 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
like assault? How is it assault during a match very very rarely results in a prosecution, despite video evidence and a hell of a lot of witnesses?
'Assualt' would requie police intervention. And it's a bit melodramatic to refer to what happend as 'assualt'. Chiellini and the other Italian defenders had been very physical towards the Uruguan attack, Suarez in particular. And I'm sure Balotelli would have a good claim for being harassed, and he's not exacly a saint. It was a feisty, hot tempered match. Personally, I wish the England players had just a smidgen of the passion and comitment Suarez and Balotelli show, they might win a game or two.
Ultimately, it's a commercial spectacle firts, sporting tournament second. A bit of controversy will always whip up interest, so you need heroes and villains. This is marketing gold for the media. No publicity is bad publicity.
like assault? How is it assault during a match very very rarely results in a prosecution, despite video evidence and a hell of a lot of witnesses?
i believe it has been previously tried in court, albeit wrt rugby, and the answer is that in agreeing to take part in / play sport, you consent to the fact that you may get injured by both 'fair' and 'unfair' play. So merely being injured gives no rise to any case.
Where i guess you could have a case is if the unfair play is so far beyond being reasonably unfair, and also i guess the injuries becoming severe as a result.
Just hypothesizing; in rugby an 'unfair' but reasonable (as in sort of thing that happens every week / no malice intended) high tackle that unfortunately ends in a broken neck, I'd suggest it's one to file under shit happens, whereas eye gouging resulting in loss of sight would be criminal.
jambalaya - MemberYou know this is the first time I've heard he's done this kinda thing before,
@bikebouy perhaps we should be impressed you've managed to avoid wasting time following football, must be all those miles on the bike, no time for such nonsense
Well I'm just not a footy fan, what can I say. I can say I've better things to do but then that looks demeaning on you lot who follow it..
I just watch when the World Cup comes around, may as well get involved then and I quite enjoy it. 😀
got a bit "physical" in the queue to get on the train this morning, pretty sure if I bit the woman in front of me on her shoulder the police would be interested. Then again I might have got the last seat on the train instead of her, so will consider the tactic next time.it's a bit melodramatic to refer to what happend as 'assualt'. Chiellini and the other Italian defenders had been very physical towards the Uruguan attack
Didn't see the game so admittedly no idea how physical it got before hand. Currently trying to convince our youngest that biting his older brother coz he muscled him out of the way of tv/toy/game is not reasonable behaviour, I'm hoping it works better on him than whoever tried to teach suarez.
<edit> theotherjonv posted while I was typing, cheers, makes sense.
Life ban from all football, reduced to a year on appeal and promise of good behaviour and his teeth removed.
Stoffel: I too wish England players would play better, but not let passion and commitment get in the way of playing with intelligence. Head over heart in that heat, maybe heart over head on a rainy November mid-week league cup match.
I too wish England players would play better, but not let passion and commitment get in the way of playing with [b]intelligence[/b]
I don't think there's much danger of that happening.
the guy was peckish and fancied Italian. I prefer Pizza but I guess he fancied a bit of shoulder.
I would be shocked if anything changes during the world cup. I hope it does but would be surprised if any ban was imposed. Any ban would likely kick in afterwards and then there will be appeals.
His vlaue will still remain high as clubs will be willing to take a chance considering the goals he scores. Liverpool wont loose that much money if they sell but at the moment they wont sell as they dont have anybody else really with his goal scoring tally.
nuff said, off to get a sandwich.
Didn't see the game
It was worth missing for dry and dusty trails though.
It is a strange thing to do tbh and it is probably one of those things where he just does it and does it and it is instinct.
My guess is FIFA either bottle it or give him a massive ban so I go for either
2 games or 12 months [ Internationals only]
Duncan Ferguson did 3 months gaol time for a headbutt on the field when he played for Rangers, so technically it is prosecutable.
That ferguson one was an odd one - the player he headbutted appeared for the defence when it came to court saying he'd provoked ferguson, but the judge still put him away.
It was worth missing for dry and dusty trails though.
Pissed it down in Fenlandistan.
Teach him to skate, stick him in a minor league Canadian team & watch his teeth disappear & his jaw get smashed.
Can you imagine him biting Vinny Jones even?, he'd have knocked his head off.
What is also interesting is what, if any, action FIFA might take against Chiellini, who has made some pretty damning statements (he's right though), which might be considered bringing the game into disrepute. And he didn't exactly cover himself in glory by diving onto the floor after being 'bitten'. That was embarrassing. In fact his actions could well go in Suarez' favour, as it could be considered that Chielliniwas play acting to deliberately influenc the ref's decisions. End of the day, they're a pair of dicks, and I think FIFA should just bang both their heads together and move on.
if this pans out in anyway football is way further up its own ass than I thought possible. Suarez went down rolling around holding his teeth, which were either hurt in biting or he too was trying to con the ref. This is clear by the way in the post match interview he claimed that an injury to his eye had be caused in the incident. No mention of his teeth. This could therefore be held against LS as well as the biting and therefore extending the ban if you are correct.
i believe it has been previously tried in court, albeit wrt rugby, and the answer is that in agreeing to take part in / play sport, you consent to the fact that you may get injured by both 'fair' and 'unfair' play. So merely being injured gives no rise to any case.
This article (albeit in legalese) discusses a number of primarily football incidents where prosecutions have been made with imprisonments of up to six months for GBH. It argues prosecution should be based on the outcome of the sports (football or rugby etc.) disciplinary processes based on a case in Manchester.
There is the argument of on the ball/off the ball, but personally I think if the offence had been committed off the pitch and prosecuted then it should be prosecuted if it happened on the pitch.
I quite liked Chris Waddles suggestion for when he's back from his ban. Make him play with gum shields in!
[i]The longest ban in World Cup history is eight games, handed out in 1994 to Italy defender Mauro Tassotti for breaking Spain's Luis Enrique's nose with his elbow during the second half of their quarter-final.[/i]
Something similar is most likely.
Does anyone think the incident affected the outcome of the game?
Could Italy claim it unsettled them that much that it contributed to Uraguay scoring ?
Any chance of getting awarded the assist in WC fantasy football? 😉
The more key points of that paper to me are whether there was intent or [u]reasonable foresight[/u] that an injury would be caused. It's a very grey area, at one end a perfectly legitimate tackle can result in injury (I broke a collarbone in a challenge when we both fell over and the attacker landed on me); at the other end you have the Keane / Haaland incident which was premeditated over months. And in between is the difficult bit.
In football, which is my sport (I played and then refereed for years), the requirement now is on players to look out for each other and not act / tackle in a way that is reckless or likely to cause injury. It doesn't matter any longer if there is INTENT to cause injury, just a likelihood. And if there is then you don't do it. This is why studs up tackles are now often sending off offences irrespective of outcome; tackling in that way has a reasonable likelihood of causing injury. But an intent? Even if the outcome is the same? That's why I think we need post match panels that can review and where there is likely to be intent, or serious disregard for safety, then really clamp down on it with criminal prosecutions on the recommendations of those panels.
Doesn't particularly help in the local leagues where there is no video evidence or panels to look at it, but I've played in games where players have sustained horrific injuries from 'reasonable' tackles, and have also been damaged by serious fouls that are way outside the rules (broken jaws from punches for example) and in these cases you need the old style complaint to police with investigations and witnesses.
I don't know so much about rugby, but that's a sport where physical domination is a key aspect of the game, and I'm sure the intent is frequently there to tackle legitimately but as hard as possible with the intent of hurting / damaging your opponent. It wouldn't be acceptable outside the white lines, but inside them basically you knew what you were letting yourself in for and therefore have no complaints when it does happen.
How is it assault during a match very very rarely results in a prosecution, despite video evidence and a hell of a lot of witnesses?
It only happens when there's an axe to grind, as in the case of Duncan Ferguson.
Our eldest got 2 mins on the naughty step and wasn't allowed to watch Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom. So I'll go for that.
I assume he would appeal any ban and therefore be allowed to play whilst appeal is being heard, hence able to play in more World Cup matches. I really wish they could force him to play in a muzzle whilst any appeal is being heard.
Does anyone think the incident affected the outcome of the game?
Could Italy claim it unsettled them that much that it contributed to Uraguay scoring ?
Had it been seen he would have been sent off so 10 v 10. Italy have a very real case that it affected the game.
No, that's clutching at straws. besides Chiellini did elbow him back and while you can say it was strongly provoked, you can't retaliate and take the law into your own hands, he'd have had to go too, so would have been 10v9
DrJ - MemberIt only happens when there's an axe to grind, as in the case of Duncan Ferguson.
TBH it's just as well Ferguson's axe needed ground, if he'd got it sharpened before the game he'd probably have used it on McStay instead of just nutting him
Really? Looked way more like a shrug than a full elbow directed at the face? As in "WTF are you really biting me? Get off!".
The big man had three convictions for assault (off the pitch) under his belt at that time, so a fourth was always likely to result in a custodial sentence.theotherjonv - MemberThat ferguson one was an odd one - the player he headbutted appeared for the defence when it came to court saying he'd provoked ferguson, but the judge still put him away.
It was a ridiculous thing for the SFA to pursue, though, for sure. The incident was just a normal exchange of views in a Scottish football game - ref had a clear view and didn't even book him.
Anyone in any doubt, or saying Chiellini is as bad and should have been sent off too, or even still putting bite in inverted commas, should watch the following footage on the Mail website
He bit him. Chiellini reacts like any man would if someone sank their teeth into your shoulder - you would instantly want them to stop - so he swings round his elbow to try and get Suarez off him.
not saying anything about being just as bad, just playing devil's advocate, that the sole arbiter on the field is the ref and whatever the justification or provocation, what Chiellini did after also comes under the heading serious foul play.
If Italy complain and try to get the match overturned on that technicality, then uruguay will do the same and the world cup will have to go on hold while the court for sport in Zurich deliberates. Ain't gonna happen. Chiellini will be dealt with 'appropriately' I suspect, which in this case will mean no post match charges.
what Chiellini did after also comes under the heading serious foul play.
Only if you take a comically unsympathetic view of his actions.
theotherjonv - Member
No, that's clutching at straws. besides Chiellini did elbow him back...
No he didn't.
I wasn't trying to compare what Big Dunc did with what Suarez did only to imply that it is possible to be prosecuted for on field activities. I don't follow the better game of rugby but seem to remember prosecutions from incidents there as well.
Can't find a video of the aftermath, did he actually elbow him or did he shrug his shoulder/raise his arm because a deranged man was biting him? Given the circumstances I don't think I'd have raised my other arm and calmly called for the ref to come and get this mentalist's teeth out of my shoulder.besides Chiellini did elbow him back...
Only if you take a comically unsympathetic view of his actions.
or apply the laws of the game as set down in the handbook and official decisions (and I'll correct myself here, it's not serious foul play, it's violent conduct)
Unfortunately, if the ref had seen it, he'd have had no option. Law 18 - Common sense was taken out of the LOAF as a result of players, managers and fans all screaming about inconsistency. It's drummed in at all levels now to Apply the Laws, whether you feel they are correct or not.
It's up to FIFA to apply common sense now, and take no further action against him even though technically speaking, they should.
DONK read my post earlier this page (supporting what you just said by the way) and watch the Daily Fail link, its pretty clear
I think I would have knocked his buck toothed gnashers down his throat
Chiellini did nothing, there was a normal tussle in the box for position and Chiellini had his arm up and out to block Suarez (standard practice), Suarez didn't like that and he bit him in the shoulder. Chiellini then swung his arm more to get Suarez off and fell immediately to the ground clutching his shoulder.
That Daily Fail video shows it quite clearly. yes, it is a 'get off' elbow as opposed to a full on forearm smash, but it's an elbow all the same.
.That Daily Fail video shows it quite clearly. yes, it is a 'get off' elbow as opposed to a full on forearm smash, but it's an elbow all the same
Well you are entitled to your view, but I suspect most people would accept that this is a legitimate reaction to being bitten on the shoulder & that includes FIFA
Unfortunately, if the ref had seen it, he'd have had no option. Law 18 - Common sense was taken out of the LOAF as a result of players, managers and fans all screaming about inconsistency. It's drummed in at all levels now to Apply the Laws, whether you feel they are correct or not.
My understanding is that the laws still require force to be excessive for a Violent Conduct charge. This level of force seems entirely appropriate.
It was more of a shove than an elbow and given the circumstances, hard to argue that it wasn't justified.
What I found funny was how the Italian bloke dived on the floor because he go bitten on the shoulder...(your legs should still work in the normal manner, chap)...swiftly followed by Captain Gnasher joining him on the floor while clutching his grill, but then later on explaining that he was hit in the eye and that biting people is just one of those things that happens......
It's all this nonsense that has put me off watching football.
None of them try to stay on their feet anymore, the slightest touch and over they go. They then roll around on the floor clutching random body parts before immediately getting up once a free kick is awarded. You even see them glancing around to see what's going on, while rolling around in supposed agony.
The ref should have the ability to review this stuff, or at least an official that can communicate with him and give an opinion based on replays. The arguement against it seems to be that it will ruin the flow of the game, but it can't be any worse than these morons rolling around on the floor.
The refs don't have a chance with all this play acting.
Anyone seen to be faking a foul/trying to get a free kick or penalty awarded without real reason should be yellow carded or stuck in a 5min sin bin.
I reckon footballers should wear pantomime dame costumes.....
My understanding is that the laws still require force to be excessive for a Violent Conduct charge
My understanding would be different; whatever the extent of contact, in fact even if you don't make contact, an elbow to the head / face would have to be considered violent conduct. Irrespective of provocation.
Don't misunderstand me, Suarez deserves a lengthy ban, Chiellini deserves a blind eye turning. just saying that if italy tried to protest Suarez should have gone, making it 10v10 and the outcome would have been different, Uruguay would have very real grounds to then complain that Chiellini should have gone too.
[edit] although his play acting was shit as well.
Anyone seen to be faking a foul/trying to get a free kick or penalty awarded without real reason should be yellow carded or stuck in a 5min sin bin.I reckon footballers should wear pantomime dame costumes.....
Agreed, I've watched my first full game for 2 or 3 years in the last week and the diving/acting/goading the ref was awful. It's ruined the game.
I think they should make them play on concrete or gravel. Wont see em diving then.
its true and most of the pros seem to think it is ok as well to go down if you are touched.
Until they do proper punishments they will continue to cheat. The worst thing is the ref gets more grief for being conned than they do for cheating
The worst thing is the ref gets more grief for being conned than they do for cheating
this.
There was a load about it a year or two back, that players didn't like it, some had reputations as divers, etc. yet they all complain when it's against them and accept it when it's in their favour; 'he felt contact so he went down'. The NBA have a word for it, flopping, and retrospectively hand out bans for floppers.
While on the subject; the pundits on radio and TV have surprised me a bit as well. Suggesting that so-and-so is the kind of player who you'd 'leave a bit on' in the early stages of a match. We all know it happens, at all levels, but to accept and discuss it so openly. Again it's cheating of a sort, trying to intimidate or injure an opponent by foul play
Well yeah, I could find that but I resisted clicking on it - i obviously care enough about this to enter an STW thread but not enough to feed the DM ad-revenue meter 🙂and watch the Daily Fail link
There was a load about it a year or two back, that players didn't like it, some had reputations as divers, etc. yet they all complain when it's against them and accept it when it's in their favour; 'he felt contact so he went down'. The NBA have a word for it, flopping, and retrospectively hand out bans for floppers.
Can't see why they can't retrospectively apply a ban for this using video evidence. Easy enough to do. Seems to just be accepted by those in charge (mostly former players at a guess) as "part of the game" unfortunately.
Edit. Oh and 10 international matches. The FA will do FA.
think it is ok as well to go down if you are touched.
Well, it's only polite...
IGMC
some of it is hard to tell Bayle is one
If you run full pelt and you then try to change direction there is apoitn where only a flimsy touch will knock you off balance.
Then again some dives are clearly flops and I would like to see it introduced.
Its retrospectively they can do something and they are reluctant generally to do anything which just encourages/condones the cheats
jambalaya - MemberHad it been seen he would have been sent off so 10 v 10. Italy have a very real case that it affected the game.
Your argument is that the fact the ref missed an incident affected the outcome of the game.
That's a different debate to the question that I was asking, and one that could be applied to plenty of games on any given weekend, and not just football - rugby and most team games too. The usual precedent is that the result stands.
What I was asking is whether the actual incident (not the debate about the ref missing it) aided Uruguay in getting the goal they needed by unsettling the Italians defence.
I suppose it could. On the other hand, if the italians had any spunk in them it would just galvanise them to ensure that the cheating little **** got his come-uppance by being knocked out of the tournament. Plus a big ban anyway.
the fact they didn't speaks volumes about the Italians. I thought they were pretty decent against us, we didn't play too badly and they still beat us. They were pathetic against Costa Rica, and turned up to park the bus against Uruguay. Deserved nothing, and got it.
So they're the pussies then. 😉
[img] 
[/img]
Welll, according to the Uraguayan FA, that pic is photoshopped.^^^
the fact they didn't speaks volumes about the Italians. I thought they were pretty decent against us, we didn't play too badly and they still beat us. They were pathetic against Costa Rica, and turned up to park the bus against Uruguay. Deserved nothing, and got it.
This and in full knowledge that they needed a result to safely qualify, regardless of the England - Costa Rica game.
I've been racking my brains for something witty and incisive to add about Suarez, but I'm punned out. 😥
Uruguay are embarrassing themselves now
Leave him alone. It's his birthday. (Going to try and shoehorn this into as many threads as possible today)
[img] 
[/img]
Yep. can't believe that everyone from the team captain through to the President is claiming that it's basically a media storm driven by the british press because we're sore that they knocked us out. Pictures prove nothing? - maybe not in isolation, but given past form, and if the teeth marks are genuine and if the Ref had sense to look at them note them in his report, I'd say there's more than enough to add up.
I can't see where Uruguay are going with this. He has to be facing a lengthy ban, and if they appeal just as a means of suspending that ban until a proper appeals process is heard, and go on to progress further, what then? Do teams they subsequently beat have a right to ask for a replay? If, heaven help us, they won with Suarez's help then it has to be meaningless, surely?
Or are they right, and we're over-concerned about it (not because of the fact they knocked us out but because he plays his football here and one of his previous transgressions was here)? Is Argentina's win in 86 valueless because they only progressed because of an act of blatant cheating? Are we making too much of it?
Uruguay are embarrassing themselves now
Yes agreed.
Excellent article about Suarez at:
[url= http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10984370/portrait-serial-winner-luis-suarez-soccer-most-beautiful-player ]http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10984370/portrait-serial-winner-luis-suarez-soccer-most-beautiful-player[/url]
It weird, a bite is a lot less dangerous than a two footed high tackle that could break a leg, but it's so alien to the sport that it's being condemned all over the place.
I reckon banned for a year from internationals with a 1 year suspended sentence that will ban him from domestic games as well if he does it again.
if he does it again
The four strikes and you're out rule?
i fear FIFA are likely to embarrass themselves I think they ar haggling over the ban as anything over 3 games [ not enough and they know it] can be appealed and he plays on.
So they need to be tough but he can stop them and still play
Will be interesting to see the fudge result as both he and the Uruguayan FA seem to want to deny he did it despite the undeniable evidence
I heard on the radio earlier that the general consensus is that he'll get a 2 month ban as this cannot be appealed against, where as, anything longer and he can appeal which would mean he could continue to play in this World Cup.
can they do a short ban to ensure he's out of the wc but tell the national FAs (wherever he is next season) to dole out a more suitable penalty?
I'm guessing a 12month international ban [b]after[/b] the wc is not going to bother him overly....?
Given its FIFA, IMHO, if enough money changes hands anything can happen...allegedly
This is a spectacular fudge and shows the massive hole in the FIFA's regulations. Yes a bank should be appealable but it should start immediately and not be suspended upon appeal.
I agree with JY / muggo that he'll get a short ban (non-appealable) so he misses the world cup. He deserves 12/24 month ban from all football.
Devils advocate: If you can't appeal and stop the ban, what's the point in the appeal. No, it's right that if he appeals he should then be free to play until the appeal is heard.
You just need a system where the appeal can be heard within hours rather than weeks or months. And also I like to see a refundable bond deposited with the appeal, that is forfeited if the appeal is unsuccessful, to prevent frivolous or tactical appealing. How much is a tough one though- how much is it worth to have Suarez available for the ko stages of a world cup? I'd be thinking lots of zeroes........
Has anyone got Brendan Rodgers opinion on all this nonsense? Everyone and his uncle has an opinion on it, but thats the one I'd like to hear. I expect various forms of slow torture may have been elaborately proposed, as opposed to the previous ongoing re-drawing of the rules to accommodate the constant misdemeanours of the carnivorous, racist little shit
Phil Thompson was adamant that Suarez wouldn't play for Liverpool again because of this.
I don't think he would have played for them next season either way TBH I think it's very hard for any player to turn down a move to Real or Barca.
Maybe they should just remove his teeth! That would solve any future issues!
muggomagic - I believe its already been flouted by the papers that this was all part of his plan to ensure a move. A conspiracy too far, I reckon. He's nowhere near bright enough for that
All is not well in the Ghanaian camp. Rude words 🙂 and £1.7m in cash 😯
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jun/26/ghana-chaos-sulley-muntari-kevin-prince-boateng-suspended ]Grauniad[/url]
It would be nice if they could line up the appeal to be heard immediately after the first hearing/sentencing.
Panel: "He bit someone. Again. 24 game ban + help."
LS Lawyer: "I'd like to appeal!"
P: "Thought so." 5 people get up and change seats. "Yes?"
LS L "How about now?"
P: "He bit someone. Again. 24 game ban + help"
You could get it all done in half an hour
Everyone and his uncle has an opinion on it
Browsing google news at lunchtime, I notice that none other than Bruce Springsteen has "waded into the debate" (i.e. someone said as part of an interview: "been watching the soccer? what do you make of the bitey chap?")
"biting has no place in sport." reckons The Boss. Great scoop, the Telegraph.
Interestingly, he said Tyson's on Holyfield should have been "sport's last bite", rather than any biting incident before that. Presumably that means he was fine with biting in sport up to and including that point.
Binners, yeah I don't buy that either. If he wants a move he'll get one. Bigger players have left bigger clubs (I'm thinking about when Liam Bridcutt left Brighton) just by refusing to play.
All is not well in the Ghanaian camp. Rude words and £1.7m in cashGrauniad
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2014/jun/22/end-of-the-hipster-flat-caps-and-beards ]But on the plus side[/url] 😉
(link from bottom of that page)
It would be nice if they could line up the appeal to be heard immediately after the first hearing/sentencing.Panel: "He bit someone. Again. 24 game ban + help."
LS Lawyer: "I'd like to appeal!"
P: "Thought so." 5 people get up and change seats. "Yes?"
LS L "How about now?"
P: "He bit someone. [s]Again[/s] Now. [s]24[/s] 48 game ban + help"
You could get it all done in half an hour
fify
Suspended for 9 world cup matches
And 4 months from all football!
Appeal on it's way!
They can appeal but he's still suspended until the appeal is completed.
He's not even allowed in a stadium for 4 months.