Suarez hit with 10-match ban by English FA

\SuarezIvanovic (Getty)

By IVES GALARCEP

Luis Suarez will have plenty of time to think about the bite heard round the world, and Liverpool will have a long time to figure out how to play without him.

The English FA suspended Suarez for 10 matches on Wednesday, ending his season and leaving him facing a six-match ban to start the 2013/2014 season.

Liverpool is expected to appeal the charges.

“Both the club and player are shocked and disappointed at the severity of today’s Independent Regulatory Commission decision,” Liverpool’s managing director Ian Ayre said in a team-issued statement.

“We await the written reasons tomorrow before making any further comment.”

What do you think of the punishment? Think it’s a fair amount? See Suarez getting the ban reduced?

Share your thoughts below.

This entry was posted in European Soccer, Featured, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to Suarez hit with 10-match ban by English FA

  1. Gnarls says:

    I love the smell of justice in the morning. Ten games is appropriate.

    • The Imperative Voice says:

      But if you throw the book at him it may come back nibbled…..

    • wides says:

      I’m a Reds fan, and i DO think that the ban is probably about right. But the FA is just ridiculous in their application of rules and punishments.

      Defoe – bites Mascherano (and leaves bite marks or so I’ve heard), gets a yellow card, nothing else
      Suarez – bites Branislav… gets 10 games

      Terry – racially abuses Anton Ferdinand – 4 game ban
      Suarez – racially abuses Evra – 8 game ban

      Potentially career ending tackles, 3 games, spit on or bite someone and you’re really in trouble

      • Joamiq says:

        If you’re a Premiership fan, you know why the FA didn’t do more about the Defoe incident. It’s a dumb rule perhaps, but their inaction was consistent with the rule.

        Also, Suarez has had repeated disciplinary issues. This isn’t even his first time biting an opponent. That has to be factored in to the length of any suspension for him.

  2. Ramsizzler says:

    First time the FA has ever had teeth in a disciplinary action.

  3. tom says:

    Bite me once shame on, shame you. Bite me, I can’t get bit again. I bleed Red, but this is the last straw. Hm, I wonder how we would do in the Championship without a target striker?

  4. ThaDeuce says:

    Too much.

  5. ChiTown says:

    Ridiculous ban given their history and precedent. Ridiculous.

    • William the Terror says:

      How so? If anything the ban is too short. He was suspended for 7 games for biting an oppoenent when he played at Ajax, and he obvioulsy learned nothing from that suspension. He has become a disgrace tot he game.

      • ChiTown says:

        He’s no more a disgrace than someone like Wayne Rooney or Rio Ferdinand or John Terry or Joey Barton or or or or or or or.

      • Joel says:

        Ridiculous because punishment is disproportional to offense. A bite on the arm is shocking, but does no long-term damage. Compare that to a vicious tackle that can end a players’ career. AND, Jermain Defoe was barely punished for biting…why should Suarez get punished so much more severely?

        • KenC says:

          A tackle is part of soccer. Sometimes the difference between a regular tackle and a vicious one is a bad mistake. Biting is not part of soccer.

          Also, while a bad tackle can be career-ending, a human bite can lead to sepsis and death.

          Why did Suarez get punished more severely? It’s not his first offense for biting and it’s not his first offense for bad behavior.

        • byrdman says:

          I’m not sure about this but, can’t you transfer AIDS through a bite? If I’m wrong forgive me. If you can, than putting someone’s life at risk, well 10 games may not be as rough as you think.

          • ChiTown says:

            No, you can’t transfer HIV (AIDS isn’t a virus) through biting someone anymore than you can transfer it by crying on them or licking them.

            HIV is transmitted via blood and semen and requires a very accessible viaduct for transmission ala internal tissue membranes.

            There have only been a couple reported cases of HIV transmission in history from biting and they all involved severe tissue damage and tearing and blood exposure from both parties.

            • Joe says:

              You contradict yourself. First you say no you can’t transmit HIV through a bite then go on to say there have been very few cases that HIV was transmitted through a bite.

              I know the chances are slim to contract HIV through a bite as the biter would most likely have to have an open wound in the mouth (bleeding gums perhaps) and the blood would need to come in contact with the bitten wound (wound must have broken skin).

      • The Imperative Voice says:

        De Telegraaf referred to him in 2010 as The Cannibal of Ajax, after the incident….

        There is no place in the game for biting so it should be harshly punished. A player throwing an elbow in a tussle for the ball, or slide tackling, is at least still playing soccer. But this is not soccer, it’s a repeat offense, and it suggests lack of personal control.

        Also, FWIW, Suarez has a pre-existing rap sheet — the Evra incident was just last year, then he refused to shake his hand — and he might be working his way up towards Cantona territory. The punishment may in fact reflect, You again??? So 8 matches wasn’t enough, how about 10??? At least nominally the FA is trying to encourage a gentlemanly approach to the sport, although that is fading away before reality over time.

    • Nate Dollars says:

      +1 if you’re mockingly referring to liverpool’s history

  6. Nate Dollars says:

    hey ives (or anyone), can you shed a little light on whether uefa or fifa would (or could) carry this over to another league if suarez gets sold?

    • patrick says:

      i dont know officially, but I’m sure that it would be upheld by whatever league he went to.

    • Alceste says:

      Didn’t Barton have to sit out the start of the French league this year after his ban at the end of last season? (Although it may have been the french league itself that made the decision to enforce it.)

    • Iggy says:

      per the rules it looks like it is supposed to. Some red bulls fans were worried that Tim Cahill would miss the first few games of his career here because he was red carded for violent conduct (really just a push) in his last game at everton. That was not enforced though.

      It’s probably one of those shady fifa grey areas where it could go either way. This is pretty high profile though (in action, player, and club), so it may be enforced.

  7. ki says:

    he only bit a Chelsea player. it’s not like he bit the Pope

  8. ConradB says:

    “…Shocked and disappointed.” Really, Liverpool? This is the second time he’s bitten someone in a match. That’s one more than Mike Tyson.

    I’m shocked and disappointed that Liverpool thinks this is an unreasonable punishment.

    • Nic D "The TX 2 Stepper" says:

      “… one more than Mike Tyson” FTW

    • David JS says:

      Tyson actually bit Holyfield twice. I don’t get how people forget that. He took a piece of the guy’s ear off, and he didn’t even get immediately DQ’d! Holyfield took a minute or two to recover and kept fighting, only for Tyson to bite him AGAIN and take a bigger chunk later in the fight; at that point, Tyson got DQ’d.

  9. ki says:

    I bet if Rooney had bit Ivanovic he would have simply been given community service. The FA is such bullcrap. They only went against Terry in his racism scandal because their was thousands calling for his head. They have no conviction.

    • Chicago Pete says:

      Ki
      It’s called history. Both examples are from players who have obviously not learned anything from their past. And in the Terry case, end racism has been FIFA’s banner for the last 12 years.
      What has Rooney done that warrants a comparison to Suarez? These guys do things that are outside the game of soccer but have an impact on the game itself. Please don’t ever post anything that would defend Terry again. People will not take you seriously.

      • froboy says:

        Right, but his past was not with the FA, so I am not sure it should really enter in

      • ki says:

        I was not defending Terry. Merely stating the FA are so full of crap that they only went after him after a public uproar. they didn’t have enough morals to go after him before

    • Darwin says:

      -1 subject verb agreement

  10. Raymon says:

    That should take a bite out of football crime. While he bides his time, he can get some counseling. By the time the next season starts, Suarez will be chomping at the bit for some playing time.

  11. Neyland says:

    Didn’t he get a ten match ban for biting back at Ajax?? I think a 2nd offense should get him a season off. Biting? There’s more wrong with that than just bad attitude.

  12. 2 says:

    anyway any news on Gooch?

  13. Chupacabra says:

    Suarez’s defense: “You’re not you when you’re hungry.”

  14. Nic D "The TX 2 Stepper" says:

    He earned it!

    Many folks are chatting this morning about the ban for Racist Abuse getting less than the ban for Violent behavior. AND I AGREE that It’s an outrage that Physical Abuse gets more than Racist Abuse. Racism should be punished at a Higher level. In my world Racist Abuse, when proven, is a half season ban + 16 weeks of counselling and community service. At that point the ONLY job that a footballer needs is not having a better touch but making sure that all their touch points in our society leave people with as much joy off the pitch as they do on.

    Off my soap box.

    • Nate Dollars says:

      it’s because of all those crazy people who think that physical violence is actually worse than hurting a grown man’s feelings. insane, i know; but that’s the world we live in.

  15. Nic D "The TX 2 Stepper" says:

    Why am I awaiting moderation. I got a yellow card 1 time three years ago. what gives Ives?

  16. dude says:

    The FA is right to ban him 10 games, but the fact that Liverpool aren’t selling him is shameful. He’s pathological. Yes, he’s talented, yes, he’s a superstar with the club. But have some pride.

    • froboy says:

      Why should they sell him? He is a great player for them and they will get pennies on the dollar if they sell now

      • dude says:

        Because he’s a psycho, literally unable to control himself from biting other players when he gets excited.

    • Mike V. says:

      As much as I would love to see Liverpool take and stand and sell Suarez, the reality is that the chances are very, very slim. For one, based in Suarez’s history, Liverpool would have a hard time selling him at full market value. They are in no position to sell him on the cheap. Remember, Liverpool spent stupid, stupid money for Andy Carroll and Jordan henderson and are still on the hook for that. They can’t offload either player and they are essesntially stuck. Taking a reduction for Suarez could kill their finances which are slowly growing after the previous regime nearly broke the club. On top of all that, Suarez has world class talent. He is Liverpool. He is their team. He is the reason they are even in the top half of the table. Suarez is a jerk. He is a maniac but there is no denying what he means to Liverpool.

      • buckyball says:

        Unfortunately for Liverpool, they don’t have the only say in this situation. Suarez, who pre-bite seemed likely to stay at LFC for next season, may now see the idea of moving out of the EPL as much more attractive. And any really valuable player in the modern age can make a transfer happen.

        As biff notes below, Dortmund might be an ideal landing place. (Whether Dortmund can financially afford a Suarez is beyond my pay grade.)

  17. ChiTown says:

    link to dailymail.co.uk

    England International Jermaine Defoe bit Javier Mascherano during an EPL match and I REPEAT HE WAS NOT PUNISHED AT ALL.

    The FA are crooks. Period.

    • biff says:

      Thanks, ChiTown, for the link to that news story on Defoe biting Masherano, ChiTown. Very interesting, and makes it appear that the FA are more than willing to throw the book at a controversial South American player (who plays for Liverpool) but to give Teddy Bear treatment to a popular English player.

      If there is no doubt what Suarez did is very wrong, and I do not think there is any doubt, then it is equally wrong for Defoe to sink his teeth into another player. A 10-game ban is way to harsh and Suarez needs to do two things:

      1. Get the heck out of the Premier League where he will never be treated fairly and go to Germany to play for Dortmund, who will be needing a great striker when Lewandiski leaves and where he will get his Champions League play and be under the tutelage of Jurgen Klopp, who is a great coach and who can handle his players. Suarez would be loved in Dortmund and would be a major PR boost to the Bundesliga.

      2. Luis needs to find a good therapist and talk through some of his issues so he can better handle his anger.

      • byrdman says:

        How would bringing in a player without any self control, known world wide for doing something that 2 year old’s get kicked out of daycare for, be good PR?

    • Grubbsbl says:

      The text in the article to the link you provided said Defoe was not charged due to the FAs and FIFAs rules on retrospective action from video replays. I imagine the ref said he witnessed the incident, so no action could be brought forth. The same thing that has been said by the FA over their failure to punish all these horror tackles recently. I do believe the FA wants to modify the rules for next yr. And while I agree with you the FA is an organization in need of reform, with a past history of arbitrary punishments (the Rio ban for missing a drug test stands out), they aren’t crooks. Just another incompetent organization.

      As for Suarez, it’s hard to stand by him. The guy has had too many run ins with authority and be warned time and time again. He is a wonderful footballer on his day, but clearly a bad person. And Biff, as for moving to a better team. I wouldn’t be surprised if Suarez has reached his limits. Not talent wise of course. There are other strikers across Europe who score bags full of goals and don’t have a history of racism, biting and protests to force transfers. Not the best locker room guy.

      • biff says:

        Couple of points, Grubbsbl. Even the FA did not accuse Suarez of being a racist in the report. And some black players who have played with Suarez defended him and said he is not a racist. As for not the best locker room guy, says who? By all accounts he is quite popular with his teammates at Liverpool. And protesting to be transferred? Well, lots of players have had to that in order to move to a new team including a long list of Arsenal players not to mention Robin van Persie who published an letter on his Web site personally insulting to his team and manager. Oh yeah, and Clint Dempsey had to get tough also to pry himself loose from the iron grasp of Martin Jol and Fulham.

        Suarez will be moving to a top team this summer, with Liverpool pocketing a nice transfer fee and some lucky team getting one of the best strikers on the planet.

    • Nate Dollars says:

      not the answer you want to hear, but defoe was punished. with a yellow card.

      and since the ref saw it during the game, the FA (by fifa’s rule) cannot take retroactive action.

      could the FA ignored fifa, and given a defoe a ban anyway? sure, but it would have been a waste of time, since defoe would’ve won the appeal.

      if you want to rail against something, rail against that godawful rule.

      • buckyball says:

        Actually, it doesn’t seem like a waste of time, since the FA would have been doing something that the entire football public would have agreed with, even knowing that they’d lose on appeal.
        Instead, they decided to not show any outrage and just weakly threw up their hands and said, “Oh well…”

  18. chuck says:

    I understand that biting is very weird and there is clearly something off about Suarez, but shouldn’t we put into context just how dangerous the action is. People throw elbows to faces or kick their metal spikes into someone’s leg and get way less than 10 games. That said, Suarez is an idiot and deserves to be punished. Just seems like 10 may be a bit harsh.

  19. Nikora says:

    It’s a ridiculous penalty because Defoe only got 5 matches for doing the same thing. And while what Suarez did is inexcusable, when did biting become the genocide of soccer? I realize that these are different leagues, but 10 matches is what Mullen got from MLS when he nearly ended Zakuani’s career. Suarez didn’t even hurt Ivanovic! Realistically, an intentionally bad tackle could lead to a broken leg, an elbow to the head could lead to a concussion, and both could end a career. A bite just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal.

  20. 2 says:

    Rooney stepped on a man’s nuts and was only shown a redcard

    where’s the justice?

  21. Ronaldinho says:

    Clearly, the FA took Suarez’s dentition into consideration. Seriously, just look at those chompers, they’re a weapon of moderate destruction unto themselves.

  22. The Imperative Voice says:

    Fava beans. Nice Chianti.

  23. Dan M says:

    I wish Warren Zevon were still alive, he could write a song about the Werewolf in Liverpool. “You better stay away from him, he’ll bite your arm off Jim, I’d like to meet his taylor.”

  24. beto says:

    good! glad the FA stepped in when Liverpool showed their lack of any morals.

    Personally i hope he never plays in the EPL again but if he does i guess it just makes it easier to dislike ‘pool

    • James says:

      Were you also hoping that Aguero “never plays in the EPL again” after his two-footed stomp on David Luiz’s derriere this past week????

      Yes, tackles are part of the game. Nonetheless, attempting to physically injure a player that could sideline, or worse, end a career with a studs-up, two footed tackle should be treated the same, if not harsher, as Suarez’s bite.

      What Suarez did was horrendous and should be punished, especially with his history. It was barbaric. But, why no uproar when someone recklessly (and purposely) takes out another player? Where are the shouts form people like yourself and the media when a player loses months or years (see Holden, S.) because of a rash, intentional challenge???

  25. ed - houston says:

    LOL, OUCH!!

  26. Michael F. SBI Mafia Oriinal says:

    Not harsh enough. Period. He’s done it before in his career at Ajax. He’s learned nothing. He should have been banned a year. Seriously. And you can’t look at this as solo incident. You have to look at the lack of character he continues to show, including his racial abuse of Evra.

  27. Tim says:

    Lol, the posts over at red white and kop are hilarious. It’s like they are completely blind to his past offenses. All they can do is compare it to other players. But Suarez has bitten people before, AND been banned by the FA before. 10 Games is not for the bite itself, which was practically nothing. It is to try and teach the little c*nt a lesson.

  28. Kevin_H says:

    Liverpool/Suarez would retain at least an ounce of respect if they just accepted the punishment. Surely they know they aren’t going to reduce the length of the ban.

  29. Raymon says:

    Too bad the Being Liverpool cameras are packed up, this wouldve made for good club drama.

    Inside cameras might be able to explain why Brendan Rodgers is putting up with Suarez.