Liverpool star Luis Suarez has been banned for nine competitive international matches, and from football entirely for four months after biting Giorgio Chiellini of Italy while on Uruguay duty at the World Cup.
Here’s what the CaughtOffside team think:
1. Is a ban for nine competitive international games and four months from football activity lenient, fair or harsh?
Adam Davies: There’s no precedent, so it’s difficult to compare to anything else. It’s similar incidents we should be comparing to rather than leg breaking tackles or elbows to the face, because Suarez’s bite was deliberate violent conduct rather than a poor challenge. The problem is that the only person who has performed similar offences is Luis Suarez – mostly because biting is pretty damn weird – and his seven game and ten game bans for the last two bites clearly haven’t put him off doing it in future. With that in mind, I guess they had to clamp down even more severely.
Steve Green: The ban itself is probably quite lenient, but the fine is pathetic, especially when you consider Nicklas Bendtner was fined £95,000 for wearing sponsored pants two years ago. However, not allowing him to train is a little much, if they’re not going to offer some sort of alternative, or offer to get him some professional help then what is he supposed to do?
Jacob Daniel: I reckon it’s probably fair, but if anything it’s lenient. Biting someone on a football pitch once is absurd, to do it three times is almost unbelievable. I don’t think FIFA had any other options other than a long ban.
Rob Summerscales: Of course it is lenient. In most professions, one bite and a single use of a racially abusive term could end a career instantly. Obviously, footballers live in a different world, but Suarez has zero right to appeal.