow. Stop crying and get back to your booming, emerging economy.

[Hog]

(singing) "Just like watching Rose Hill"

I hope PSG have kept their receipt for £50m as presumably they'll want to return their faulty goods?

[Hog]

I'm in no way surprised.

What, not at 1-7? That's 1-SEVEN! At 'home'. In a World Cup semi-final? Not even a little bit?

I wonder what the odds on that were?

[recordmeister]

Nope, not even at 7 (seven) - 1. Any football result, esp at this stage of a tournament, will raise eyebrows ("it could have gone either way" before the game started), but when a team who, I have to say, haven't exactly run rings around other teams in the tournament, lose to a another, better, team (home or away, it is a cup match and doesn't really matter) then I'm not surprised. I was surprised that it wasn't more by the end, but people have a bad day in the office. They f-k up. And that is what the Brazil players did last night. A surprise? Not really, we all fuck up sometimes. They just chose to do it on their home territory in front of their fans when the weight of the nation was on their shoulders... is that really a surprise that they just crumbled under pressure? Really?