How to solve a problem like Suarez?

First topic message reminder :

Suarez for the third time in his career bit another footballer during a match.
The first for Ajax in 2010 when he bit a PSV player (Bakkal) on the shoulder and received a 7 game ban.
The second for Liverpool v Chelsea in 2013 on Ivanovic for which he received a 10 game ban.
And now on the grandest stage of all he's sunk his fangs into Chiellini.

What though should his punishment be?

Ah Diego Maradona, the moral compass of humanity.

Maradona vs Blatter - You'd hope they both end each other.

I don't by any means think Pepe's incident is nearly as bad as Suarez's, and I'm not a fan of Pepe nor that overwhelmed by Suarez's behaviour.

I also think those claiming Liverpool are being punished unfairly by FIFA are delusional. They can fine him, they can sack him, they can sell him, but they are being punished by the player not by FIFA.

Maradona vs Blatter = #teamblatter

(Much in the same way that I'd be #teamhitler over #teamstalin, I hasten to add!)

Giorgio Chiellini says the decision to give Luis Suarez a four-month ban from football for biting him is excessive.

Writing on his personal website, Chiellini, 29, said: "I have always considered unequivocal the disciplinary interventions by the competent bodies but, at the same time, I believe that the proposed formula is excessive.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:In the rugby world biting, eye gouging and spitting are some of the worst thing you can do.

Punching, stamping (not on head) head butting isn't accepted but no one will hold it against you after the game, biting is looked upon as the most cowardly of acts and shows a complete lack of respect to your opponent and the game itself.

i thought feigning injury was the worst thing in rugby, remember that player who took blood tablets to make it look like he was bleeding to feign injury.

It's funny you should mention that, because although there are similarities in principle, the player concerned was merely a dupe, acting under orders from his head coach.  

For those who are unaware of what CS is referring to, the match in question was a Heineken Cup (the rugby equivalent of the Champions League) semi final between Harlequins and Munster.  Quins had substituted (rather than merely replaced) their regular fly half and goal kicker and were losing the match.  Their head coach, Dean Richards (a former England forward and 4 times championship winning head coach with Leicester Tigers), realising he had dropped a bo**ock tactically, wanted to get his goal kicker back on the field and the only way he could do it within the rules would be if a blood injury occurred to the substitute who had taken his place.

When a minor injury happened, Richards sent the physio on the field with a couple of theatrical fake blood pellets and gave instructions that the player should bite on them and make it look as if he had a blood injury and needed to be replaced, thus getting his regular goal kicker back on the field.

It worked, insomuch as the goal kicker was allowed back, but Quins still lost the match anyway.  In the meantime, the referee had smelled a rat, so had the RFU monitor watching the game.   When officials demanded to see the allegedly injured player, Richards panicked and ordered the club doctor to cut the player's lip with a scalpel in order to make the "injury" look legitimate.  The doctor was furious and initially refused.  The player was extremely unhappy about it too, but Richards is used to getting his own way and bullied both into going along with it all.

Eventually though, it was all seen through.  The doctor and player admitted what had happened and Richards was done, bang to rights.  Although all who took part in the whole farrago were appropriately charged and punished, there was no doubt as to who was responsible for it all.

Dean Richards was banned from all rugby activities for four years.

The reason I have gone into that lengthy explanation of what may seem a wholly unrelated incident, is that it occurred because one individual thought he was above the game.  Was too accustomed to being indulged and allowed to get away with dubious on field tactics  (Leicester Tigers had become known in rugby circles as Leicester Cheetahs by other clubs during Richards tenure) and had gotten away with bullying people.  

Whilst I am not suggesting that Luis Suarez has that kind of power (in a fair fight he probably couldn't bully his way out of a paper bag), he is deluded, as Richards was, that everything is acceptable as long as it contributes to winning the game.   Let's not forget his handball against Ghana in the 2010 Quarter Final.  When Uruguay won that match he was ecstatic.  Not a hint of shame or remorse about his reprehensible act.   To him...... and sadly, many others in South America and other places...... everything is justified if it contributes to winning the game.

Quite how sinking his teeth into an Italian defender achieves a victorious outcome to the match, I have no idea.... you'd have to ask Luis Suarez, but in the dark corners of his troubled mind I'm in little doubt that this was somehow at the forefront of his deluded thinking.  Perhaps he thought he may provoke retaliation by Chiellini that would get him sent off.  You wouldn't put such a despicable act past Suarez, would you..?

In the same way, Dean Richards believed that he could get away with a flagrant act of deception for the same purpose.... to win a match.   This is the extent to which some people will go to win games.

Sadly, this is the direction sport is taking as the stakes become higher and higher.  

To be fair, it is extremely rare for players or coaches go to such extreme lengths as Richards or Suarez, but if unchecked, it could become as much the norm as diving.  I can remember when diving was rare, but it's so commonplace now that it's considered not only normal, but somehow, "professional".   I know what I call it.

I am watching, on the BBC news, Uruguayan fans give Suarez a heroes return as he flies into Montevideo.  This is a bad sign.  It's only going to cement further in his mind, the notion that he is being stitched up.... that he has done nothing wrong.

Those fans aren't doing Luis Suarez any favours, but you try telling them that.

I quite agree, Fourth Lion, about the direction football is headed in. It is regrettable, and it is another reason for why I'm largely falling out love with football.

Didn't realise Suarez was also fined 100, 000 Suisse Francs, The Christmas party at the non profit organization just got a timely tax free boost.

Not all, but a lot of Liverpool fans have let themselves down over this whole sorry affair.

Trying to justify and/or make excuses for a fully grown man sinking his teeth into another player is just sad. Really sad.

I thought he'd get a longer ban than he has. If it was up to me I'd sell as soon as possible.

I still can't believe he done it....again.....even though I said (in a previous thread) that he'd do something stupid again!

YWNWA

He should have had a life time global ban for the on field blatant racist abuse he committed.

Instead he got to play on, adopted a victim mentality, refused the handshake of the man he racially abused and bit two players.

In my lifetime he is the worst human being I've seen playing the game- he happens to be brilliant at it so he has gotten away with it so far - and he will continue to.

Ent wrote:He should have had a life time global ban for the on field blatant racist abuse he committed.

Instead he got to play on, adopted a victim mentality, refused the handshake of the man he racially abused and bit two players.

In my lifetime he is the worst human being I've seen playing the game- he happens to be brilliant at it so he has gotten away with it so far - and he will continue to.

Would you have banned John Terry as well?

FIFA have set a precident with this punishment, in as much as should a player receive a red card for a two footed tackle or dangerous play more than once then surely they have to take similar action, a player who consistently performs dangerous tackles (Pepe, Ramos etc) is just as dangerous. Bet that doesn't happen though.

The two situations are different so no precedent has been set, poor tackles are part of the game that can be explained using a manner of excuses, biting somebody cannot.

Duty281 wrote:I quite agree, Fourth Lion, about the direction football is headed in. It is regrettable, and it is another reason for why I'm largely falling out love with football.

 
Dont blame you Duty.
 
Reasons why I dont really watch football anymore(except for Villa & ROI), which in itself can be hard going.
But they are my teams and will always follow them to the day I die.
 
Not much interest in watching any other teams, although have enjoyed this world cup(except for the Suarez & Muellar incuidents).
 
Incidents like what Muellar did just really put me off the game. The play acting, shocking stuff.
 
It is sad the way its going.

I'll say that I place all the blame at Muller's door for that incident, if he was rolling around on the floor trying to get me sent off after no contact i'd want to headbutt him too.

Should have had a ban to.

Pathetic stuff.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The two situations are different so no precedent has been set, poor tackles are part of the game that can be explained using a manner of excuses, biting somebody cannot.

Violent behaviour then. For example Pepe using his head, he's done it multiple times now and gets very little done about it. I was reading a few days ago about Ben Thatcher, his ban by the FA was pathetic in comparison to this.

We see the same players making dangerous two footed tackles every season, they can not be excused and could end someones career and in certain players cases I would argue that they are deliberate, they should be dealt with just as harshly as this.

Some of the comments I've seen from the media have been beyong stupid, Danny Mills saying lock him up for example. What he did is stupid, disgusting and he deserves his punishment however other things now need to be dealth with in the same manor.

hampo171 wrote:

Ent wrote:He should have had a life time global ban for the on field blatant racist abuse he committed.

Instead he got to play on, adopted a victim mentality, refused the handshake of the man he racially abused and bit two players.

In my lifetime he is the worst human being I've seen playing the game- he happens to be brilliant at it so he has gotten away with it so far - and he will continue to.

Would you have banned John Terry as well?

FIFA have set a precident with this punishment, in as much as should a player receive a red card for a two footed tackle or dangerous play more than once then surely they have to take similar action, a player who consistently performs dangerous tackles (Pepe, Ramos etc) is just as dangerous. Bet that doesn't happen though.

Yes.

Bans are already extended for recurrent indiscipline throughout a season.

You can't compare bad tackles to biting someone, tackling is part of the game biting isn't.

Hampo are you saying he doesn't deserve the ban?

hampo171 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The two situations are different so no precedent has been set, poor tackles are part of the game that can be explained using a manner of excuses, biting somebody cannot.

Violent behaviour then. For example Pepe using his head, he's done it multiple times now and gets very little done about it. I was reading a few days ago about Ben Thatcher, his ban by the FA was pathetic in comparison to this.

We see the same players making dangerous two footed tackles every season, they can not be excused and could end someones career and in certain players cases I would argue that they are deliberate, they should be dealt with just as harshly as this.

Some of the comments I've seen from the media have been beyong stupid, Danny Mills saying lock him up for example. What he did is stupid, disgusting and he deserves his punishment however other things now need to be dealth with in the same manor.

Dangerous tackles in Rugby carry a lesser punishment than stamping, gouging, biting etc. so it's commonplace in sport, they can't be excused but they can be explained as a heat of the moment misjudgement which they almost always are.

Derbymanc wrote:Hampo are you saying he doesn't deserve the ban?

Haven't said that once, what I am saying is other punishments for repeat offenders for violent behaviour, Pepe using his head for example, or for just obvious dangerous play will need a sterner punishment. No point in giving Suarez a ban like this for repeat offending but letting someone who uses his head multiple times just have a three game ban.

Completely disagree with you there Hampo,

Things like this need a bigger ban, especially for repeat offenders. Hopefully it will help highlight other area's of the game that need sorting out as well (diving, violent play, 2 footed tackles) If not then it's an opportunity missed but you can't use it as an excuse to let Suarez off.

As Duty says things like this turn people off from the game.

I think Suarez's is also different as it's an attack from behind. And Pepe's wasn't a headbutt, it was a rutting. If a player flung a proper headbutt three times he'd likely get the same. Similar with punching rather than pushing.

Nobody really headbutts anyone in football. They just lean in and gently touch foreheads. To compare that to actually causing damage to a persons skin with your teeth is just ridiculous.

The only time blood is drawn from "violent" incidents is from accidental collisions in 50/50 challenges, ground and air. I'm surprised Suarez has drawn blood from his bites but the teeth marks look far deep enough that if I was on the receiving end it'd be the last time he saw daylight.

hampo171 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Hampo are you saying he doesn't deserve the ban?

Haven't said that once, what I am saying is other punishments for repeat offenders for violent behaviour, Pepe using his head for example, or for just obvious dangerous play will need a sterner punishment. No point in giving Suarez a ban like this for repeat offending but letting someone who uses his head multiple times just have a three game ban.

This is the point I have been arguing. If Suarez has gotten a 4 month ban because it is his 3rd offence then surely that applies to all footballers who commit dangerous tackles eg headbutts, elbows, throat grabs etc 3 times.

One final point for me on this topic.

Another general view over the duration of this one has been the implication or suspicion that the fuss was only orchestrated because Suarez is from an insignificant South American nation and that the 'big boys' of Europe look down on these sides and use their power to keep the 'liitle guys/nations' down.

Now I wouldn't totally say that the 'liitle folk' are entirely wrong in that assumption...!  Power is power and power likes to use power to keep close to the top of anything.

But again, does anyone seriously think things would have been brushed under the carpet in England or in Europe had a major European player (be he English, Italian, Spanish etc) had a major reputation as a biter and once more during an important game in a world cup sank his teeth into an opponent's shoulder?

The English press would be mute?  There would be evasive whistles of 'nobody looking' all over the European media?  There would be no shock and awe amongst TV panelists and even here on 606?  We'd all try to pretend we didn't see it?

No, no, no.  The European media know the deal.  Fireworks is money, and drama is fireworks - regardless of the target's nationality.  
That would be much too............... juicy............. a topic to brush under any carpet.  The same arguments as exist now about Suarez would be repeated about that European player.  The same European media faces would say that he shouldn't be treated too harshly and the same European media faces would say he needs a seriously punishing ban.

No, this isn't a 'little guys' against the big bad corporate European world show..... and those who would and have claimed otherwise are quite simply wrong.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

hampo171 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Hampo are you saying he doesn't deserve the ban?

Haven't said that once, what I am saying is other punishments for repeat offenders for violent behaviour, Pepe using his head for example, or for just obvious dangerous play will need a sterner punishment. No point in giving Suarez a ban like this for repeat offending but letting someone who uses his head multiple times just have a three game ban.

This is the point I have been arguing. If Suarez has gotten a 4 month ban because it is his 3rd offence then surely that applies to all footballers who commit dangerous tackles eg headbutts, elbows, throat grabs etc 3 times.

Yes. You are simply correct. It should.
Repeat offenders need to know that the more they repeat, the bigger the punishment ...with lifetime bans as the endline punishment to end all punishments if the other bans don't work.
Repeat offenders - at anything- have one of two emotions going on. They either think they're above the law and care little for its grip. Or they simply can't help themselves doing the things they do. Impulse - addiction - whichever.
I think Suarez is very much in the latter camp' but out of respect to him I've veered away from calling this what I think it sounds very much like. A man is entitled to be treated as fully mentally fit until proven otherwise. That's why many people say he's responsible for his actions. I think yes, he is responsible for his actions but from a place that might have a relationship to some level of.... autism?

SecretFly wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

hampo171 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Hampo are you saying he doesn't deserve the ban?

Haven't said that once, what I am saying is other punishments for repeat offenders for violent behaviour, Pepe using his head for example, or for just obvious dangerous play will need a sterner punishment. No point in giving Suarez a ban like this for repeat offending but letting someone who uses his head multiple times just have a three game ban.

This is the point I have been arguing. If Suarez has gotten a 4 month ban because it is his 3rd offence then surely that applies to all footballers who commit dangerous tackles eg headbutts, elbows, throat grabs etc 3 times.  

Yes.  You are simply correct.  It should.  
Repeat offenders need to know that the more they repeat, the bigger the punishment ...with lifetime bans as the endline punishment to end all punishments if the other bans don't work.  
 

But then that brings me to my issue with the Suarez ban. If all punishments for dangerous off the ball behaviour should be the same why has Pepe only been given a 1 game ban whilst Suarez has been given a 25 game ban?

It does appear that Suarez has been targeted a lot more harshly then other players have.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:If all punishments for dangerous off the ball behaviour should be the same why has Pepe only been given a 1 game ban whilst Suarez has been given a 25 game ban?

Repeat offenders at any aspect that requires bans should incrementally get tougher sanctions each time they repeat.  That goes for Pepe as much as Suarez.

Butting isn't nice but they aren't proper Glasgow kisses, if people were repeatedly stamping on opponents or punching them (properly) they would get extended bans.

Pepe did get a 10 game ban for kicking the Poopie out of a getafe player and would likely get a huge ban if he did something like that again.

Biting isn't acceptable in the game and this is his 3rd go at it so a big ban is justified (FIFA far too lenient).

Tackling is part of the game.

Ent wrote:Butting isn't nice but they aren't proper Glasgow kisses, if people were repeatedly stamping on opponents or punching them (properly) they would get extended bans.

Pepe did get a 10 game ban for kicking the Poopie out of a getafe player and would likely get a huge ban if he did something like that again.

Biting isn't acceptable in the game and this is his 3rd go at it so a big ban is justified (FIFA far too lenient).

Tackling is part of the game.

So what you are saying is that kicking the 'poopie' out of someone warrants less of a penalty than biting someone and causing no damage?

No, the point he is making is that you're misconstruing headbutts and violent acts. And the other point hes making is that one offence had a 10 game ban, whilst this is Suarez's third offence with biting as well as him being given a domestic ban for racism. I think that bears remembering too.

CS your whole argument seems to hinge on, 'well that other player got a different ban so Suarez shouldn't have a big ban' and as such is utter rubbish.

ANY player that repeat offends should be given harsher and harsher punishments, the fact that 1 player hasn't does not mean that nobody else shouldn't. It means FIFA have dropped the ball by not punishing the other player harshly and as such should be called out on it.

For the Liverpool fans that are currently crying foul that Suarez has been treated harshly, if it was a Man U player you'd be screaming bloody murder. Take away the club he plays for and look at the incident and person instead. (bear in mind, he's done this 3 times and been done for racial slurs too)

For every grassroots game that has a biting incident he should be given an additional 1 match ban and for any that happen in Liverpool it should be an extra 2 game ;-)

Also worth remembering that the Pepe thing was punished by the Spanish FA iirc

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:No, the point he is making is that you're misconstruing headbutts and violent acts. And the other point hes making is that one offence had a 10 game ban, whilst this is Suarez's third offence with biting as well as him being given a domestic ban for racism. I think that bears remembering too.

That was not pepe's first offence nor last offence for violent conduct off the ball....

To be frank the team should be penalized too, thats the only way the team will learn not to have a player like him in the team.

Just imagine if Liverpool would be warned of penalty of 10-15 points dock in EPL if such incidents happen they won't entertain a player like Saurez in the team and if they would they would have adequately warned him not to do such acts.

Punishing the team is better than punishing the individual to prevent such pervert incidents to happen again.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:No, the point he is making is that you're misconstruing headbutts and violent acts. And the other point hes making is that one offence had a 10 game ban, whilst this is Suarez's third offence with biting as well as him being given a domestic ban for racism. I think that bears remembering too.

That was not pepe's first offence nor last offence for violent conduct off the ball....

Violent conduct is an odd term. You are happy to compare Pepe's little nudge to Suarez's bite. You are clearly smart enough to tell one is worse than the other.

Overall, it would be good if you could work out your actual position on the matter. Because so far, you are picking up little titbits of other peoples points and offering random counter arguments, in and out of context.

And like someone has said, any mistakes on other punishments are their own mistakes, they shouldnt counter Suarez's.

invisiblecoolers wrote:To be frank the team should be penalized too, thats the only way the team will learn not to have a player like him in the team.

Just imagine if Liverpool would be warned of penalty of 10-15 points dock in EPL if such incidents happen they won't entertain a player like Saurez in the team and if they would they would have adequately warned him not to do such acts.

Punishing the team is better than punishing the individual to prevent such pervert incidents to happen again.

Hmmmm.... an interesting viewpoint. Turn the player into a pariah, rather than help him to overcome his difficulties and in so doing, deter clubs from employing such individuals either now or in the future.

The difficulty with that idea, is that when a club takes a player on... invests time and money into developing him..... builds a team around him and perhaps even achieves success with that player at the heart of things..... then it becomes all the more difficult to dispense with their services at a later date when their flaws become apparent.

Chairmen and directors, who know nothing and care even less about football as a sport, see only trophies and financial returns.  It is not inconceivable that a points deduction of the sort you propose would be seen by them as anything other than an irritation to be gotten round whilst maintaining the star status and money making potential of the player concerned.  In other words, don't address the issue of the player, just find a way of getting round the ramifications of his actions.

My personal viewpoint is that I would like to see Luis Suarez get help.  If that means him taking an unspecified amount of time out of the game to become cured (by any professional qualification of the word) and come back a better human being then I'd roll with that.   I doubt very much the suits, with an eye on the balance sheet, would feel the same.

So, here is the nub of the conflict.  We have a deeply flawed human being who needs help that may take a significant amount of time, care and sensitivity to deal with, in conflict with financial backers who demand an instant return on their "investment".

In your opinion, whose priority is the greater...?

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:No, the point he is making is that you're misconstruing headbutts and violent acts. And the other point hes making is that one offence had a 10 game ban, whilst this is Suarez's third offence with biting as well as him being given a domestic ban for racism. I think that bears remembering too.

That was not pepe's first offence nor last offence for violent conduct off the ball....

Violent conduct is an odd term. You are happy to compare Pepe's little nudge to Suarez's bite. You are clearly smart enough to tell one is worse than the other.

Well that is the point, Suarez's bite did no damage whatsoever just like pepe's headbutt.

My view on the matter is that Suarez should face a ban but that it should be restricted to international games only and a 10 game international ban sounds just and fair for a minor off the ball offence which has happend two times previously.

However a 10 game ban is only just and fair if Fifa hands out the same punishment to all repeat offenders. Alex Song was only handed a 3 game ban by Fifa for an off the ball deliberate elbow which was very dangerous. Alex song has previous for this kind of dangerous off the ball behaviour and was banned previously for a deliberate stamp on a player.

It is not fair that Song gets a 3 game ban and Suarez gets a 25 game ban. Justice is only just and fair and legitimate if it is consistent and it is handed down equally to all, and in this case the justice handed down to Suarez is not consistent with Fifa's previous punishments on repeat off the ball offenders.

Based on Fifa's own response to previous repeat offenders (Song, Pepe etc) it seems only fair that Suarez is handed a similer ban and so his punishment should be a 3 game international ban.

In my view 3 games is overly lenient but I am forming my view as an unbiased pedestrian and forming my view solely on the precedent that Fifa have created in previous cases.

FIFA aren't a legal body they are under no obligation to go by precident or set protocols.

Suarez is lucky - he should have been banned for life for racist abuse and this ban for biting a third player is lenient.

It is absolute nonsense to say it is unfair because other players have avoided suspension for doing things that don't compare in anyway shape or form.

Just caught the BBC highlights of Colombia-Uruguay. Lawro said Suarez would have given Uruguay more bite    

Again, you ignore the difference between the bite and Pepe's nudge. And there are many obvious ones.

I think you also need to accept, whether you like it or not, that there is a different stigma around biting. Similar to spitting.

I personally think it's a fair ban. More than anything they need to deter him from doing it again. Especially as his nation only played one more World Cup game, which is obviously a more important competition to Suarez.

Also technically this is the first time FIFA has ruled over a Suarez bite. There is no precedent set by FIFA.

GSC wrote:Also technically this is the first time FIFA has ruled over a Suarez bite. There is no precedent set by FIFA.

we need suarez locked uo in a zoo, if only I knew someone who worked in a zoo.....

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Again, you ignore the difference between the bite and Pepe's nudge. And there are many obvious ones.

I think you also need to accept, whether you like it or not, that there is a different stigma around biting. Similar to spitting.

I personally think it's a fair ban. More than anything they need to deter him from doing it again. Especially as his nation only played one more World Cup game, which is obviously a more important competition to Suarez.

I am not ignoring any difference, both are off the ball minor offences that caused absolutely no damage whatsoever.

And it doesn't matter whether I like it or not, I am giving an unbiased view based on precedent which Fifa has set which is off the ball minor offences get between 1-3 international game bans.

Difference is the referee sent Pepe off.

Fifa aren't obliged to go by precedent I don't know why you think they are.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:Also technically this is the first time FIFA has ruled over a Suarez bite. There is no precedent set by FIFA.

we need suarez locked uo in a zoo, if only I knew someone who worked in a zoo.....

I think a ban will suffice.

The guys an animal and the punishment is fair. It's the third time so the punishment gets higher everytime. It's usually enough to stop someone from repeat offending. Can't believe he is actually claiming it wasn't a bite and to see Uruguay stick up for him leaves me with a poor opinion of that country.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:To be frank the team should be penalized too, thats the only way the team will learn not to have a player like him in the team.

Just imagine if Liverpool would be warned of penalty of 10-15 points dock in EPL if such incidents happen they won't entertain a player like Saurez in the team and if they would they would have adequately warned him not to do such acts.

Punishing the team is better than punishing the individual to prevent such pervert incidents to happen again.

Hmmmm.... an interesting viewpoint. Turn the player into a pariah, rather than help him to overcome his difficulties and in so doing, deter clubs from employing such individuals either now or in the future.

The difficulty with that idea, is that when a club takes a player on... invests time and money into developing him..... builds a team around him and perhaps even achieves success with that player at the heart of things..... then it becomes all the more difficult to dispense with their services at a later date when their flaws become apparent.

Chairmen and directors, who know nothing and care even less about football as a sport, see only trophies and financial returns.  It is not inconceivable that a points deduction of the sort you propose would be seen by them as anything other than an irritation to be gotten round whilst maintaining the star status and money making potential of the player concerned.  In other words, don't address the issue of the player, just find a way of getting round the ramifications of his actions.

My personal viewpoint is that I would like to see Luis Suarez get help.  If that means him taking an unspecified amount of time out of the game to become cured (by any professional qualification of the word) and come back a better human being then I'd roll with that.   I doubt very much the suits, with an eye on the balance sheet, would feel the same.

So, here is the nub of the conflict.  We have a deeply flawed human being who needs help that may take a significant amount of time, care and sensitivity to deal with, in conflict with financial backers who demand an instant return on their "investment".

In your opinion, whose priority is the greater...?

He certainly need help, but no mercy to psychos , Saurez should be banned for life as a lesson for future psychos, and Uruguay should be docked points as a lesson for teams to have not studied their own players.

Its so easy to say he should be forgiven and stuff, but this is one of the worst incidents in any sport, he could have easily passed a life time disease to an innocent player, sorry no tolerance for stupidity and that too he is a repeated offender. PUNISH HIM WITH A LIFE BAN i SAY

Ent wrote:Difference is the referee sent Pepe off.

Fifa aren't obliged to go by precedent I don't know why you think they are.

I am giving my opinion as to what punishment would be fair and just in the circumstances based on precedent.

Ayrshirebhoy wrote:d to see Uruguay stick up for him leaves me with a poor opinion of that country.

What about the England who stuck up for Rooney in 2012 when he was banned for 3 games at the Euros for a deliberate and intentional kick at a player? Did that give you a poor opinion of England?