Luis Suárez

[Arn]

Biting someone shows a serious lack of self control and tbh anger issues!

You could say the same about a player that make a two footed tackle.

[Vermilion]

More so than a stamp or a 2 footed lunge?

I agree with Arn, I don't get football's apparent hierarchy for such offences.

[BobTheCharmer]

You could say the same about a player that make a two footed tackle.

There's nothing wrong when executed properly with studs not showing in a two footed tackle. As long as ball is won first. Its obviously now outlawed but it was always a part of football and can be every bit as enjoyable to watch as a bit of skill. Biting has no place in sport. Its ****. Biting should be saved for females bottoms.

[Alex]

You could say the same about a player that make a two footed tackle.

Ok then, ignoring what you think biting is comparable too. Do you think a 10 game ban was justified. That's the only real point there. He bit someone, got banned for 10 games. Seems logical to me. Regardless of other offences.

[Kenneth]

He's racist because the media and the FA decided he is and many people prefer not to think for themselves.Same as he's begging to leave because people believe the media's agenda driven narrative.
He's no angel but I think he's every right to feel persecuted and vent a little.
Just thought more here would give him the benefit.
Let's face it - we invaded Iraq on lies so where's the harm in driving a footballer out of the country?

I haven't said he's racist, but he racially abused evra when, by his own admission, he made reference to evra's race during an argument. Anyone who thinks it was friendly and not derogatory is a mug imo. I agree he's had harsh treatment by the media and I don't think he's evil, I would just rather he wasn't a liverpool player. And the Iraq reference is pointless and ridiculous.

[Mark79]

There's nothing wrong when executed properly with studs not showing in a two footed tackle. As long as ball is won first. Its obviously now outlawed but it was always a part of football and can be every bit as enjoyable to watch as a bit of skill. Biting has no place in sport. Its ****. Biting should be saved for females bottoms.

I think he's talking about the type of studs up two footed tackle that's aimed deliberately at a player's ankle or shin bone though.

[Kenneth]

There's nothing wrong when executed properly with studs not showing in a two footed tackle. As long as ball is won first. Its obviously now outlawed but it was always a part of football and can be every bit as enjoyable to watch as a bit of skill. Biting has no place in sport. Its ****. Biting should be saved for females bottoms.

tackling is part of the game and there are varying degrees of good and bad ones. And it is perfectly conceivable that we could see a two footed tackle that was punished with a 10 game ban.

[Arn]

Ok then, ignoring what you think biting is comparable too. Do you think a 10 game ban was justified. That's the only real point there. He bit someone, got banned for 10 games. Seems logical to me. Regardless of other offences.

No.

A three game ban maybe four.

You wouldn't even get a ten game ban if you deliberately made a two footed tackle breaking someones leg.

[Kenneth]

I think he's talking about the type of studs up two footed tackle that's aimed deliberately at a player's ankle or shin bone though.

I don't think we see many, if any recently, that we could say we're intentionally aimed at another players ankles without consideration of the ball. It would be quite hard to prove if there were such tackles. It's easy to conclude that a bite was not done with intention of winning the ball. Very easy.

[Kenneth]

No.

A three game ban maybe four.

You wouldn't even get a ten game ban if you deliberately made a two footed tackle breaking someones leg.

I disagree. You are just speculating, so so will I. If the intention could be established to a sufficient level the I think it's pretty likely in today's climate.

[Arn]

I think he's talking about the type of studs up two footed tackle that's aimed deliberately at a player's ankle or shin bone though.

[Alex]

How many times have we seen a deliberate two footed tackle that is done with intent though. Most of these events can be explained away with them being clumsy or rash.

[Mark79]

I don't think we see many, if any recently, that we could say we're intentionally aimed at another players ankles without consideration of the ball. It would be quite hard to prove if there were such tackles. It's easy to conclude that a bite was not done with intention of winning the ball. Very easy.

We often see stamps and elbows which are clearly not done with the intention of winning the ball.

It doesn't necessarily need to be an ankle, how about Aguero's two footed lunge on Luiz?

[Alex]

IMO people are getting into this bubble where things that happen in football don't compare in real life.

[Kenneth]

We often see stamps and elbows which are clearly not done with the intention of winning the ball.

It doesn't necessarily need to be an ankle, how about Aguero's two footed lunge on Luiz?

Again, it's near impossible to establish that that was an soley an intentional 'attack' rather than a very poorly executed attempt to win a tackle.