milnerpoint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I think they wanted to make sure the verdict was as solid as could be, in particular with the way Liverpool behaved, to make sure it was bulletproof and could not be challenged. Start involving red cards in different countries, and they would enter a grey area.This is FIFA though, with much more power. If they want to ban him from all leagues too, they can certainly do it. And at this point I feel they need to take into consideration this is far from the first time Suarez has lost his head and tried to injure an opponent. I don't think he will get a lifetime ban either, it's just not going to happen, but surely we're now approaching the time when we ask "how many is too much?" Of course FIFA have more power, and of course they can ban him world wide. But if they do so based on whats happened in domestic football, its going to really open grey area's, as it never happens. I cannot think of a single incident where a players ban from an international game has taken into account his actions domestically. It would also leave them very open to legal action from Liverpool as they wont want their player being made an example of, even if his actions are terrible. They have far too much money invested in him to just accept a world wide ban for something that they had no control over at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arenaross Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Let me start by saying that I love Suarez, he's pure box office. I am sorry if that makes me a bad person but I do find him incredibly entertaining. From his amazing skills on the pitch, the goals and also the crazy biting/diving. In regard to his latest incident, I honestly can't say I am bothered. The only thing I hope is that it doesn't effect Liverpool, if he is banned from International games then great, he will be fresh for Liverpool. Again this makes me a soulless douche bag but *shrugs* I really don't care, as long as he's banging in the goals for Liverpool then it's all good. Now I am sure I am not the only fan to think like this, a lot of people will act all sanctimonious and pretend they are outraged but deep down they will be giggling about the whole craziness of it. Opposition fans will all be up in arms about this monster but I dare say a decent majority would feel the same as I do if he played for their club. Now as to punishment :- 1. International Ban - Awesome for Liverpool, he gets a rest and will be good to go for the new season. 2. Domestic Ban - I'd be gutted 3. He has to take the black and man the wall 4. Trial by combat You saved this post with points 3 and 4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bracken Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Again, headbutts would not be covered. Clashing heads going for a header, yes, but not someone physically assaulting you with a headbutt. You do not give any consent to that kind of action. But there are specific rules against headbutts right? Which means it's something that happens regularly enough for the governing body to have to make a rule about it, meaning you know when you step on the pitch it's something that could potentially happen when someone gets pissed off. So, you're in essence consenting to that risk as you should be aware it is something that frequently happens during football games, accidental or not. We could spend all day deciding what is and what isn't covered by the acceptance of risk (and I'm sure there are lawyers who spend their time doing exactly that) but we can pretty much agree that biting would not be covered, while most of the things this has been compared to are covered as people are aware they are a fairly common risk when you enter the pitch. Something like with Keane or Thatcher wouldn't be covered, which makes them more comparable, as they were so rare, unexpected, extreme and excessive, you aren't assumed to be consenting to what happened there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 But there are specific rules against headbutts right? Which means it's something that happens regularly enough for the governing body to have to make a rule about it, meaning you know when you step on the pitch it's something that could potentially happen when someone gets pissed off. So, you're in essence consenting to that risk as you should be aware it is something that frequently happens during football games, accidental or not. We could spend all day deciding what is and what isn't covered by the acceptance of risk (and I'm sure there are lawyers who spend their time doing exactly that) but we can pretty much agree that biting would not be covered, while most of the things this has been compared to are covered as people are aware they are a fairly common risk when you enter the pitch. Something like with Keane or Thatcher wouldn't be covered, which makes them more comparable, as they were so rare, unexpected, extreme and excessive, you aren't assumed to be consenting to what happened there. Yeah we could go round all day arguing the finer details of it, but yes, you would not expect at any point to be bitten whilst playing football, i think we both agree on that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMOZZA Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I personally think any team that thinks whatever punishment taken against Suarez is too lenient should just refuse to line-up against him for fear of their players safety..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
football_master_94 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'm going for the_saintNot enough Messi bashing to be him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ234 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 From a legal standpoint (not laws of the game but the civil and criminal law) you consent to the risk that a bad tackle might occur, because it's an expected event. We know bad tackles will happen, and you consent to the risk you might get injured by one, that's why players cannot sue from an injury resulting from a bad tackle, or get criminally charged for bad tackle, unless there is clear intent to hurt someone (then it becomes not a tackle, but an assault, because it really has nothing to do with a football anymore). This is how the law governs injuries resulting from sport (or at least it is from my memory of when I studied law), you consent to a certain amount of risk when you enter the field which covers the incidents you could expect to find there, which definitely includes bad tackles, headbutts and elbows as they're all common occurrences. Bites aren't. Bites aren't covered because nobody does that on a pitch. Or at least, nobody except one mental *******. But there are specific rules against headbutts right? Which means it's something that happens regularly enough for the governing body to have to make a rule about it, meaning you know when you step on the pitch it's something that could potentially happen when someone gets pissed off. So, you're in essence consenting to that risk as you should be aware it is something that frequently happens during football games, accidental or not. We could spend all day deciding what is and what isn't covered by the acceptance of risk (and I'm sure there are lawyers who spend their time doing exactly that) but we can pretty much agree that biting would not be covered, while most of the things this has been compared to are covered as people are aware they are a fairly common risk when you enter the pitch. Something like with Keane or Thatcher wouldn't be covered, which makes them more comparable, as they were so rare, unexpected, extreme and excessive, you aren't assumed to be consenting to what happened there. With bad tackles there is legal liability, civil at least, as shown by cases in this country (Condon v Basi) there needn't be intent either. You can be liable for what is called serious foul play. Headbutts and bad tackles form part of this. Your part about headbutts doesn't actually make sense since firstly I don't believe there is a specific rule against them and secondly surely biting is covered under violent conduct? Headbutts are not an essence of the game so if it was a very serious battery (the civil version of assault) they could be sued to it cannot be argued they consented to the harm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoolFan Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The tackle on Der Zakarian was amazing.[video=youtube;OhskAyWlsRg] Beast of a tackle. I vaguely remember a incident of him kicking or throwing a ball at a ref also. Cantona and Suarez are both cut from the same cloth, flawed geniuses Edit: I love the slap at the end, quality Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 One thing that is slightly ammusing over all this. The Uruguayan papers, probably obviously, are not running much about the bite, more about their team getting through. The Italians are not really running the story either, its just a side story to the fact they are out, yet in England, its front page headlines filling up back pages and 5/6 pages inside, and it had almost nothing to do with them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliss Seeker Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I think it was sexual http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/luis-suarez-why-humans-bite-humans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoolFan Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 One thing that is slightly ammusing over all this.The Uruguayan papers, probably obviously, are not running much about the bite, more about their team getting through. The Italians are not really running the story either, its just a side story to the fact they are out, yet in England, its front page headlines filling up back pages and 5/6 pages inside, and it had almost nothing to do with them It's the British press, they love nonsense like this. They love the whole Johnny Foreigner, sportsmanship, proud losers etc Nobody seems to mention that Costa Rica and Uruguay both qualified, leaving the Italians and the English for dead. I am curious what the odds were of this happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LilSaint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Don't think it's just British press tbf, there's a good portion of Belgian papers filled with it too. Unsure what about it would be nonesense though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliss Seeker Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's the British press, they love nonsense like this. They love the whole Johnny Foreigner, sportsmanship, proud losers etcNobody seems to mention that Costa Rica and Uruguay both qualified, leaving the Italians and the English for dead. I am curious what the odds were of this happening. Ha, I have a liverpool fan sitting behind me spouting the same lines. Love football fans Human bites are usually caused by one person biting another, although they may result from a situation in which one person comes into contact with another person's teeth. In a fight, for example, one person's knuckles may come into contact with another person's teeth, and if the impact breaks the skin, the injury would be considered a bite. Considerations Human bites that break the skin, like all puncture wounds, have a high risk of infection. They also pose a risk of injury to tendons and joints. Bites are very common among young children. Children often bite to express anger or other negative feelings. Human bites may be more dangerous than most animal bites. There are germs in some human mouths that can cause infections that are hard to treat. If you have an infected human bite, especially on your hand, you may need to be admitted to the hospital to receive antibiotics through a vein (intravenously). In some cases, you may need surgery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bracken Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 With bad tackles there is legal liability, civil at least, as shown by cases in this country (Condon v Basi) there needn't be intent either. You can be liable for what is called serious foul play. Headbutts and bad tackles form part of this. Your part about headbutts doesn't actually make sense since firstly I don't believe there is a specific rule against them and secondly surely biting is covered under violent conduct? Headbutts are not an essence of the game so if it was a very serious battery (the civil version of assault) they could be sued to it cannot be argued they consented to the harm. Been a while since I've studied this so I'm pretty rusty You're probably right about headbutts as I can't remember if they are a separate rule or simply covered by violent conduct. And there is legal liability for bad tackles, but only those that are so extreme (intentional or not) that nobody would consent to the risk of that when entering the field of play. Again with headbutts, as you said they could be sued if it was a very serious battery, but not for just the usual footballers headbutt which is usually more of a nuzzle if anything. I'm not trying to be a legal authority in any of this, my understanding is simply that it's a case of consenting to certain levels of risk, which is what makes biting more extreme than your run of the mill bad tackle or footballers headbutt. Anything that's particularly extreme on a pitch could come under something that you're not presumed to consent to. This piece goes into a bit of detail and discusses the case I was taught (R v Barnes) which governed the consent to risk as a principle in sport: http://www.sjol.co.uk/issue-3/criminal-football Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 So, headbutts and bad tackles (as long as they're not with the clear intent to injure) are a risk you consent to by playing the sport. Being bitten is not. Oh give over, a headbutt is as outrageous and absurd as a bite, don't try and pretend otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arenaross Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's the British press, they love nonsense like this. They love the whole Johnny Foreigner, sportsmanship, proud losers etcNobody seems to mention that Costa Rica and Uruguay both qualified, leaving the Italians and the English for dead. I am curious what the odds were of this happening. It's not nonsense though is it really? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoolFan Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Ha, I have a liverpool fan sitting behind me spouting the same lines. Love football fans Don't get me wrong here Suarez is a lunatic and yes he deserves punishment, but I find the vitriol and the sanctimonious attitude of the British press so VERY boring. Take the reaction of the press when Beckham got sent off against Argentina, they way they were reporting it you would swear he had just killed someone on live tv or something. Maybe it's my very low tolerance for the media and British media in general. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's certainly not nonsense, would be bonkers to claim it is. For what it's worth, the papers are filled with the stuff here too, with lots of mentions across many a frontpage both offline and online. It certainly isn't just a UK thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoolFan Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's not nonsense though is it really? It really is in the grand scheme of things though isn't it. It's a football match where a adult child lost his temper and bit someone. Yeah he's crazy but it's really NOT that important. I guess if you find 5 pages of analysis on a guy biting someone interesting then good for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Don't get me wrong here Suarez is a lunatic and yes he deserves punishment, but I find the vitriol and the sanctimonious attitude of the British press so VERY boring. Take the reaction of the press when Beckham got sent off against Argentina, they way they were reporting it you would swear he had just killed someone on live tv or something. Maybe it's my very low tolerance for the media and British media in general. Don't know how over the top the British media are covering this, as I'm quite fed up with their idiocy too, but I guess the England players are quite happy at the whole thing, as usually the media would be busy scapegoating somebody by now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LilSaint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 You're right, nothing should be written about it at all. Everyone should just shrug and move on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinji Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Personally I think the outrage over bites as opposed to bad tackles and headbutts is not wholly rational but a primal reaction to biting seeming more feral and animal. We dress it up with rationalisations like biting has risk of infection or the players have accepted the risk of bad tackles/headbutt, they may be true but the root reason is because biting frankly just seems more deranged. That doesn't mean I don't think Suarez should be facing a lengthy ban, I do, but I think someone who deliberately headbutts someone (hard, ie a proper headbutt not a touch), or sets out to injure someone (though that is harder to prove) should be treated the same away - and perhaps they would be, I don't know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren1983 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It really is in the grand scheme of things though isn't it. It's a football match where a adult child lost his temper and bit someone. Yeah he's crazy but it's really NOT that important. I guess if you find 5 pages of analysis on a guy biting someone interesting then good for you. If you go down that road then football itself is nonsense in the grand scheme of things Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's not nonsense though is it really? The fallout is. The incident isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's probably the most dominant story in all countries barring: Uruguay, Italy, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Japan and Greece. So it's completely understandable that we'd get so much coverage of it. I'm sure plenty of other nations are talking about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It really is in the grand scheme of things though isn't it. It's a football match where a adult child lost his temper and bit someone. Yeah he's crazy but it's really NOT that important. I guess if you find 5 pages of analysis on a guy biting someone interesting then good for you. Don't be dense though. It's the World Cup with virtually all the world's eyes watching. Of course there will be heavy cover when a player acts like a complete dick. Sure, we can say there are worse things happening in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Palestine, and on and on, and be right, but that applies to just about any story you care to think about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It really is in the grand scheme of things though isn't it. It's a football match where a adult child lost his temper and bit someone. Yeah he's crazy but it's really NOT that important. I guess if you find 5 pages of analysis on a guy biting someone interesting then good for you. Five pages is over the top yes, but the fact that papers are running it as their main story is not nonsense and that's what you were suggesting, so... It is important, because if FIFA do not act what kind of precedent does that set? "You can bite people and get away with it" - "oh thanks FIFA". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoolFan Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 If you go down that road then football itself is nonsense in the grand scheme of things By all means report the incident, but PLEASE spare me the sanctimonious nonsense and pseudo BS psychology from phil neville or mystic meg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren1983 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 By all means report the incident, but PLEASE spare me the sanctimonious nonsense and pseudo BS psychology from phil neville or mystic meg I don't like the press in this country so I don't read it - pretty simple solution really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
football_master_94 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The fallout is.No it's not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's probably the most dominant story in all countries barring: Uruguay, Italy, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Japan and Greece. So it's completely understandable that we'd get so much coverage of it. I'm sure plenty of other nations are talking about it. Not really, a guy lost his temper while playing sport and acted like a knob. Compare that to other should be stories today where a family lost the right to die appeal and an international rugby player has actually broken his spine in a match and all the media seem to care about is a foreigner biting another foreigner in Brazil. Suarez should be "in other news" not the main story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Not really, a guy lost his temper while playing sport and acted like a knob. Compare that to other should be stories today where a family lost the right to die appeal and an international rugby player has actually broken his spine in a match and all the media seem to care about is a foreigner biting another foreigner in Brazil. Suarez should be "in other news" not the main story. Football is the biggest talking point in the world right now, no matter whether Suarez bites or not. Naturally, the biggest event/occurrence within the biggest talking point is everywhere. And today, that is Suarez being an animal. Can't really pretend to be surprised by this. Are you just being contrary because it's Suarez? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 No it's not. It really is, it's very amusing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Not really, a guy lost his temper while playing sport and acted like a knob. Compare that to other should be stories today where a family lost the right to die appeal and an international rugby player has actually broken his spine in a match and all the media seem to care about is a foreigner biting another foreigner in Brazil. Suarez should be "in other news" not the main story. Can 100% guarantee that if this was a united player that had done it, youd be railing against him and not giving a **** about Owen Williams Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 we are dangerously close to "soldiers get paid peanuts whilst Rooney gets 300k a week, like this is you think it's a disgrace #injustice". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 In case you haven't caught on, that's a different game. Chiellini must just be a tasty target for Suarez. As it transpired, Chiellini turned around before Suarez could sink his teeth in: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadsheep2001 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Not really, a guy lost his temper while playing sport and acted like a knob. Compare that to other should be stories today where a family lost the right to die appeal and an international rugby player has actually broken his spine in a match and all the media seem to care about is a foreigner biting another foreigner in Brazil. Suarez should be "in other news" not the main story. And yet Globo is running it with full spread colour front page with the the headline El Loco. But sure, its only the british press running it big Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadsheep2001 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 we are dangerously close to "soldiers get paid peanuts whilst Rooney gets 300k a week, like this is you think it's a disgrace #injustice". i say we've already passed into that nonsense argument territory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cilldara_2000 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Don't know how over the top the British media are covering this, as I'm quite fed up with their idiocy too, but I guess the England players are quite happy at the whole thing, as usually the media would be busy scapegoating somebody by now. You might very well have stumbled on his motivation: "Stevie mate, I'm already public enemy number one, so I'll do something to deflect the attention away from you". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Football is the biggest talking point in the world right now, no matter whether Suarez bites or not. Naturally, the biggest event/occurrence within the biggest talking point is everywhere. And today, that is Suarez being an animal. Can't really pretend to be surprised by this. Are you just being contrary because it's Suarez? Nope, being contrary because people are being way over the top with it. A guy did something he's done twice before, in a football match. It's not worth all the coverage it's getting. FIFA will ban him for x amount of time and the world will continue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Philip Rolfe Posted June 25, 2014 Administrators Share Posted June 25, 2014 we are dangerously close to "soldiers get paid peanuts whilst Rooney gets 300k a week, like this is you think it's a disgrace #injustice". Haha totally this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LilSaint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It really is, it's very amusing. Yeah.. it isn't. It's not just some random bloke that happened to lose his temper somewhere once either. It's last seasons BPL player of the year that's done a vicious thing 3 times now. If sports media aren't going to write about that, than they should just stop the presses alltogether. But hey, good thing you're amused by it. Carry on having fun with it then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Can 100% guarantee that if this was a united player that had done it, youd be railing against him and not giving a **** about Owen Williams I can 100% guarantee you're talking nonsense as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Nope, being contrary because people are being way over the top with it. A guy did something he's done twice before, in a football match. It's not worth all the coverage it's getting. FIFA will ban him for x amount of time and the world will continue. "A guy did something he's done twice before" hahahahaha, nice dilution of the story. You forgot to mention that what he did was savagely attack another footballer in ways we rarely, if ever, see in sports, let alone just football. Also LilSaint's post is on point too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Yeah.. it isn't. It's not just some random bloke that happened to lose his temper somewhere once either.It's last seasons BPL player of the year that's done a vicious thing 3 times now. If sports media aren't going to write about that, than they should just stop the presses alltogether. But hey, good thing you're amused by it. Carry on having fun with it then I'm amused by the reactions, not the incident. The simple fact so many people are fake outraging is humorous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I think a lot of the outrage is a lot more genuine than you think fwiw. I'm definitely very angry about it. Mainly because it was against Italy but, still, the man is utter scum and if he doesn't get serious action taken against him (which I don't think he will) then I will be pissed off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadsheep2001 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Yeah.. it isn't. It's not just some random bloke that happened to lose his temper somewhere once either.It's last seasons BPL player of the year that's done a vicious thing 3 times now. If sports media aren't going to write about that, than they should just stop the presses alltogether. But hey, good thing you're amused by it. Carry on having fun with it then In terms of the global press, you are talking about a world star, currently one of the best and most in demand in the world of football, biting another top player (for the 3rd time) on the world's biggest stage. Anyone who thinks this isnt going to be huge is completely deluding themselves to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just-Wool Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 "A guy did something he's done twice before" hahahahaha, nice dilution of the story.You forgot to mention that what he did was savagely attack another footballer in ways we rarely, if ever, see in sports, let alone just football. Also LilSaint's post is on point too Savagely attack? give over. This is my point here , people are way too over this with hyperbole. It's mental. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LilSaint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'm amused by the reactions, not the incident. The simple fact so many people are fake outraging is humorous. But it's not fake outrage, is it? I seem to recall last year many people were doubting whether or not to vote for Suarez as POTY because of the previous biting incident. He convinced most people he came to his senses & that it wouldn't happen again. He was elected POTY and now repeats his biting for a third time. It's something outrageous to do once, let alone three times. If you're going to look at a 'wider perspective' it's about what we as a society deem acceptable. I say it isn't, and it's a good thing it gets the attention it does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Savagely attack? give over. This is my point here , people are way too over this with hyperbole. It's mental. Oh sorry, yeah, normal people use their teeth don't they? Biting is a form of savagery ffs. And he definitely attacked him, don't see how you argue any other way. What he did was uncivilized, primitive, unnecessary, intending to hurt... not like it was a bad tackle, the man is a savage ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.