Tisteon Simeonus, on 26 June 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:
Hmm let's take this off the field. He assaulted someone quite badly (possibly a section 47 assault in this country but I always get confused about the different versions of assault we have here so not 100% on that). The point is this: he freaking assaulted someone and if he did that off field with that much evidence (unlikely I know but bear with me) he would probably be looking at jail time especially with his previous (same M.O. even) then he wouldn't be able to play for anyone anyway!
So yeah because he did it on a field he only gets a ban from the game (and half the ban he's not playing for his club anyway). I think he is lucky and actually he has kind of got a pretty light sentence.
But how much jail time would you face for a third bar fight in a row, in which neither participant is hospital bound? Probably not four months. One might also argue that the impact on the bitten player is negligible compared to, say, an elbow to the nose or a bad tackle. If I'd have to choose between being bitten in the shoulder or taking a kick on my ankle, I'd choose the bite because it won't end my career or even my involvement in the match.
Anyway, the question will be if the judgment as it is will stand upon appeal.
Suarez' representatives might claim that it will go against the right of an employee to be excluded from their occupation, the club might say the player wasn't representing them, the argument might be used that this was the first time he actually did something in a FIFA-controlled competition so precedences in national competitions ought to be ignored (in the Ivanovich bite incident, did the EPL take the Dutch case into account?).
If a court case with postponed punishment will ensue, that might just be enough to make him playable. Especially if it would postpone his sentence until the end of the season and into the summer 2015 period.
It wouldn't be the first time an extremely far-going judgment was made that couldn't stand in the end - see the Barcelona case, where a transfer ban of a full year was lifted, at the very least temporarily. Barcelona is now merrily spending like there's no tomorrow (Halelovich, Rakitic, Ter Stegen, Bravo, probably a stand-out central defender).
So I guess that everyone interested in Suarez is looking into the possibilities here, and if the prospects are good, it won't make a single difference for his market value or transfer options, or even Liverpool's willingness to keep or sell him.
As for morals in sport... this case hardly stands alone. In the cynical world of the NFL, prospects walk around with rape charges to their name and it doesn't make a difference, court cases for lesser offenses are postponed until after the season (Marshawn Lynch's, for example). In cycling and baseball, sporters with multiple dope bans are still signed and in competition.
I had wished that FIFA had banned him for the entire tournament, then spent more time to compile a case and a suitable penalty. Now, it reeks of sensationalism, faked outrage (by the FIFA, the player, the team's coach and the club) and potentially, weakening the FIFA's disciplinary muscle if an appeal manages to reduce the punishment by a significant margin.
Everyone is entitled to his own wrong opinion. - Lizrad