Forum menu
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]