kontermann Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 You've been reading here on a friend's account for over 10 years before registering yourself? Ok then Yep. Not everyone is like you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Why would FIFA need to contact the other FA's? The other FA's have already found him guilty and sentenced him accordingly. All they will use the other incidents for is background history. I would have thought given his track record a 6 month ban from all football would be about right, but I think he will get something like a years ban from International football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 friends account Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Cartman Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Lucky to have escaped last year Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 Suarez really hates Chiellini, Paddy Evra, Scott Parker and Branislav Ivanovic doesn't he. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootador Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Wtf is that. I'm past burning now, let's behead him and stick his head on a spike outside anfield so he can still be worshipped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerber Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 There's a substantial difference between severe tackles, even headbutts & then biting someone. What would you prefer? To have a broken leg on a tackle or Suarez bite? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kontermann Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Lucky to have escaped last year Yeah you can clearly see he bites him actually on those pics stop making up things thats didnt happen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Yeah you can clearly see he bites him actually on those pics stop making up things thats didnt happen Your reading comprehension is second to none Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 haha didn't notice the punch into Chiellini's chest at first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 konternmann = alias. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ234 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The reason is pretty simple, it's about the presumed consent of the victim. If you are playing football, you're presumed to consent to the risk of the most obvious things that could go wrong (a bad tackle, a clash of heads, a stray elbow etc.). These are common occurrences when you go on the pitch, so you know that there's a chance they could happen, yet you still choose to play football and have therefore given consent to the risks of these things.Nobody going on a football pitch is presumed to consent to being bitten. It is so far out of the things that you think have a reasonable chance of happening, that nobody will be expecting you to consent to it by playing a match. It's the same reason you can both be prosecuted or sued for intentionally injuring someone with a bad tackle, because nobody is presumed to consent to being intentionally having their leg broken. 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.You're actually wrong. You don't legally at least consent to headbuts or bad tackles; not sure why you thought the former. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kontermann Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Your reading comprehension is second to none Yeah as is your understanding of sarcasm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootador Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Kontermann is stampler isn't he, that's what I always presumed anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Cartman Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vynal Seven Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Kontermann is stampler isn't he, that's what I always presumed anyway. I'm going for the_saint Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The reason is pretty simple, it's about the presumed consent of the victim. If you are playing football, you're presumed to consent to the risk of the most obvious things that could go wrong (a bad tackle, a clash of heads, a stray elbow etc.). These are common occurrences when you go on the pitch, so you know that there's a chance they could happen, yet you still choose to play football and have therefore given consent to the risks of these things. Nobody going on a football pitch is presumed to consent to being bitten. It is so far out of the things that you think have a reasonable chance of happening, that nobody will be expecting you to consent to it by playing a match. It's the same reason you can both be prosecuted or sued for intentionally injuring someone with a bad tackle, because nobody is presumed to consent to being intentionally having their leg broken. 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. You dont consent to bad tackles, as they are outlawed in the game, hence why you get punished if you perform one, you cannot consent to something that is not allowed in the game in the first place. You consent to physical contact, but certainly not to headbutts or bad tackles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan99 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Not agreeing with what is being said, but we actually banned Thatcher ourselves after the incident and didn't wait for any decision from the FA, you won't see Uruguay or Liverpool do the same You can't exactly take the moral high ground at the moment, with your club not letting Toure see his dying brother (slightly tongue in cheek, probably needs to be pointed out) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorg Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Some quality gifs and pics in here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 Kontermann is stampler isn't he, that's what I always presumed anyway. That would make so much sense. I'm going for the_saint That would make so much sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I´ve been here before reading on a friends account so dont call me liar oh dear . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Nothing about this is about taking the moral high ground really. If we look hard enough into whatever club we support, I'm sure we can find some dodgy stuff as well. This is about Suarez being a complete nutter, and far from the first time, and there needing to finally be some serious action against him. He won't be getting a lifetime ban, but I don't think a year banned from any kind of football would be unfair, particularly in light of all the other incidents over the last four years. Cantona got 9 months for kicking a fan/hooligan, which I suppose is the best comparison we have. Except he only did it once, and still got a very serious sentence. By going on more normal criminal cases, at least here, you typically get a more lenient sentence if you admit to your wrongdoing from the off, making the case easier and cheaper for the police and authorities. Seems like Uruguay are going down the Liverpool route of complete delusion. I just hope there is a severe punishment this time, because 10 matches out clearly wasn't enough to set him straight. If FIFA just ban him for the remainder of the World Cup, it will all be a joke. Just because he's a great footballer doesn't mean he should get away with unspeakably idiotic things like this. A less famous player doing this would get a serious ban the first time, never mind now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LilSaint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I've always wondered if kontermann knows what 'kont' means in dutch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Nothing about this is about taking the moral high ground really. If we look hard enough into whatever club we support, I'm sure we can find some dodgy stuff as well. This is about Suarez being a complete nutter, and far from the first time, and there needing to finally be some serious action against him. He won't be getting a lifetime ban, but I don't think a year banned from any kind of football would be unfair, particularly in light of all the other incidents over the last four years. Cantona got 9 months for kicking a fan/hooligan, which I suppose is the best comparison we have. Except he only did it once, and still got a very serious sentence. By going on more normal criminal cases, at least here, you typically get a more lenient sentence if you admit to your wrongdoing from the off, making the case easier and cheaper for the police and authorities. Seems like Uruguay are going down the Liverpool route of complete delusion. I just hope there is a severe punishment this time, because 10 matches out clearly wasn't enough to set him straight. If FIFA just ban him for the remainder of the World Cup, it will all be a joke. Just because he's a great footballer doesn't mean he should get away with unspeakably idiotic things like this. A less famous player doing this would get a serious ban the first time, never mind now. Don't you think Cantona kicking the fan is considerably worse though than biting another player (even if it is the 3rd time)? I honestly don't know what the answer is. I don't think just banning him, for however long, will help. I think he has some sort of mental health issue, and obviously needs some kind of help. I think if he is just banned then a year or 2 down the line something like this is just going to happen all over again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Cartman Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Cantona got 9 months for kicking a fan/hooligan, which I suppose is the best comparison we have. Except he only did it once, and still got a very serious sentence. Whilst it may have had no influence on his 9 month sentence, Cantona also had a long history of being an absolute nutjob as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 Why does Rugby have a law against biting but football doesn't? Just copy/paste this into the football laws, job done. There is no standard minimum or maximum punishment for biting in football's disciplinary code, unlike rugby union which has a 12-week recommended suspension for first offences and up to a four-year ban for the most serious incidents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Why does Rugby have a law against biting but football doesn't? Just copy/paste this into the football laws, job done. Because biting is, or at least used to be, quite common place in rugby, hence why the law came about. It isn't really that common in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bracken Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 You dont consent to bad tackles, as they are outlawed in the game, hence why you get punished if you perform one, you cannot consent to something that is not allowed in the game in the first place. You consent to physical contact, but certainly not to headbutts or bad tackles. 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 *******. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Don't you think Cantona kicking the fan is considerably worse though than biting another player (even if it is the 3rd time)?I honestly don't know what the answer is. I don't think just banning him, for however long, will help. I think he has some sort of mental health issue, and obviously needs some kind of help. I think if he is just banned then a year or 2 down the line something like this is just going to happen all over again. Whilst it may have had no influence on his 9 month sentence, Cantona also had a long history of being an absolute nutjob as well Not going to deny that, and he got his share of red cards for losing his mind. But apart from the fan kicking, they were more "normal" things, things you get red-carded for. Kicking a fan (or hooligan as it turned out iirc) or biting someone is just so far out of what you expect on a football pitch that there needs (or needed) to be a serious punishment. When you add it all up, I don't think what Suarez have done is less bad than what Cantona did, and he got 9 months for it. I think at this stage we are past this being Suarez losing his mind in a heated situation as at least two of the biting incidents happened completely unprovoked (I don't know the situation the first time as I've not seen it). Then you have all the other stuff, like how he assaulted that player in his Ajax days. He simply seems like a loose cannon that can explode at any moment in a competitive environment. If he feels he can get away with it again, with little or lean punishment, or simply blames everybody but himself again, I think we can be fairly sure it will happen again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 Because biting is, or at least used to be, quite common place in rugby, hence why the law came about. It isn't really that common in football. Yeah I guess, you'd think the FA would bring it in after the first incident with Ivanovic, just makes sense that there are strict punishments against it for the future (unless they have and I've missed it). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadsheep2001 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Why does Rugby have a law against biting but football doesn't? Just copy/paste this into the football laws, job done. Rugby certainly isnt perfect, but the IRB is pretty quick (for a governing body that is) at bringing in laws after debates/actions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icondacarver Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I´ve been here before reading on a friends account so dont call me liar Alias - Ban him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadsheep2001 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I´ve been here before reading on a friends account so dont call me liar Hmmmmm.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Not going to deny that, and he got his share of red cards for losing his mind. But apart from the fan kicking, they were more "normal" things, things you get red-carded for. Kicking a fan (or hooligan as it turned out iirc) or biting someone is just so far out of what you expect on a football pitch that there needs (or needed) to be a serious punishment. When you add it all up, I don't think what Suarez have done is less bad than what Cantona did, and he got 9 months for it. I think at this stage we are past this being Suarez losing his mind in a heated situation as at least two of the biting incidents happened completely unprovoked (I don't know the situation the first time as I've not seen it). Then you have all the other stuff, like how he assaulted that player in his Ajax days. He simply seems like a loose cannon that can explode at any moment in a competitive environment. If he feels he can get away with it again, with little or lean punishment, or simply blames everybody but himself again, I think we can be fairly sure it will happen again. I think there is a fairly good chance something like this will happen again with him regardless of the punishment he gets. I would argue the reason that Cantona got the punishment he did was because it was a fan (or hooligan) he 'assaulted'. Suarez's incidents have all be confined to the pitch, still within the football match. It's a completely different sport and environment etc, but the only other biting incident I can think of is Mike Tyson, and yes he did chomp off a bit of Holyfield's ear. Tyson was banned (had his licence taken away) for life, which came down to a year on appeal. I think FIFA will go with about 6 months - 1 year depending on what competition(s) they want to ban him from. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
x42bn6 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 *******. Headbutts I'm less sure... Accidental "bunts" of the head maybe, but headbutts should be in a similar category as biting, personally.Either way, I think a better example would be from contact sports like boxing - boxing is about as close as you can get to battery (not really assault - battery is closer to the actual offence). Even Tyson's ear bite on Holyfield wasn't a criminal offence. However, the moment the fight is over, consent is over - as James Butler's sucker punch demonstrated (he was later charged with battery). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint 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 *******. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Cartman Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Not going to deny that, and he got his share of red cards for losing his mind. But apart from the fan kicking, they were more "normal" things, things you get red-carded for. his disciplinary problems began in 1987 when he was fined for punching team mate Bruno Martini in the face.[8]The following year, Cantona was again in trouble because of a dangerous tackle on Nantes player Michel Der Zakarian, resulting in a three-month suspension,[8] this was later reduced to a two-month suspension as his club Auxerre threatened to make the player unavailable for selection in the national team In January 1989 during a friendly game against Torpedo Moscow he kicked the ball at the crowd, then ripped off and threw away his shirt after being substituted. His club responded by banning him for a month. Just a few months earlier, he had been banned from international matches for one year after insulting the national coach Henri Michel on TV At Montpellier, he was involved in a fight with team-mate Jean-Claude Lemoult and threw his boots in Lemoult's face In December 1991, during a match for Nîmes he threw the ball at the referee, having been angered by one of his decisions. He was summoned to a disciplinary hearing by the French Football Federation and was banned for one month. Cantona responded by walking up to each member of the hearing committee in turn and calling him an idiot. His ban was increased to two months, and Cantona subsequently announced his retirement from football on 16 December 1991 This is before he even got to England Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kontermann Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Alias - Ban him Yes. Do it so everyone here is happy. Juarezmann Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinji Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Yeah thats actually a good point, since the other incidents were outwith the FIFA world cup, i dont think they can really be used as additional evidence here. Otherwise FA's would have been contacting other FA's all the time to hammer players with extensive bans based on his previous history. Each one really has to be dealt with independently by the body running that tournament, so either the dutch FA, english FA or in this case FIFA. I would think the only thing FIFA could use is the red card from the last world cup, and tie it into something to do with being unsporting. Disagree with this. I don't see anything wrong with FAs contacting other FAs for details of previous incidents; football is a global sport and a player's history is relevant no matter what competition it occurred in IMO. A player could only get hammered with an extensive ban if he had a history of issues, not sure why that would be in some way unfair? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 Didn't Joey Barton get banned from playing in France because he had a ban in England? I agree with Martin, I don't see why players should get a clean sheet each time they switch countries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 This is before he even got to England I have no idea what he did before coming to England to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Philip Rolfe Posted June 25, 2014 Administrators Share Posted June 25, 2014 This is before he even got to England The tackle on Der Zakarian was amazing. [video=youtube;OhskAyWlsRg] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Holy ****! Looks very similar to the Suarez Ajax tackle really. No intent of getting the ball at all, but to injure the player. Looks like both missed a bit too. Cantona got punished though, while I'm not sure if Suarez did? Suppose we can also add that at least Cantona knew he had done something bonkers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Cartman Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Haven't seen that Cantona 'tackle' for years and its still incredible Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Disagree with this. I don't see anything wrong with FAs contacting other FAs for details of previous incidents; football is a global sport and a player's history is relevant no matter what competition it occurred in IMO. A player could only get hammered with an extensive ban if he had a history of issues, not sure why that would be in some way unfair? Name me one incident where the FA of a country has used a red card given in another country as a reason to give a longer ban for a similar incident. The FA didnt do that when Suarez got banned last time because it does not happen. You almost do get a clean slate, because its a new FA your dealing with and you have no previous bans with that particular FA. The Barton one is different, he was already banned, when a player gets a ban from a domestic FA, it is carried to any other domestic FA the player moves to play in. Two different things altogether. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoolFan 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Name me one incident where the FA of a country has used a red card given in another country as a reason to give a longer ban for a similar incident. The FA didnt do that when Suarez got banned last time because it does not happen. You almost do get a clean slate, because its a new FA your dealing with and you have no previous bans with that particular FA. The Barton one is different, he was already banned, when a player gets a ban from a domestic FA, it is carried to any other domestic FA the player moves to play in. Two different things altogether. 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?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 4. Trial by combat This certainly is an interesting proposal. Where is the Mountain when we need him? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoolFan Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Is this the tackle that got him in trouble for Ajax http://minus.com/ljEPrJIiKpVln Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.