Luis Suarez Ban: Is it Fair?
By now, everyone’s heard FIFA’s pronouncement on Luis Suarez and his inability to control himself. FIFA said he violated “Article 48”, which I assume prohibits players from being giant dickheads.
- Nine matches (including the rest of the World Cup)
- Four months of no football activity whatsoever: No training or playing for club or country, no supporting from the stands, no “administrative” activity (not sure what that means, but it could affect his transfer ability)
- Fine of 100,000 Swiss francs
- Effective immediately
Read FIFA’s pronouncement here.
Interestingly, Referee Marco Rodriguez’ decision not to take immediate action on the bite (which he did not see) allowed FIFA’s review board more freedom to investigate. They probably could have still banned him whatever Rodriguez did, but I think he did the right thing.
What do you think?
Featured photo: Yahoo sports
PLAY THE ADVANTAGE 
I’m satisfied.
LikeLike
“he violated “Article 48″, which I assume prohibits players from being giant dickheads.”
Ah Jenna, your prose stylings keep us coming back to your blog over and over! 🙂
I voted that the ban was fair, BTW…..
LikeLike
I aim to please!
(PS…I’m glad someone appreciates my genius!)
LikeLike
So does watching football on tv count as a football activity? And what about watching a game between kids… Maybe have some people play football in front of his house to effectivly give him house arrest :p sorry but I find the implimication a bit vague. I am curious to find the limitations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently they’re now saying the limitations DON’T extend to his ability to transfer.
They’re also saying he can’t appeal the ban, only the fine.
Though consider he will have been banned 35-odd games in two clubs seasons. That – and the bad PR and potential for re-offense – makes for a very expensive player, no matter how many goals they score.
And four months on ice is a long time for a footballer who has to train on his own…
LikeLike
I’ve got mixed feelings about his ban. For sure Suarez should get a firm ban. At the other hand, was Pepe’s headbutt to Muller really that much less severe that he only got a one match ban?
I heard a lot of former pro footbalplayers say that they rather have a bitemark in their shoulder than a broken leg caused by an opponent coming in with straight legs on the shins.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s a 1-1 comparison. The ban wouldn’t have been nearly as substantial if he didn’t have a history, with two different bans in two different leagues. It had to be progressively more severe or they’d appear to be condoning repeat behavior. It doesn’t matter whether someone would rather have a bite or not. He’s not supposed to bite people and he KEEPS. DOING. IT.
It’s bizarre really. But be clear: He’s done it to himself.
LikeLike
Doesn’t have Pepe a history of red cards and bans? I just think it is hard to explain that a bite costs 4 months nothing being able to perform you profession, while a headbutt only costs one match. (In most leagues after a red card for a headbutt the ban would at least be 3 to 5 matches.)
Something that’s also taken into account in punishment is the intention to deilberately cause severe damage at your opponent. The last couple of years I notice an increase in players placing their foods over the ball with the studs forward to the opponent legs and players coming in with straight legs. I think that’s defintely not a regular “football offence”.
It’s a bit strange saying “he’s not supposed to bite people”. Players also are not supposed to give headbutts and come in with straight legs and the same players keep doing it. And the latter are – in sight of possible damage – much worse, and in my view also not part of the game.
Suarez surely deserves a heavy punishment, but 4 months completely banning him from his profession is somewhat to harsh comparing it to other punishments.
LikeLike