11/21/24
June 26, 2014
Luis Suarez Banned 9 Games for Biting Opponent: Uruguay star Luis Suarez has been banned for nine games and four months by FIFA for biting Italian defender Giorgio Chiellini during their World Cup match. Suarez had two prior biting incidents in the past five years, one while he played for Liverpool in England's Premiership and another at Ajax in Holland. The decision takes away Uruguay's top player and one of the standouts of the tournament before its match against Colombia in a knockout game Saturday. The punishment covers the start of Suarez' club season as well for Liverpool.
That seems like a fair punishment.
posted by grum@work at 10:41 AM on June 26, 2014
I agree as well, though I would say that about anything up to a year. Some of the ESPN hosts were talking lifetime ban, which I thought was crazy excessive.
posted by rcade at 10:43 AM on June 26, 2014
Some of the ESPN hosts were talking lifetime ban
Anyone other than Taylor Twellman? I like the kid but he's a walking knee-jerk reaction. Missing 3 games in the Champions League covers half the group round.
posted by yerfatma at 10:50 AM on June 26, 2014
I think Lalas said it as well.
Does Liverpool hasten the exit of Suarez over this insanity? I think if a bigger club elsewhere drove a money truck to their door they'd jump at it now.
posted by rcade at 10:56 AM on June 26, 2014
I think Liverpool should hang on to Suarez. If the fan base accepted him after two bites, then I can't see why a third bite would bother them now.
And heavens-to-betsy, he's a REALLY good player and the kind you need on your team if you want to beat the big boys in the EPL/CL.
Winning/scoring for your favourite team will help a fan ignore the indiscretions of a player. Just ask MLB/NFL/NBA teams with certain malcontents...
posted by grum@work at 11:08 AM on June 26, 2014
Why do Liverpool pay the big price for a bit of idiocy done in an Uruguay shirt? And why is this punished more harshly than headbutting? FIFA BS, that's why.
posted by billsaysthis at 12:03 PM on June 26, 2014
Why do Liverpool pay the big price for a bit of idiocy done in an Uruguay shirt?
They knew he was a nutbar (two previous biting suspensions) and they still kept him on their roster. You play with fire, you're going to get burned. Maybe causing an issue with the team that pays him money (again) will be the impetus to reform.
And why is this punished more harshly than headbutting?
Third offence, man.
posted by grum@work at 12:14 PM on June 26, 2014
Why do Liverpool pay the big price for a bit of idiocy done in an Uruguay shirt? And why is this punished more harshly than headbutting? FIFA BS, that's why.
Agreed on the former - Liverpool doesn't stand to gain anything via international play, so why should teams take on the risk of injury AND suspension if there's no reward?
The latter - attempts to penetrate (quit it) the body are always treated more severe than to hit it. Think of the penalties for eye gouging vs. punching in most sports. There's something particularly barbaric about it that garners a worse fan response. That and the serial nature of this seems to make it a lot more appropriate.
posted by dfleming at 12:17 PM on June 26, 2014
Was it FIFA BS when the Dutch FA banned Suarez for 7 games for biting?
Was it FIFA BS when The FA banned Suarez for 10 games for biting?
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:47 PM on June 26, 2014
Can we make the Waltons joke for the Ghanaian own goal?
Goodnight John Boye?
Anyone?
I'll get my coat.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:49 PM on June 26, 2014
why is this punished more harshly than headbutting?
Would you rather be nutted or bitten?
There's your answer. The man's a biter.
posted by etagloh at 12:56 PM on June 26, 2014
Why do Liverpool pay the big price for a bit of idiocy done in an Uruguay shirt?
Where were you in the Aaron Hernandez threads?
posted by yerfatma at 01:04 PM on June 26, 2014
Mr. B, you're supposed to be watching the other match.
(I don't own a shred of sporting apparel and never have, but damn, I want a Ghana kit.)
posted by beaverboard at 01:06 PM on June 26, 2014
We're watching both at once!
Work has a two hour pizza and ice cream party for the US game. We have a ton of people in here with the US game on the big screen and the Ghana game on a projector off to the side.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 01:08 PM on June 26, 2014
Thinking about it a bit more, Liverpool shouldn't pay a higher price in games lost for Suarez' actions than Uruguay.
posted by rcade at 03:02 PM on June 26, 2014
Agreed on the former - Liverpool doesn't stand to gain anything via international play, so why should teams take on the risk of injury AND suspension if there's no reward?
That's an interesting point. Newbie questions, could Liverpool keep Suarez from playing in the World Cup? How can FIFA suspend Suarez from playing in the Premier League? What's the relationship between UEFA/FIFA?
posted by phaedon at 03:21 PM on June 26, 2014
FIFA is the governing body for all of world football. UEFA is the governing group for European countries. Each has a relationship with the Football Associations in the countries they cover whereby each side (or maybe just the FAs) agree to abide by the bodies' decisions.
could Liverpool keep Suarez from playing in the World Cup?
No. Clubs try to play games to keep players out of tournament qualifiers and the grumbling keeps getting louder, but I don't think they have any leverage.
posted by yerfatma at 03:39 PM on June 26, 2014
If a player is called up to represent his national team and his club refuses to let them appear, then FIFA can ban him from playing in the subsequent two club games. Teams can claim a player is injured, but if the national team smells conspiracy or is just being a pain they can call him up anyway.
Players can "retire" from international consideration (and then later un-retire). Provided it's the player making the decision not to go, FIFA won't force them.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 03:52 PM on June 26, 2014
Thinking about it a bit more, Liverpool shouldn't pay a higher price in games lost for Suarez' actions than Uruguay.
Are they?
Uruguay is in the round of 16, but he can't play for the rest of the tournament. Without him, I don't give them much of a chance to win even one more game. That means he'll miss 8 more competitive international games. That means he'll probably miss all of the second most important football tournament for his nation, Copa America.
posted by grum@work at 10:56 PM on June 26, 2014
I wonder if Liverpool have to continue paying his wages during that time. That would be close to 4 million for him to not even come to the stadium. If they do and that's how the world works, I'm not letting this week end without biting my boss and demanding four months of paid leave.
Chiellini says he thinks the ban is excessive.
posted by JJ at 08:24 AM on June 27, 2014
Are they?
Nine Premiership, three Champions and a Capital One Cup game. I see your point that one or more World Cup knockout games are significant, but Liverpool has EPL title aspirations. Losing Suarez for 23 percent of their season is huge.
posted by rcade at 08:57 AM on June 27, 2014
but Liverpool has EPL title aspirations. Losing Suarez for 23 percent of their season is huge.
Agreed. When he was out the first 5 games of last season, we dropped 5 points ... and lost the title by 2 points.
posted by Ricardo at 09:48 AM on June 27, 2014
We did. By the skin of our teeth, one might say.
posted by JJ at 10:06 AM on June 27, 2014
An important part of punishing Suarez is to force any team he plays for to reflect on the wisdom of continuing to employ a serial biter. And to force the fans to reflect on their support for such, etc.
If having him on Liverpool hurts the team that much, then perhaps they should hire someone to replace him. There must be a way out of his contract triggered by his bringing the game into disrepute or his serving such long suspensions.
He's important to his team, but the team knew when they brought him on and when they renewed his contract that he was prone to long suspensions for abberant on-field behavior. He scores a lot of goals, though, so the calculated risk seemed worth it.
That risk played out well until now. Them's the breaks.
posted by Hugh Janus at 10:43 AM on June 27, 2014
This should make it very hard for Liverpool to move his... poisoned fruit and all that. There's no way they could get the cash they would require to move him right now. Thank goodness that they botched Arsenal attempt to activate his buyout clause failed.
posted by flannelenigma at 01:58 PM on June 27, 2014
Out of curiosity, how do other sports handle number-of-games suspensions that might include playoff or other non-scheduled games? Does A-Rod get a shorter suspension if the Yankees make the postseason?
posted by Etrigan at 06:40 PM on June 27, 2014
I got bitten by a snake today. An Eastern Racer.
This is why my neighbours got to see me shout "Fuck you, Suarez!" while hurling an angry snake off my back deck this afternoon.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 11:19 PM on June 27, 2014
In addition to the Uruguay games, I count 9 Liverpool premier league matches this will cover (roughly 1/4 of the season) and adding in league cup matches and Champions League matches, looks like this will be a 20+ game ban in reality.