It's good to see us bring up other cases to show that Suarez isn't the most evil player ever. I'd loved to have seen more mention of Man U's terrible record!
-
Was muß, das muß. -
If he had mentioned United issues (or any other club for that matter) it would be immediately dismissed as biased pap trying to hand off the blame.
Because of who he is using in club examples is the only way he could come across balanced and credible.Comment
-
Don't recall Plessis behaving improperly at all. If anything, I remember him looking suitably embarrassed by Itandje's micky-acting during the memorial service ?
Not sure he should counted as an example."I will make the boys feel your support"
Jurgen Klopp June 2020Comment
-
-
Ian Herbert: Luis Suarez - an ideal pantomime villain for the age of outrage
The nation is not so consumed by apocalyptic horror as we'd like to think
Just follow the headlines for a real sense of how the nation feels about Luis Suarez. "Same old Suarez, always eating!" "Gnash of the Day". The Sun were more than matched by The Guardian's rather good "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves?" before our "Morning after the bite before". The tone pretty much reflects the tenor of Twitter since Suarez got his teeth into Branislav Ivanovic's shirt – though possibly not into his skin, because that's not been broken, but that's another story.
There's been a #suarezhungry hashtag on Twitter, and a few "Best Luis Suarez bites Ivanovic" on some of those football-themed website repositories. "Eat Ivanovic then ask for Cech" and "All Bran(ovic)". Nice. Even Patrice Evra joined the party with an inflatable arm that he bit into at Old Trafford on Monday.
All of which tells you that the nation is not quite so consumed by apocalyptic horror about all this as we'd like to think. Horror is a sensation provoked by replaying the Roy Keane "tackle" on Alf-Inge Haaland in 1997 and no one was suggesting that he should have played his last game for Manchester United. Let's be honest – this is not so much collective horror as a vicarious pleasure in a perfectly formed pantomime plot, with a clearly defined villain.
Outrage is great for filling up the vast black holes of space in the rolling news era. We're in an age of national outrage, when one footballer can feel another one make to bite him and find police officers waiting for him to disembark from a coach in the middle of the Surrey night, to check his skin for marks. There were none, actually. Suarez did not break the Chelsea defender's skin and we can take Merseyside Police's word for this.
Ivanovic had "no apparent physical injuries", they said in a statement on Monday. What have we actually seen, then? Something encapsulated by Alan Smith's remarks on the Sky Sports commentary: "He must have sunk his teeth in there I think. That's what it looks like. Oh my word." And that really was the most Smith could have said, because the only evidence we have is 44 seconds of inconclusive footage, followed by Ivanovic pointing to his arm.
The Football Association said in its own statement a few hours after Merseyside Police's that "the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances". Simply to make to bite someone is disgraceful and today's FA three-man independent regulatory commission must act swiftly and comprehensively when they see today that Suarez has. But "clearly insufficient" in what way? On the basis of a case which is not exactly overwhelmed with evidence, the FA seems to have made its minds up already. The governing body has issued a statement that prejudices the outcome of the tribunal, having ensured, to the point of extreme and understandable secrecy, that last year's tribunal governing Suarez's racist abuse of Patrice Evra was not similarly prejudiced.
It's a cultural thing that has helped inflate this perfect storm. The English football spirit tells us that our national game is a physical game and that to stamp is lower down the scale of the intolerable than the spiteful act of biting or spitting. It's a media thing. Biting is new. It's news, in a way that England hooker Dylan Hartley biting the finger of Ireland's Stephen Ferris last March was not. (A decade has passed since Aussie rules player Peter Filandia's 10-game suspension for biting an opponent's testicles during a game, so don't let's conjure the thought.) It's a Suarez thing. Any other player and it is only news for a few days.
The subplot that links Suarez with Mike Tyson, who we're told has started following the player on Twitter, really is the most incredible part of all. As if there is actually any parallel between Tyson chewing off part of Evander Holyfield's ear and Ivanovic feeling Suarez make to bite him. All part of the pantomime, as is the so-called involvement of "Number 10". David Cameron's spokesman has said: "It is rightly a matter for the football authorities to consider."
Scandal doesn't look like this. Scandal is a Crown Court judge, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, meeting Hillsborough families whose case he was about to consider, in October 1997, and when some of the families did not turn up, making a joke about the Disaster. "Have you got a few of your people or are they like Liverpool fans, turning up at the last minute?" the judge asked Phil Hammond, who lost his 14-year-old son at Hillsborough. The day of reckoning for years of obfuscation, deceit and institutional failings will come a step nearer, with a preliminary inquest hearing in London tomorrow. You can bet the coverage won't hold a candle to the Suarez storm.Comment
-
Superb stuff from Herbert.Are we winning?Comment
-
Ian Herbert really is a top class journo.Comment
-
-
Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
Someone tell Suarez to get check his family tree for Welsh relatives. It seems the FAW can overrule any bans given by the FA.
Artell off the hook
Wrexham centre-half David Artell was not expected to play, after being sent off for a high challenge in Saturday's 1-0 defeat at Champions Mansfield.
But, having been sent off by an English referee, in an English league game, the decision was overturned by the Football Association of Wales on Tuesday afternoon, just hours before the game.
Comment
-
Anyone read Colin Murray's column in the metro today - thought it was pretty apt..'The tide is very much in our court now.'
KeeganComment
-
Originally posted by Shaggy View PostYes he is
Olly Holt surprised me today too. Still mentions Evra but the gist of his article is the hysterical reaction is absurd and all he should get is a 3 game ban.
Probably this media calming down is likely to come too late, the FA made up its mind after the initial hysterics.Comment
-
Have Everton nearly bid for him yet?Those that hid Anne Frank were breaking the law.
Those that killed her, were following the law.Comment
-
Some sense - finally
Luis Suarez bite: Why we are seeking to punish the man rather than the Liverpool striker's offence
24 Apr 2013 07:30
What the Uruguayan did to Branislav Ivanovic was pitiful, but he needs help...not hysteria, argues Oliver Holt
Luis Suarez has spent the last three days staring into the bloody maw of public outrage.
He bit Branislav Ivanovic at Anfield on Sunday afternoon and then we bit him back. An awful lot harder and an awful lot deeper.
Suarez committed a kindergarten crime and for his *transgression, he has been pursued by the hounds of hell and even David Cameron.
Perhaps it would be best if we were at least honest with ourselves about why there has been such a disproportionate response to what he did.
Because the truth is we are quite clearly seeking to punish the man rather than the offence.
What we are attempting to do here is try him all over again for racially abusing Patrice Evra in October 2011.
There are reasons for that. Neither Suarez nor Liverpool ever showed real contrition for what he had done.
Their defence that Suarez had called Evra ‘negro’ as a friendly greeting in the midst of an exchange of banter was risibly weak.
The whole, bitter, protracted affair, together with John Terry’s abuse of Anton Ferdinand, made us question quite how enlightened the English game had really become.
Suarez served an eight-match ban for what he did but partly because he subsequently refused to shake Evra’s hand, there has always been a sense he was unforgiven.
What Suarez did on Sunday, though, does not belong in remotely the same category as the abuse he aimed at Evra.
Talk of an eight match ban or longer is not just absurd. It’s obscene.
Because if that happens, it means, in the FA’s moral code, biting someone is as bad as racially abusing them.
This is a physical offence we
are talking about and what harm has Suarez actually done?
Did play have to stop for Ivanovic to be treated on
Sunday? No.
Did Ivanovic have to go to hospital? No.
Will Ivanovic be unavailable for Chelsea’s Europa League tie against Basel tomorrow night? I doubt it.
Is he still suffering any pain from what Suarez did? I doubt that too.
Yes, what Suarez did was *gruesome. Yes, it was bizarre and, yes, it looked savage and animalistic.
There is a stigma attached to biting in the same way
there is to spitting but
it deserves mild *opprobrium, not full-on hysteria.
Was it any more savage, for instance, than flying at another player with both feet off the ground with studs up?
Was it any more savage than launching into a tackle that could break an opponent’s leg?
Was it any more savage than swinging an elbow into an *opponent’s face and shattering his cheekbone?
Those are physical offences that could put a player out for weeks or months and ruin his career.
What Suarez did to Ivanovic is not even in the same league.
Liverpool should have taken a harder line with Suarez when he racially abused Evra.
But this time, the talk of sacking him, selling him or banning him for life is ridiculous.
As is the suggestion he should be removed from the shortlist for the Player of the Year.
This time, Liverpool did the right thing by condemning the player’s action and apologising.
And Suarez did the right thing by quickly admitting he was wrong and accepting the fine the club imposed upon him.
So let’s not waste energy by calling for draconian *punishment. If anything, we should take our lead from what Stan Collymore suggested on Monday night.
Suarez needs help, Collymore pointed out. He has *psychological problems that he needs to deal with.
My guess is that Liverpool have already insisted he has counselling with Dr Steve Peters , the sports psychiatrist who has done so much to help Craig Bellamy and others.
What Suarez did to Ivanovic was pathetic and puerile, not heinous or brutal.
So punish him, sure, but let’s keep what he did in *perspective.
He deserves a three-match ban for violent conduct. Nothing more.What do you mean it could've been anyone? Name me one person who's got a grudge against penguins
Batman
F*** off!!!Comment
-
Jesus christ even bluto Samuel in the mail is having a pop at the FA over it.
Have I slipped into some parallel universe over night?Comment
Comment