Ban Suarez for Life

[football_master_94]

To keep his team in the World Cup and put them through to the semi-finals and knock another team out of the world cup, it's blatant cheating

Like I've said. Not his fault that Gyan missed the penalty

[Cobbler]

Almost every player, at any level, would have done what Suarez did. The ref did all that he could within the rules. It is no more cheating than a keeper pulling down a striker who is going round him to stop a goal.

A keeper pulling down a striker who is going round him to stop a goal is 100% cheating. But, no, it's definately not more than that...

[outlander]

Waving hands trying to tell the ref that it should be your teams throw-in/corners when the player clearly know that it was him who touched the ball last is more cheating because it's a clear attempt to decieve the ref. Suarez main aim was to save the goal and not to decieve the ref.

So until you start to ban players in those throw-ins situations it's unfair to punish Suarez any more than 1 match ban.

[DJ]

The only thing that becomes clear from this thread is that a lot of people either have no idea about, or opportunistically bend their definitions about the difference between cheating and fouling.

Suarez did not cheat. End of.

[Cobbler]

The only thing that becomes clear from this thread is that a lot of people either have no idea about, or opportunistically bend their definitions about the difference between cheating and fouling.

Suarez did not cheat. End of.

My definition of cheating in the context of a sporting contest - deliberately doing something that infringes the rules in place in order to attempt to gain a perceived advantage for yourself/your team.

Yours?

[DJ]

You just described a foul - breaking the rules.

Cheating is trying to gain an advantage by trying to break the rules and getting away with it.

[Cobbler]

You just described a foul - breaking the rules.

No I didn't. You can commit a foul accidently without intending to. The intent is what makes it cheating.

Whether you get away with it or not is irrelevant. Why would it be relevant? If the referee had not seen the handball and waved play on it would be cheating, but because he saw it it wasn't?

[DJ]

Well done, you've just defined 90% of all the times a ref has to whistle as cheats

As I said. People just redefine cheating so it fits the argument.

I suggest you start watching chess (the non-contact variety) for a sport without 'cheating'

[damienroden]

Well it is cheating, he purposefully broke the rules, I would have done exactly the same though.

[Micado]

It is not cheating as he dind't get away with it, he got punished.

[Cobbler]

Well done, you've just defined 90% of all the times a ref has to whistle as cheats

As I said. People just redefine cheating so it fits the argument.

What's the problem with that? See, I'm using the actual definition of cheating rather than redefining anything. You'll find that in most professional sports, the players will happily flout the rules if they think it can potentially give them an advantage. Rugby Union, for example, is a constant battle in most forward positions to see who can cheat the most effectively.

You've redefined cheating so that the intention of the person performing the action is irrelevant, only whether he is caught or not makes him a 'cheat'. So, Maradona = cheat because the referee didn't spot his handball. If he does exactly the same and the ref gives a free kick - not a cheat. Carl Lewis - drugs cheat because he didn't get caught at the time, Ben Johnson - not a drugs cheat because he got caught.

[damienroden]

It is not cheating as he dind't get away with it, he got punished.

it doesn't matter if he was punished or not. It was still technically cheating.

[DJ]

Each time someone tries to beat the off side trap and doesn't, gets caught, he's cheating

[Cobbler]

It is not cheating as he dind't get away with it, he got punished.

So it's actually logically impossible to ever punish someone for 'cheating'?

[Worcester City Researcher]

My definition of cheating in the context of a sporting contest - deliberately doing something that infringes the rules in place in order to attempt to gain a perceived advantage for yourself/your team.

Yours?

Law 11 states:

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or

• interfering with an opponent or

• gaining an advantage by being in that position

So by your reasoning above - anyone flagged Offside as a result of that 3rd Clause is a dirty dirty cheat

[Cobbler]

Each time someone tries to beat the off side trap and doesn't, gets caught, he's cheating

Hello Mr Strawman...

[Cobbler]

Law 11 states:

So by your reasoning above - anyone flagged Offside as a result of that 3rd Clause is a dirty dirty cheat

Are they deliberately and intentionally standing offside in order to gain an advantage? If so, yes. If not, your reading comprehension sucks.

[DJ]

Hahaha, you actually said it

Someone can be a dirty cheat by being off side

[damienroden]

Well what would you call it? Cheating is breaking the rules to gain an unfair advantage.

[Micado]

Well what would you call it? Cheating is breaking the rules to gain an unfair advantage.

Well Suárez didn't get a unfair advantage, he just took a last "strohalm" (Dutchism, don't know a English word for it, or maybe option) by instinct to see if the could win the game, but he got a red card and a penalty against him, not what I call "unfair advantage"

This is a nice read:

I quite like this article:

http://trueslant.com/zachdundas/2010/07/02/world-cup-brazil-and-ghana-fall-victim-to-soccers-cosmic-jokes/

Sorry, Black Stars—but you had 120 minutes to win it, and you didn’t, so fare thee well.

[Cobbler]

Hahaha, you actually said it

Someone can be a dirty cheat by being off side

I'm not sure what advantage can be possibly gained in football by someone deliberately being offside, hence why the example makes no sense. If you can think of an advantage and then someone tried to gain that advantage by standing intentionally offside, then yes that would clearly be intentionally infringing the rules, and hence considered cheating.

In different sports the situation varies. In Rugby Union, deliberate offside is a very profitable way of gaining an advantage, hence the penalties for it are harsh in order to try to lessen the advantage that can be gained from doing it.

[Cobbler]

Well Suárez didn't get a unfair advantage, he just took a last "strohalm" (Dutchism, don't know a English word for it, or maybe option) to see if the could win the game, but he got a red card and a penalty, not what I call "unfair advantage"

Of course he gained an unfair advantage.

If he doesn't handle the ball there is a 100% chance of a goal. If he does handle it there is a slightly less than 100% chance of a goal.

[TheRealMagpies]

Although it hasn't happened yet during this WC consider the following scenario.

Team A's Striker races for a loose ball

Team B's Goalkeeper and a Defender race for it too

The Striker and Goalkeeper both reach the ball, with the Defender a short distance away

The Striker wins the ball and rounds the Keeper, who falls to the floor, and preapres to shoot after controlling it.

The Defender cannot reach the ball in time to block the shot, so he hacks down the Striker, who he can reach in time.

According to most of you, the Defender is a hero who just saved his team from losing a title/cup/relegation battle.

Would you still feel he was such a hero if the Striker was unable to play ever again, due to the injury he recieved in the above tackle... how would you feel then.

Can you see why 'the spirit of the rules' is just as important as the actual rules themselves.

[football_master_94]

Of course he gained an unfair advantage.

If he doesn't handle the ball there is a 100% chance of a goal. If he does handle it there is a slightly less than 100% chance of a goal.

Diving header by Suárez would've cleared the ball

[Cobbler]

Diving header by Suárez would've cleared the ball

So you're saying that he could have cleared the ball legitimately, but instead chose to gift Ghana a potential winning penalty?

Obviously he didn't think so, otherwise he would have done it. Not really relevant anyway but, FWIW, diving header most likely ends up with the ball in the net still, even if he does even get his head to it...

[football_master_94]

So you're saying that he could have cleared the ball legitimately, but instead chose to gift Ghana a potential winning penalty?

Obviously he didn't think so, otherwise he would have done it. Not really relevant anyway but, FWIW, diving header most likely ends up with the ball in the net still, even if he does even get his head to it...

Well, handling it meant no risk of cocking up and letting the ball in

[Cobbler]

Well, handling it meant no risk of cocking up and letting the ball in

Exactly...

[Vince Bartram]

people who can't get over the idea that it might not be cheating if a player, subject to the rules everyone knows when the game kicks off, breaks them and subsequently has to answer to the punishment he's given, have probably never seen or played sport at a competitive level. anyone blocks the ball in suarez's position. the only way it may be considered 'cheating' is perhaps if the ref hadn't seen it and he'd played on having gained the advantage, but even that's a stretch given the example someone gave above about players claiming throw-ins and corners when they're fully aware they touched the ball last

[football_master_94]

What would be cheating is what Henry did, what Luis Fabiano did vs Ivory Coast when he handled twice and the ref asked him if it hit his hand and he replied with "No" despite replays showing 2 handballs

[Vince Bartram]

Although it hasn't happened yet during this WC consider the following scenario.

Team A's Striker races for a loose ball

Team B's Goalkeeper and a Defender race for it too

The Striker and Goalkeeper both reach the ball, with the Defender a short distance away

The Striker wins the ball and rounds the Keeper, who falls to the floor, and preapres to shoot after controlling it.

The Defender cannot reach the ball in time to block the shot, so he hacks down the Striker, who he can reach in time.

According to most of you, the Defender is a hero who just saved his team from losing a title/cup/relegation battle.

Would you still feel he was such a hero if the Striker was unable to play ever again, due to the injury he recieved in the above tackle... how would you feel then.

Can you see why 'the spirit of the rules' is just as important as the actual rules themselves.

maybe i'm speaking for myself here, but i don't think suarez is necessarily a 'hero' for doing it, but this is not a question of fans' interpretation of the events. if you're a patriotic uruguayan, chances are you're grateful for the way suarez would have done anything to keep his team in the game. the idea that your example is comparable isn't logical though, you've introduced a factor that doesn't exist in this case

[Worcester City Researcher]

For me, to call something "cheating" in football has to involve an element of deception.

[radestock]

Although it hasn't happened yet during this WC consider the following scenario.

Team A's Striker races for a loose ball

Team B's Goalkeeper and a Defender race for it too

The Striker and Goalkeeper both reach the ball, with the Defender a short distance away

The Striker wins the ball and rounds the Keeper, who falls to the floor, and preapres to shoot after controlling it.

The Defender cannot reach the ball in time to block the shot, so he hacks down the Striker, who he can reach in time.

According to most of you, the Defender is a hero who just saved his team from losing a title/cup/relegation battle.

Would you still feel he was such a hero if the Striker was unable to play ever again, due to the injury he recieved in the above tackle... how would you feel then.

Can you see why 'the spirit of the rules' is just as important as the actual rules themselves.

That wouldn't be a professional foul though would it? It's be a dangerous tackle and I doubt anyone would call someone a hero for doing one.

[Cobbler]

people who can't get over the idea that it might not be cheating if a player, subject to the rules everyone knows when the game kicks off, breaks them and subsequently has to answer to the punishment he's given, have probably never seen or played sport at a competitive level. anyone blocks the ball in suarez's position. the only way it may be considered 'cheating' is perhaps if the ref hadn't seen it and he'd played on having gained the advantage, but even that's a stretch given the example someone gave above about players claiming throw-ins and corners when they're fully aware they touched the ball last

No, people can't get over the idea that professional sports players aren't that fazed by cheating a bit to get an advantage and spend some time considering ways in which they can do so to their best advantages, while rulemakers spend their time working out how to make it less attractive for them to do so.

What's actually the big deal with calling a spade a spade?

[Cobbler]

For me, to call something "cheating" in football has to involve an element of deception.

Player is clean through on goal, rounds the goalkeeper and has a tap into an empty net. A substitute warming up behind the goal runs onto the pitch and rugby tackles the striker, stopping him scoring. Not cheating?

[DJ]

Ah, ridiculous examples time. Here we go:

Someone gets the ball in the midfield. He'd have passed the ball to a team mate who's rather unmarked, but doesn't get a chance because an opposing defender muscles the ball off him. With too much pushing however, the dirty cheat. The midfielder gets the FK, tries to take it quickly but ballses it up, hits the first opponent in front of him and the ball ends up on the other side of the pitch, an opponent attacker runs off with it, he'll be one on one with the goalie... The midfielder remembers the horrible foul committed on him seconds earlier, falls down and feigns a head injury, forcing the ref to call off play and give a ref ball later, which the same midfielder politely hoofs over to the opponent goalie.

Blatantly, both muscling defender and injury-feigning midfielder are exactly the same type of dirty cheaters who should be banned for life?

[Cobbler]

Blatantly, both muscling defender and injury-feigning midfielder are exactly the same type of dirty cheaters who should be banned for life?

See two posts up. If you could get over yourself a bit, cut out the strawmen and ridiculous hyperbole, and realise that saying that a professional sportsman that doesn't have a problem with deliberately breaking the odd rule to gain himself a slight edge is fulfilling the normal definition of 'cheating' is not the same as calling for him to be banned for life (or at all even) or creating an equivalence to war criminals or seal-clubbing baby murderers, then the discussion would probably be more reasonable.

[DJ]

cut out the strawmen and ridiculous hyperbole

A substitute warming up behind the goal runs onto the pitch and rugby tackles the striker, stopping him scoring. Not cheating?

Bwahahahahaha

[Cobbler]

Bwahahahahaha

Do you know what a strawman is?

For example, your "Each time someone tries to beat the off side trap and doesn't, gets caught, he's cheating" when no-one in this thread has actually claimed that.

Hyperbole: for example saying that anyone is claiming that someone who commits a simple foul should be 'banned for life'.

WCR defines that cheating must include an element of deception, I asked him about an example that most people would agree constitutes cheating, but includes no deception at all.

Serious point because you're usually a good and interesting poster: you're posting like a 13 year old girl in this thread.

[DJ]

My definition of cheating in the context of a sporting contest - deliberately doing something that infringes the rules in place in order to attempt to gain a perceived advantage for yourself/your team.

All off sides, ever, are unintentional? I disagree. There's nothing against standing a meter or two on side, you're willingly taking the risk of going off side if you stand 'on the edge'.

Same goes for muscling a ball of an opponent. Contact is allowed. Up to the refs discretion. The very moment the refs whistles, by your definition, the player is 'cheating'.

You're starting to reach the point of being 'obtuse', I think it's called.

And don't start complaining about hyperbole. My example is a million times more likely to happen than yours...

[radestock]

All off sides, ever, are unintentional? I disagree. There's nothing against standing a meter or two on side, you're willingly taking the risk of going off side if you stand 'on the edge'.

The player's goal isn't to be offside though is it? They're willing to take the risk of being offside, they'll even accept that 4 out of 5 times they probably will be, but the aim of what they are doing is to remain onside. Nobody in football will intentionally try and be offside. They might stand offside before a free kick is taken but the aim is to be onside when the ball is kicked.

Where is the benefit of intentionally being offside?

[Cobbler]

All off sides, ever, are unintentional? I disagree. There's nothing against standing a meter or two on side, you're willingly taking the risk of going off side if you stand 'on the edge'.

Same goes for muscling a ball of an opponent. Contact is allowed. Up to the refs discretion. The very moment the refs whistles, by your definition, the player is 'cheating'.

You're starting to reach the point of being 'obtuse', I think it's called.

Neither example meets my defintion, which is your problem I think.

In example one: the intention of the player is to be onside at the time the ball is played. Ideally fairly fractionally onside. Sometimes he will get it wrong/the defenders will get it right and he'll end up offside. He's committed an 'offence' technically and a free kick is given. But he's not 'cheating'. He wasn't deliberately trying to infringe a rule and deliberately place himself offside. To do so would make no sense for him, as we established earlier.

In example two: what is the tackling player trying to do? He is trying to win the ball from the opponent without conceding a free kick. The fact that the referee decides 'illegal' force was used and gives a free kick does not, contrary to what you say, mean the player was cheating. His intention was a legal challenge. My defintion of cheating specifically required an intention to break a rule to gain an advantage.

You are patently just not actually reading the arguments presented.

[DJ]

Ah, so you want to measure 'intent'? Gatusso springs to mind. I'm just being 'ard, honest guv...

[Cilldara_2000]

@ Cobbler. You're wasting your time. People can't read. I spent a page trying to explain to these people that by the dictionary definition of cheating, as posted by georginho near the start of the thread, Suarez cheated.

[Kenco]

I can't believe this thread is still going. It's just the same conversation over and over but with different people, some who obviously haven't read that they are saying exactly the same as someone else did just the day before!

[Splendifornia]

The definition of a word like 'cheat' isn't enshrined in the laws of the game. Might as well be discussing the definition of 'potato,' for all its import to how the rules are executed.

[radestock]

I can't believe this thread is still going. It's just the same conversation over and over but with different people, some who obviously haven't read that they are saying exactly the same as someone else did just the day before!

That's the basic definition of a forum

[Cilldara_2000]

The definition of a word like 'cheat' isn't enshrined in the laws of the game. Might as well be discussing the definition of 'potato,' for all its import to how the rules are executed.

So no footballer has ever cheated?

[mlyons]

So no footballer has ever cheated?

I think it's more that the word "cheat" is fundamentally irrelevant to this discussion, since there are both different interpretations of what cheating actually is and what the consequences to cheating should be.

[Venn]

Regardless of bans, cheats, etc. I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread's looking forward to seeing Suarez in the 7th game

(And yes, I'm Spanish-speaking and don't care at all if I write Suarez or Suárez, Ozil Oezil Muller Mueller)