BlueStar

B-but they're just the same as any other business or financial institution, they're all equally as good or bad as each other! Surely they've told the police that?

The guy's got a mental age of about 12, when kids are naughty in class and the other kids laugh at them they keep doing it. He's just returned to a heroes welcome in Uruguay. When he racially abused Evra, everyone wore t-shirts with him name and face on, the crowd, the other players. Usually you only do that for someone when they're retiring, or they've reached a massive milestone in their career, or they're ill and you want to show your love and support for them. When he was banned for biting someone last time, there were banners "One rule for Suarez, one rule for everyone else" portraying him as the real victim. You've got people gushing on RAWK about how he's a 'flawed genius' as if that makes him so cool and edgy and dreamy. Sagely quoting "No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness" and "There is a fine line between genius and insanity." as if his biting, eye-gouging, stamping and diving gives him the rugged anti-hero persona from which his footballing beauty grows. People are fiercely stating their support for him in a way they wouldn't if he was just a normal great player. You've got his national team manager fighting his corner, his fans backing him, Maradona coming out in support, everyone close to him telling him how badly treated he's been. The kind of attention he gets from it probably doesn't help him stop himself from doing it. If he was a Man U player, I'm sure Liverpool fans would hate him more than they've hated anyone in the game, ever. I'm pretty sure they'd even claim they wouldn't have him in their team, because he went against everything Liverpool stood for.

So, Liverpool have a player that they supported when he bit someone, claiming that the length of the ban was extreme and down to the FA and Premier League. He then doesn't learn his lesson and does it again. Liverpool now have a better chance of winning the league. Why should a team ever benefit when one of their players bites someone? Because why not? It's not like the punishment is going to cause Suarez to mend his ways, is it? Fucker's done it three times now. Everyone knows he's off his trolley, yet most clubs would still give their eye teeth for the bitey sod because he's so fucking good. So he's still going to earn millions. Other clubs aren't going to lose interest just because he once again proved he's as mental as everyone already knew he was… Suarez himself just gets to take an extended (paid) holiday. The punishment falls essentially on Uruguay and Liverpool, which—you would hope—is not really what was intended. Instead of banning him from games (which effectively only punishes his national and club sides), they should have fined him something painful (instead of half a week's wages) or forced him to play wearing a muzzle (well, forced him to seek professional help). If someone that are good at their job commits a crime, they should not be sent to jail because the punishment falls on their employers? Miss the point much? I said they should try to do something that punished the player more than his national/club side. Bans clearly aren't having the desired effect because the crazy bastard keeps doing it again. Yeah, bans aren't harsh enough, let him play in a few weeks instead. He's got more money than god, how much are you proposing fining him? Just grease the palm of FIFA enough and let him get on with it? Liverpool fans seem to have expended 20 times the words criticizing the ban than they have their player who's fucked them over, again, dragged their name through the mud, again. How about addressing that and see if that makes a difference when bans have failed?

He clearly enjoys playing football. So it's a punishment stopping him playing football. It also stops him fucking biting people for that period of time. The hope is he'll have learned his lesson by the time he comes back, but you're right he won't. But that means you punish him more, not less. Tough shit Liverpool, your fault for encouraging his behaviour. Why are you lot saying he should just get a much longer ban for Uruguay? Is that not unfairly punishing the other players, the manager, the fans? They didn't bite anyone. If you look back at these two seasons as the best chance you had for decades to win the league and it slipped away, you know who to blame. "Because why not?" is kind of my point. You buy players who play internationally and their international career can impact on your club positively or negatively. Playing at that level might improve them. They might be fatigued from the extra games. Their position on the world stage might increase their value. They might get dropped/their team might get knocked out and leave them with more time to devote to the club. Or they might bite someone, lie about it and get a world ban for 4 months. That's life. Because why not? Why is it fine for an incident in the match to help Liverpool, but not OK when it looks like it's going to hinder them, because it has nothing to do with them?

Had 38p in my account so put it on Chile to win both halves after the Brazil goal at 255/1.

"I was pushing him away with my teeth"

So, Liverpool have a player that they supported when he bit someone, claiming that the length of the ban was extreme and down to the FA and Premier League. He then doesn't learn his lesson and does it again. Liverpool now have a better chance of winning the league. Why should a team ever benefit when one of their players bites someone?

He's done it twice before and got serious bans for it, he's done it again, in the middle of FIFA's flagship competition, went down as if he was elbowed, shown no remorse, denied it, said it was just what happens and people should get over it, been backed by his manager, had a welcome home parade off the plane - and people go "B-but, that ban's really serious!" Of course it is. FIFA needed to punish Suarez, and the best way of doing that in a serious fashion was to stop him playing the game that he loves. Not just "OK, miss one game every few months or so for your country, now off you go to play in the most high profile competitions in the world in a few weeks time, banging in goals, getting your sponsored face on telly, running around and having a great time." That's like banning a naughty kid from watching telly in the living room and sending them to play on their Xbox in their bedroom. Suarez needed to be punished as an individual, Liverpool are the collateral damage from that. That's the risk you take for hiring and standing by a horrible cunt. You've certainly been willing to accept the benefits of it, I'm afraid you have to take the negatives as well. He'll do it again as well. They probably should have added a suspended life ban, it might be the only thing that saves him.

Have they even ever banned a player from league games before? Pinto was banned for am incident in a World Cup game in 2002 for 6 months, and I'm pretty sure that was global.

Motherfucking FIFA Biggest ban ever? There's been a lot worse than that. Have they even ever banned a player from league games before? Totally over the top. Obviously, he wants banning, like, but from fucking training? Your must be furious with him.

It's hard to tell, they keep locking threads about it on RAWK. The general tactic seems to be to avoid all discussion of the indecent and instead focus on players who stamped or headbutted someone ten years ago. Or quickly skip over 'yes he shouldn't have done it but...' before characterising any criticism or punishment of Suarez as wild eyed witchhunt implying he's worse than paedohilter.

Might as well just rename this thread "Transfers".

Will they will they want things like wages, agent payments and signing on fees, or will they work for apples?

Remember when West Ham released Carlton Cole, went looking for a striker, failed and then asked him to come back?

Can't muster any sympathy at all for the "But Miss, other boys..." angle at all. It's exactly the kind of punishment to be expected for biting someone, for the third time, in the middle of FIFA's flagship competition, with aggravating factors like zero remorse and trying to deceive the referee through feigning he was the victim. Not excessive, doesn't demonstrate any outrageous inconsistency, completely deserved, entirely his own fault. Malicious, calculated, devious, cowardly. Just like the person behind it. Increase it for the frivolous appeal, the sport is better off without him.

"I'll never go hungry again!"

Eye gouging used to be more common and was more tightly regulated as a result. But the very fact there's explicit regulations about it show it's at least a rugby related offence. There's no chapter on what constitutes an illegal bite, or the severity of different types of bites in the FIFA rulebook, because it's completely out of the scope of the game, in a way that I don't think eye gouging is - in that in rugby you're allowed to grab your opponent with your hand, and there are regulations relating to where and how you're allowed to grab them. A bad tackle might give a worse injury than a bite, but at least a tackle is a football thing, a bite is a bar room fight thing.

Bans handed out across the world have ranged from 3 weeks to 2 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-gouging_%28rugby_union%29

As an illegal offense that shouldn't happen, but does happen in rugby because you grapple with your opponent and there's the possibility of going too far in that respect. Considered serious in rugby, probably considered much more serious in cricket. There's clear rules for punishments for eye-gouging in the code of rugby, so even though it's an illegal act it's part of the sport in that respect.

what a load of shite I understand what he's saying. Bad tackles, elbows and head contact are illegal over-extentions of the normal contact within the game. Not that they aren't serious, but there's a gradient line going from a clean tackle, a free kick tackle, a card tackle, a red card tackle and an absolutely horrific tackle. The latter is not in any way acceptable, but it's a football foul, a kind of misconduct you may see on the football pitch. Imagine a hockey game where someone suddenly decides to launch a sliding tackle at someone running through on goal. That's going to get them one hell of a ban, isn't it? Even if it's not as bad as someone swinging a hockey stick and smacking you in the legs. And if you tripped someone up on the football pitch with a stick, you'd get a hell of a ban even if you did less damage than a robust tackle. Likewisef you go in two footed on your opponent during the Olympic table tennis semi-final. Smashing the ball at your opponents face might be seen as a minor infraction however, while if you picked up a ball you found on the pitch and stotted it off an opponent's head you'd probably get a ban, even though most people would take balls to the face all day rather than a reckless challenge.

I don't know how Liverpool, Suarez or Uruguay have the audacity to complain about anything. "I'm really mad with the bans I get when I bite people, they're disproportionate/too long/too far reaching" Stop fucking doing it then! "He wasn't playing for Liverpool at the time, why should they be punished?" Pistorious wasn't competing for South Africa when he shot his lass either, it doesn't mean they have to let him out so it doesn't unfairly impact on their medal hopes. Maybe if Liverpool had disciplined him internally for past indiscretions rather than throwing him a t-shirt party when he racially abused someone and blaming the media and the FA for his ban length last time he bit someone he might have been more inclined to learn his lesson? Blame your player for doing something stupid enough in a global competition to get a world ban from football. "But I'd rather be bitten in the shoulder than stamped on/elbowed/have my legs broken. This incident here shows it's disproportionate" I imagine many people would rather be spat on than take a yellow card challenge. I imagine most people would rather someone pissed on their chest while denying the holocaust than have their leg broken with a clumsy foot in. Funnily enough there's no precedent for what punishment you get when you sink your teeth into the third walking lunch of your career in the middle of a World Cup game. Thanks to Suarez we now know the answer. "It's just because of who he is!" To an extent, yes. It might have been viewed slightly more sympathetically if it was a moment of out-of-character madness, but it's perfectly within character. Followed by no contrite apology and pleas for forgiveness, but two fingers up at the game, "These things happen, the other player is a disgrace for making a meal of it, it's nothing." Or do the media and FIFA pick on Suarez because they don't like his haircut, or his star sign? This is the media that awarded him Football Writer's Player Of The Season like three weeks ago, aye? Maybe if there's a conspiracy against Suarez and Liverpool by those running the game he should stop doing stupid shit that makes it extremely easy for them to unfairly persecute him?

http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/26/arsenal-set-to-make-bid-for-newcastle-united-full-back-mathieu-debuchy-4776994/

Lets hope they've paid it upfront, because if UK laws come in line with the rest of the world their business model would be illegal overnight.

Took me another few paragraphs before I realised this was reference to us not playing them till December, rather than not having a chance of beating them for the foreseeable future.

"Chainey, D’Amato & Shannon" Did they name their made up legal firms after lasses from their call centre?