Support NeoGAF

[Opus Angelorum]

Personally I think it will be a 10 game ban that covers club football.

 

[LostCaress]

In the case of the Suarez handball, I think the rule should be thus:

A: If the ball may have entered the net, penalty and a red card
B: If the ball would have entered the net, goal awarded and red card

That ball absolutely 100% was crossing the line so the goal should have stood.

But there are lots of situations were it's not so clear. The ball didn't cross the line so it's not a goal.

For most cases you'd actually not want to handball because a penalty kick is 90% probability a goal, and you're a man down.

 

[The_Hitcher89]

Personally I think it will be a 10 game ban that covers club football.

So a 9-game ban for Liverpool then, basically

 

[The_Hitcher89]

But there are lots of situations were it's not so clear. The ball didn't cross the line so it's not a goal.

For most cases you'd actually not want to handball because a penalty kick is 90% probability a goal, and you're a man down.

Yeah. Only really effective in the closing stage of matches


editops

 

[Opus Angelorum]

But there are lots of situations were it's not so clear. The ball didn't cross the line so it's not a goal.

For most cases you'd actually not want to handball because a penalty kick is 90% probability a goal, and you're a man down.

Rule A: would cover situations when it wasn't clear. Rule B: is for when the ball absolutely would have went in

Are you suggesting if Suarez hadn't handled the ball it wouldn't have went in?

 

[PedroPanache]

And whether the ban covers club football as well


I'm on tenterhooks personally, the punishment will have a huge impact on his Liverpool career, or the transfer fee we get for him.

Yeah, as a Liverpool fan as well I'm crapping myself that they'll ban him across the board.....and for a long time as well. I just hope, that with time not on their side, they give him an international ban without putting too much thought into it.

 

[Ethelwulf]

Could he get banned from the world cup?

 

[The_Hitcher89]

Yeah, as a Liverpool fan as well I'm crapping myself that they'll ban him across the board.....and for a long time as well. I just hope, that with time not on their side, they give him an international ban without putting too much thought into it.

Never know with FIFA

Thy could take the easy way out and just ban him for 10 international games, or they could go crazy and ban him for a year across all football

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Could he get banned from the world cup?

How do you mean, every World Cup event from now onwards?

 

[Kikujiro]

You're the man culprit in shifting it. It was never about the country, it was about Suarez. Talking about context. And I'm fucking stupid cunt for explaining it again. I will try to bite my fingers off so I wont post in this thread anymore.

It's unbelievable, but it's a war you can't win, when everyone will stop posting in this thread he will probably start talking to himself while posting photoshopped images from Uruguayan news outlets to tell everybody they were right and they were victims. He's been all over the places with his posts.

I'm out (and you can mark my word), I want to enjoy this WC, it sucks that there are people who can't admit when their teams do something wrong. But I guess "winning" is more important than anything else, it doesn't matter how. No shame at all.

 

[GingerNathan]

I don't think this has been posted.

 

[LostCaress]

Rule A: would cover situations when it wasn't clear. Rule B: is for when the ball absolutely would have went in

Are you suggesting if Suarez hadn't handled the ball it wouldn't have went in?

Of course it would go in. But, like I said, the problem is with unclear situations. I think you are not addressing the problem - if it's unclear, by definition, you'd have difficulty categorizing it under rule A or B.

There isn't a single situation in football in which a goal that "would've gone in" is awarded. It's either in or not - so why create this special rule?

If a player is running solo towards the goal and gets fouled would you also give a goal?

 

[Buzzati]

It depends on your perspective on the actual act itself. I don't find the act monstrous, I find it stupid and juvenile. I don't think it's worthy, despite him doing it for the third time in his career, of an all encompassing ban. I think missing out on the rest of the World Cup and, perhaps, an extended international ban to be sufficient punishment. Oh yes, and ensure he wears a gum shield at all times during matches from now on.

I found his racist abuse of Evra more destructive, disgusting and monstrous than what he did during the Italy game. Repeat behaviour of that would be worthy of an all encompassing ban.

I think people are frustrated with the fact that it keeps happening and, without any ostensible show of remorse by the player or the team, even if superficial, it just seems like he doesn't care and that he'd likely do it again. If he wants to bite someone, he'll take off the gumshield - I don't see the purpose other than it being kind of funny for people to see. Banning from all of soccer forever is a bit much, though.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Of course it would go in. But, like I said, the problem is with unclear situations. I think you are not addressing the problem - if it's unclear, by definition, you'd have difficulty categorizing it under rule A or B.

There isn't a single situation in football in which a goal that "would've gone in" is awarded. It's either in or not - so why create this special rule?

If a player is running solo towards the goal and gets fouled would you also give a goal?

Why create the rule?

Because in the case of the Ghana vs Uruguay match, the penalty decision actually benefited Uruguay because what would have been a certain goal became a chance to not concede (which ended up happening).

If a player is running solo towards the goal and is fouled:

A: and the ball continues on into the net; goal awarded and red card
B: and the ball does not end up in the net; penalty and red card

It's a pretty clear I think.

If a player has a shot and the ball is heading into the net (but hasn't crossed the line), is then fouled and the ball goes into the net, the goal should be awarded. Why would you award a penalty and give the opposing team a chance for it not to be a goal?

 

[PedroPanache]

Of course it would go in. But, like I said, the problem is with unclear situations. I think you are not addressing the problem - if it's unclear, by definition, you'd have difficulty categorizing it under rule A or B.

There isn't a single situation in football in which a goal that "would've gone in" is awarded. It's either in or not - so why create this special rule?

If a player is running solo towards the goal and gets fouled would you also give a goal?

The Ghana thing was one of those rare clusterfucks that make you search for a way for justice to prevail. It's the beauty and tragedy of the game that such things can happen. You've got a player that handles the ball on the line in the dying seconds of extra time and not only stops a certain goal, but stops certain defeat as well. Justice does not prevail, as Ghana miss the penalty and then lose on penalites. It's one of those "football, bloody hell" moments. I wouldn't have it any other way, in fact.

 

[UrbanRats]

Why create the rule?

Because in the case of the Ghana vs Uruguay match, the penalty decision actually benefited Uruguay because what would have been a certain goal became a chance to not concede (which ended up happening).

If a player is running solo towards the goal and is fouled:

A: and the ball continues on into the net; goal awarded and red card
B: and the ball does not end up in the net; penalty and red card

It's a pretty clear I think.

If a player has a shot and the ball is heading into the net (but hasn't crossed the line), is then fouled and the ball goes into the net, the goal should be awarded. Why would you award a penalty and give the opposing team a chance for it not to be a goal?

How about, in both cases, goalkeeper-less penalty.
Let the gods decide who's right!

 

[Salsa]

edit: nevermind I'm not even gonna bother

 

[The_Hitcher89]

How about, in both cases, goalkeeper-less penalty.
Let the gods decide who's right!

England would still miss it

 

[LostCaress]

Why create the rule?

Because in the case of the Ghana vs Uruguay match, the penalty decision actually benefited Uruguay because what would have been a certain goal became a chance to not concede (which ended up happening).

If a player is running solo towards the goal and is fouled:

A: and the ball continues on into the net; goal awarded and red card
B: and the ball does not end up in the net; penalty and red card

It's a pretty clear I think.

If a player has a shot and the ball is heading into the net (but hasn't crossed the line), is then fouled and the ball goes into the net, the goal should be awarded. Why would you award a penalty and give the opposing team a chance for it not to be a goal?

I don't think it's clear. If he's running solo, gets fouled, it would probably be a goal still, why isn't it awared then?

You award goals that go in.

 

[TimmmV]

Never know with FIFA

Thy could take the easy way out and just ban him for 10 international games, or they could go crazy and ban him for a year across all football

You'd hope Liverpool would appeal it if that happened (although that would be a PR nightmare)

I can't think of many cases (aside from match fixing/doping) where a ban was applied outside the league it took place in, domestic bans don't usually apply to international and vice versa

Im hoping FIFA are sensible and look at the context other bans have had, rather than just give in to the press and give max punishment to him. Given all the flack they've been getting from Europe for Qatar/corruption I fear FIFA will do the latter to save a bit of face

 

[Ethelwulf]

How do you mean, every World Cup event from now onwards?

Oh no, I just meant the current one.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

I don't think it's clear. If he's running solo, gets fouled, it would probably be a goal still, why isn't it awared then?

Because he might miss?

If the ball is running along a line that clearly will take it into the net without any further influence, that should be a goal.

 

[pauloshinobi]

Astonished to see the Uruguayan media defending Suarez.

And the worst of all, trying to sustain its feeble argument by accusing Brazilian media of not giving attention to events like Fred's fake penalty, or Neymar's elbow blow on the croatian player.

I grew tired of seeing journalists criticizing Fred and Nishimura, from ESPN Brazil which has the best crew / coverage, to Rede Globo, whose only function is to lick CBF's balls. Didn't Urugayan reporters saw any of this?


I was cheering on Urugay, besides being brazilian, but after that out...

 

[The_Hitcher89]

You'd hope Liverpool would appeal it if that happened (although that would be a PR nightmare)

I can't think of many cases (aside from match fixing/doping) where a ban was applied outside the league it took place in, domestic bans don't usually apply to international and vice versa

Im hoping FIFA are sensible and look at the context other bans have had, rather than just give in to the press and give max punishment to him. Given all the flack they've been getting from Europe for Qatar/corruption I fear FIFA will do the latter to save a bit of face

Cantona's the only one I think


Think a 15-game competitive ban would do the trick, also banned from any friendlies in between so they can't just organise more friendlies than they normally would.

That'd take him out of this World Cup, out of the next Copa America, and out of most of 2018's qualification

Anone know if they can split the punishment, so it's like 10 Uruguay games and 5 club games?

 

[LostCaress]

Because he might miss?

If the ball is running along a line that clearly will take it into the net without any further influence, that should be a goal.

Might miss? See, that's the problem right there. Striker is running solo, not even a goal keeper in front of him, someone comes behind him, fouls him, is a goal awarded? I'd say he'd score for sure, why is "might miss" a reasonable defense, it's reasonable to assume he'd score.

Who determines where the line between clearly and not clearly is? Might miss / Probably would go in/ Would go in? Why have this single rule that is only really relevant in the tiniest of situations (most of the time you would not want to handball, and even when it's a good idea like in this instance there's high chance the team scores the penalty).It only complicates things and is inconsistent with all the other rules (a goal is never given on account of the probability it might go in)

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Agree to disagree. If you can't see the benefits of having a rule like that then there is no point in me trying to underline its worth.

 

[thehypocrite]

I hope for no ban for Suarez. I don't get the outrage. Worst actions take place in almost every match and have no consequence for the acting party, it's like a bunch of people that watch no football except the world cup feel entitled to police the sport. The racism is worst, the fouls, elbows and tackles that cause injuries are worst. Suarez is a dumb ass and I don't want him in the club I support, but I don't see how a ban is good when a lot of worst shit gets nothing.


Free Suarez!!!!!!

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Well that's another one for:

https://twitter.com/NeoGAFShitPosts

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

The racism is worst, the fouls, elbows and tackles that cause injuries are worst. Suarez is a dumb ass and I don't want him in the club I support, but I don't see how a ban is good when a lot of worst shit gets nothing.

Suarez already had an eight-game suspension from the english FA for his racist outburst, which is more then his first bite incident for which the dutch FA gave him a seven game suspension.

So racism does have a larger ban, it's just that the bite bans are working on compound interest now!

 

[iuuk]

Suarez already had an eight-game suspension from the english FA for his racist outburst, which is more then his first bite incident for which the dutch FA gave him a seven game suspension.

So racism does have a larger ban, it's just that the bite bans are working on compound interest now!

Also known as the KNVB .

 

[TimmmV]

Suarez already had an eight-game suspension from the english FA for his racist outburst, which is more then his first bite incident for which the dutch FA gave him a seven game suspension.

So racism does have a larger ban, it's just that the bite bans are working on compound interest now!

Suarez got 8 games because the FA concluded he probably said multiple racist things to Evra when they had their argument/fight. Terry only got 4 games when he was racist because he was seen to have only said something racist once

so I guess the FA order of badness is: a bit racist>>a bit bitey> very racist >>very bitey

 

[GingerNathan]

Worst actions take place in almost every match and have no consequence for the acting party!

Hmmmm.....No.

 

[kamorra]

I hope for no ban for Suarez. I don't get the outrage. Worst actions take place in almost every match and have no consequence for the acting party, it's like a bunch of people that watch no football except the world cup feel entitled to police the sport. The racism is worst, the fouls, elbows and tackles that cause injuries are worst. Suarez is a dumb ass and I don't want him in the club I support, but I don't see how a ban is good when a lot of worst shit gets nothing.


Free Suarez!!!!!!

thehypocrite

 

[thehypocrite]

Hmmmm.....No.

Yes they do. Heck just look at Neymars elbow to Modric in thw first game, or Sakho elbow in yesterday's game. Do you even watch football? And elbow to the head can make serious permanent damage to a player.

 

[confuziz]

Yes they do. Heck just look at Neymars elbow to Modric in thw first game, or Sakho elbow in yesterday's game. Do you even watch football? And elbow to the head can make serious permanent damage to a player.

'Do you even watch football'? You should ask the same question to yourself.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, I'm sorry to say.

 

[thehypocrite]

'Do you even watch football'? You should ask the same question to yourself.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, I'm sorry to say.

Confuziz pls. What's worst an elbow to the head or a Suarez bite?

 

[confuziz]

Confuziz pls. What's worst an elbow to the head or a Suarez bite?

A bite. One happens in football, the other one doesn't.

It's about being a rolemodel to the rest of the world, especially kids. You need to realize this.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Confuziz pls. What's worst an elbow to the head or a Suarez bite?

A bite. An elbow can occur by accident when jumping in the air or struggling for position.

A bite would never happen by accident, it is intentionally damaging.

 

[PedroPanache]

A bite. One happens in football, the other one doesn't.

It's about being a rolemodel to the rest of the world, especially kids. You need to realize this.

Yeah, it's more important that kids elbow each other in the face than bite their arms. Footballers need to set the standards from which kids will foul and cheat each other.

 

[pulga]

Confuziz pls. What's worst an elbow to the head or a Suarez bite?

But elbows to the head are, sadly, a byproduct of the game. Biting someone is just...what the fuck.

 

[John Dunbar]

But elbows to the head are, sadly, a byproduct of the game. Biting someone is just...what the fuck.

how do you feel about pepe playing for real madrid?

 

[Addi]

Hungry Suarez - The Game

 

[confuziz]

Yeah, it's more important that kids elbow each other in the face than bite their arms. Footballers need to set the standards from which kids will foul and cheat each other.

You're completely missing the point. Read again.

 

[pulga]

how do you feel about pepe playing for real madrid?

check the football thread, not going through the difference between pepe and suarez again

 

[thehypocrite]

A bite. One happens in football, the other one doesn't.

It's about being a rolemodel to the rest of the world, especially kids. You need to realize this.

Suarez is no role model to anyone. That has no importance to me. Parents need to be the role models for their kids not millionaire assholes in the football pitch. If they can't see that, then there's nothing to be done. I don't understand why we transfer the burden to third parties when it's something we need to carry ourselves.

Also both happen in football. A lot happens on the field and in regards to the physical damage each causes the elbow is worst, the tackles are worst. This "think of the children" is the most childish and irrational justification I've seen to request a ban of a player.

I don't even like Suarez but this incident has been so blown out of proportion.

 

[John Dunbar]

check the football thread, not going through the difference between pepe and suarez again

you're right, suarez is a kindergartner next to pepe.

 

[pulga]

I don't even like Suarez but this incident has been so blown out of proportion.

if it was his first time, sure. its the third fucking time he does it. FIFA needs to slam its fists down on the table and make an example out of the racist vampire

you're right, suarez is a kindergartner next to pepe.

good job posting a video of an isolated incident that happened 5+ years ago and has yet to happen again. Daft. As. Fuck.

 

[kamorra]

Would you guys please stop quoting this guy and just take a long and hard look at his username?

 

[Slizz]

Threads about to cannibalize itself. We are already doing re-runs.

 

[confuziz]

Suarez is no role model to anyone. That has no importance to me. Parents need to be the role models for their kids not millionaire assholes in the football pitch. If they can't see that, then there's nothing to be done. I don't understand why we transfer the burden to third parties when it's something we need to carry ourselves.

Also both happen in football. A lot happens on the field and in regards to the physical damage each causes the elbow is worst, the tackles are worst. This "think of the children" is the most childish and irrational justification I've seen to request a ban of a player.

I don't even like Suarez but this incident has been so blown out of proportion.

You're probably part of the 0,1% that thinks this way. That's not a good thing. Elbows, knees and tackles are part of the game. Biting people isn't, and never will. Suarez is the only human being that does this on professional level.