Suarez BITES again - ***Update: Luis Suarez banned from ALL football for 4 months***

[Buffalo Seagull]

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...st-all-sense-of-proportion/15283#.U62nJEBhvqw
Proportionality. Have we forgotten what the word means? In criminal law, it means that the punishment reflects the severity of the crime. The febrile reaction to the latest Luis Suárez biting incident suggests that we’ve lost all sense of proportion. We’ve made a three-course meal out of a harmless little nibble.

FIFA has handed Suárez a record nine-match international ban and a four-month ban on having anything to do with football. Some will argue that even this sanction is too lenient. There had been calls for the Uruguay striker to be hit with a lifetime ban. BBC pundit Danny Mills said: ‘They have got to throw him in jail and lock him up forever.’ As I said, no sense of proportion. The problem we face is this: how do we calculate Suárez’s punishment in a proportionate way? Is it by measuring malicious intent? If so, good luck with that. There are cameras at every angle in the ground these days, but as yet no one’s invented an inside-the-brain camera to read a player’s mind.

What about punishing according to the degree of harm caused? Apart from teeth marks and wounded pride, there was no significant harm caused by Suárez’s bite. No blood was drawn, no flesh was torn. Nobody got eaten. It wasn’t a career-wrecking assault. It was a violent act, but was it any worse than a punch, a headbutt, a studs-up tackle or an elbow to the throat? Clearly not. So why does a bite warrant a stiffer penalty than all these acts of violence?

It seems that Suárez is being punished for violating a social taboo. Biting, like spitting, is considered uncivilised. Suárez’s punishment therefore would appear to include an additional moral premium. But whose morals are we talking about? Sure, there’s been plenty of frothing outrage, particularly in England. But while some were outraged, the rest of us were pissing ourselves laughing. That’s right: we thought it was bloody hilarious. Top notch entertainment. So, there’s not even a moral consensus over the alleged crime.

I propose a simple and proportionate punishment, based on philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s ‘hedonistic calculus’, weighing up the amount of pleasure or pain caused. The bite itself deserves a three-match ban (actual cannibalism would carry a stiffer, six-match sanction). However, as the bite caused almost as much pleasure as it did pain, I’d offset the penalty with a two-game ‘mirth bonus’. The net result is a one-match ban. A reasonable sanction or a recipe for cannibalism? I’ll leave you, dear reader, to chew over that question.

Racial vilification causes even less physical damage than a bite, and it too is just a social taboo. By your argument, you are suggesting that players would escape punishment altogether for it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I seem to remember they thought Rattin was an angel as well
there is history
its all our fault

Rattin was Argentinian.

 

[Grombleton]

I'd much rather take a nip on the shoulder from Suarez than a leg breaker from Ryan Shawcross,a career finisher from Keane,a skull fracturer from Hunt,a jaw breaker from Shearers elbow,a coma inducer from Harald Schumaker or have a professional footballer kill my kids while driving drunk like Luke McCormick.
A massive overreaction from the English press and supporters because England went home before even Suarez did because of his two goals against them.
It was a nip on the shoulder.Not a glass in the face.

You're working on the basis that they're mutually exclusive. I don't think that any of what you've described, or what Suarez did should be tolerated - NONE of them should happen in an ideal world and none should be considered worse than the other - they both leave physical injuries that are bought upon by behaviour that should NOT be tolerated.

 

[glasfryn]

Rattin was Argentinian.

its still our fault

 

[Pogue Mahone]

its still our fault

Of course it is. But he WAS Argentinian. A bit like Maradona, and look at the fuss we made over his goal in 86.

 

[glasfryn]

Of course it is. But he WAS Argentinian. A bit like Maradona, and look at the fuss we made over his goal in 86.

and that was all our fault as well
or was the weight of the white stuff up his nose
second goal was OK though .....but someone should have taken him out a little earlier

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Is he banned from watching football? Or is he crouched in front of a fuzzy telly in Montevideo.

It's been very entertaining hearing the excuses from all sorts of Uruguayan personalities and seeing a street filled welcome for someone whom has quite possibly cacked up their chances of going much further.

Reminds me of a tale of a chap whom got his penis stuck in a vacuum cleaner.

"I was cleaning the stairs and slipped. The vacuum cleaner then latched itself to my penis."

Or, "I was getting dressed, after a shower, and unfortunately sat on a lightbulb that happened to be floating about."

Hugh Grant, "I was being a responsible citizen and offered a resident a lift and whilst she was leaning over to retrieve a dollar that had slipped out of my pocket, my penis accidentally fell in to her mouth".

 

[The Rivet]

If Suarez had bitten someone on the street in the UK he would have a criminal record. I couldn't give a f that he is a great footballer. Why should some people be treated differently to any normal 'Mr Jones' on the street? Serial offenders in our justice system are given harsher and harsher punishments if they continue doing the same thing. I am a football fan but I don't believe they are gods to be lenient with. The punishment is just and fair. Now it seems all latin peoples are getting on their high horse blaming everyone but their own idiotic son! Even that idiot president of Venazuala is turning it into a south American versus the rest of the world tirade. Crack pots with big chips on their shoulders (pun intended)

 

[8ace]

Paddy Power's €1m World Cup deal with Suarez killed by biting - Independent.ie

 

[TomandJerry]

Paddy Power's €1m World Cup deal with Suarez killed by biting - Independent.ie

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

It's strange that a player banned from football is being bought be a team banned (pending appeal) from making transfers.

 

[vegster]

]If Suarez had bitten someone on the street in the UK he would have a criminal record[/B]. I couldn't give a f that he is a great footballer. Why should some people be treated differently to any normal 'Mr Jones' on the street? Serial offenders in our justice system are given harsher and harsher punishments if they continue doing the same thing. I am a football fan but I don't believe they are gods to be lenient with. The punishment is just and fair. Now it seems all latin peoples are getting on their high horse blaming everyone but their own idiotic son! Even that idiot president of Venazuala is turning it into a south American versus the rest of the world tirade. Crack pots with big chips on their shoulders (pun intended)

And if he had done it 3 times he would probably be in a soft cell in Broadmoor, but because he is a footballer of some skill he effectively gets away with it. Hilarious isn't it ? If Suarez was anywhere between being an MP or a roadsweeper his career would be over after the first offence.

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

There are some fairly believable stories/theories floating around about this latest 'incident', it's rumoured the ban is to be reduced to 1 month worldwide ban and 5 internationals.