Luis Suárez

[Leyton388]

If he planned it then he's a bigger idiot than we give him credit for as he has proven to be an utter liability for top clubs. Imagine him playing in El classico. Those games are heated at the best of times. He'd completely lose it in that.

[Reece]

No way was that a premeditated ploy to facilitate a move to Spain- doing well for his country in the WC would mean far too much to him.

Can't believe people are even suggesting it

[MrMichael]

Of course he didn't plan it, any suggestion he did is more ridiculous than the event itself even

[kingfunk]

Biting is as bad as spitting, the potential to inject bodily fluids is gruesome.

Correct. It's disgusting, I'd take the punch first thanks.

[Fredo]

Chiellini had been kicking lumps out of him all afternoon FFS.

Yeah and that's probably why he reacted like that.

We don't know of the context of how he grew up and how hard it must have been for him to fight his way through it. All those issues stem from his childhood I think. Taking the moral high ground from our point of view is ludicrous IMO.

He's done it again and it's not acceptable, but if the club decides to forgive him and he's playing for us next season, I won't care. We can't overlook the overall improvement in his character since the Ivanovic incident. But for his own sake, he should come out and apologise now.

[G]

Really? I think people react like they do to bites because they are so out of the ordinary, and almost animalistic.

There would be less uproar if Suarez had punched someone square in the face.

I know what I'd rather be on the end of.

Keane's pre-meditated knee-high leg breaker on Haaland? Snapped his leg - "take that you cunt" - much less uproar and 'outrage' than this.

I'm not condoning it - it's crazy and the fact he's done it now three times is bat**** mental and he clearly has a problem. But I'd rather be on the end of a Suarez bite than a punch or elbow to the face, a headbutt or a leg breaker. Every time. Many worse things happen on a football pitch than biting - but not much more unusual.

Exactly. Fellani throws the elbow every week and **** all is said. The frequency of these events has dulled our reaction to them. It's assault, the method of assault is neither here nor there. Nine if them have any place on a football pitch.

[Resu]

Exactly. Fellani throws the elbow every week and **** all is said. The frequency of these events has dulled our reaction to them. It's assault, the method of assault is neither here nor there. Nine if them have any place on a football pitch.

Which nine is that?

[Roboklopp]

Which nine is that?

False nine.

[G]

Which nine is that?

I'll smash this stupid phone up!

[Leyton388]

Not sure where the 2 year ban is coming from.



This is the Disciplinary Code:

http://www.fifa.com/...iscoinhalte.pdf

Articles 48, 57, 77 and 10.

My guess is an 8 game International Ban.

[dom9]

Yeah and that's probably why he reacted like that.

We don't know of the context of how he grew up and how hard it must have been for him to fight his way through it. All those issues stem from his childhood I think. Taking the moral high ground from our point of view is ludicrous IMO.

He's done it again and it's not acceptable, but if the club decides to forgive him and he's playing for us next season, I won't care. We can't overlook the overall improvement in his character since the Ivanovic incident. But for his own sake, he should come out and apologise now.

Tens of thousands of professional sports people around the world have grown up in slums, surrounded by violence and abject poverty. Yet the only other example of biting I can think of in any sport was Tyson. Suarez has done it three times now. His background is irrelevant imo. He's on his own in this regard.

[captainfog]

Suarez

I ****ing love the bones of the guy. I said before the tournament I hope he bites someone and is sent home in disgrace haha!!! My only disappointment is it wasn't Rooney's face.

Crazy *******!

The press reaction is laughable, a little nibble? So what. Headbutts, elbows and horror challenges are much worse.

[PTP]

Cue moral outrage from fans of every other club. It's moral outrage based on an agenda that they'd love nothing more than to see Suarez banned from the PL. Watch him get an international ban and United, Arsenal, Chelsea fans screaming that he should be banned from the PL. Meanwhile he gets linked to Arsenal, and suddenly it's a massive u-Turn by all their fans.

Laugh back in their faces. They'd still all have him in a second. Tell then he's available for 15m and watch their faces light up :-)

agree - whilst it is disgraceful - why would it be ok for say barca/real to sign him but we should sack him

Personally - if £50m and Sanchez was on the table i'd bite your arm for it

but i'd be just as happy if he stays

[Attilladahun]

Legal Implications?

Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Clearly Suarez at the time was employed by the Uruguay FA or their equivalent.

LFC could face potential huge financial losses as a result of his actions.
Who should pay if anyone at all?

The player? Remember the ex Chelsea player banned for drug taking -he was made to pay after his contract was terminated although the Italian courts later complicated matters. Suarez is not short of a bob or two.

The Employer?

It would be interesting to ascertain if international law views Suarez's actions similarly.

Generally in English Law, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable.

Justification for such wide recovery has been made in several areas. The first is that, as is common in tort law, policy reasons should allow those injured to have means of compensation. Employers generally have larger assets, and greater means with which to offset any losses(deep pocket compensation) although the player here will have considerable means. Secondly, it is under the instruction of an employer by which a tort is committed; the employer can be seen to gain from the duties of their employees, and thus must bear the consequences of any wrongdoings committed by them. Lastly, it has been justified as a way to reduce the taking of risks by employers, and to ensure adequate precautions are taken in conducting business.


In Assault cases liability for assault has been found much more readily than other intentional torts, as in Smith v North Metropolitan Tramways Co.
Unlike other intentional torts, which tend to be premeditated, liability for assault has been found in several cases prior to Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. Poland v Parr & Sons involved an employee who assaulted a boy, believing him to be attempting to steal his employer's goods.

Vicarious liability was imposed based on the employee's implied authority to protect his master's goods. Liability was also found where a tram conductor - in his duties - pushed a passenger out a tram, after he had not paid his fare.

However interestingly as may be the case here, assault involving personal vengeance and spite was generally not found to result in liability, as in Warren v Henlys Ltd.

This represents a principal limitation of the previous position of liability: only where an act was in the course of employment could an employer be liable. Premeditation and personal motive would take an employee out of their course of employment, breaking liability- not likely relevant here. The establishment of the close connection test has produced different results in cases of intentional assault, as demonstrated in Mattis v Pollock. Here, a bouncer for a nightclub was involved in a dispute with a customer. He subsequently went home and returned with a knife, stabbing the customer, resulting in serious injuries. The employer was held liable, despite the bouncer's intent on revenge, due to the close connection of the tort to the bouncer's employment and duties. It was of particular importance that the bouncer was employed to act in an aggressive and tough manner.

LFC could, of course, if the assault is proven summarily dismiss Suarez for "Gross Misconduct" if his contact provides that whilst employed by LFC he has to act ,at all times in a manner which does not cause harm to LFC or the brand.

LFC may then try to recover their losses.

What does the club do?

[A] Pursue for recovery of the losses?
Given he market value was c £70 million (subject to any enforceable release clause contained in his contract) a likely loss seems inevitable.

[B] Take the moral high ground and sack him to protect the Club and brand image? Loss of sponsorship etc may be a greater economic loss ultimately.
or

[C] Take other action?

Does the Uruguay's or the club's insurance cover losses should he be prevented from playing..................

Maybe the Club will ballot the Club members given the financial implications

Lots for the Club's Board to discuss next week.

Just putting it out there to discuss?

[poorscousertommy]

edited: you posted in between what I was calling bull****!