Well, at least he has some sense of taste. He passed on all that sad crap England passes off, until he could get a nice mouthful of some Italian.
The referee didn’t see it with his own eyes, so couldn’t send him off. When that happens, FIFA’s disciplinary committee takes over, looks at video footage, etc. They have opened an investigation and can/will punish him retroactively. Have patience.
Here’s the clearest video I’ve found showing the bite. It appears to be irrefutable to me. FIFA will have no choice but to ban Suarez.
[quote=“Knorf, post:1523, topic:687840”]
Here’s the clearest video I’ve found showing the bite. It appears to be irrefutable to me. FIFA will have no choice but to ban Suarez.
[/QUOTE]without a forensic dental match-up (which probably could be done judging by the marks on the italian’s shoulder!) that is about as slam-dunk as it gets.
It looks like he bites him on purpose, the italian reacts as if he’s just been bitten, there are bite marks on his shoulder and Suarez reacts as if he knows he’s majorly fucked-up both in the immediate aftermath and at the end of the game.
God, I really hope the horrible little shit gets a massive ban.
I don’t know where all this personal hatred is coming from. I agree he should be banned for a fairly long time, but off the pitch he seems to be a very decent guy. Married his high school sweet heart, is supporting his entire family, few backpage stories… I mean, it’s not like he is a Rooney or a Terry.
It’s coming from the fact that he BIT someone and this is the 3rd time it happened.
He can spend time polishing his father of the year award after they send him home.
Lots of bad people are good to their families and/or friends. It’s not enough.
But for me, in Suarez’ case, it’s as much a WTF as anything. Passions run high in an intense football game (which Italy Uruguay certainly wasn’t), but I still don’t understand how someone can just bite someone. On three separate occasions.
It makes Suarez not even seem human. I don’t need to worry about standing near the vast majority of human adults, but I would be nervous getting near Suarez.
Most footballers visit schools and do other community things. Should Suarez be allowed to do these things? If it seems like I’m being ridiculous saying that, it’s pretty ridiculous biting someone, period.
I’ve seen the slow-mo, from every angle. It’s not a foul, never was a foul, never will be a foul. Just one in a string of horrible calls; the officiating at this World Cup has been absolutely atrocious.
Also, Italy - Uruguay may well have killed football in the US for the next half-century. One of the worst football matches I’ve ever seen. It was an affront to all humanity. I hope Suarez is banned from the rest of the World Cup then misses 40 games for Liverpool next season, and neither side should be allowed a televised football match for 20 years.
Finally - is it really so hard for the head official to go over and consult with one of his side judges?
Not to mention he’s a vile racist.
What has Rooney done that is in the same ballpark exactly.
Because he’s proven cunt and a rotten role model for the game. Time and time again over the years he does this. I said before that I didn’t for single second believe he’d changed. No contrition, at least none that rings true. He couldn’t summon up a heartfelt apology if his life depended on it.
Even now, when the evidence is overwhelming we get weasel words and the victim card instead of facing up to what he’s done (again). Maybe I’ve misjudged him but I doubt it. He’s had four full years in the spotlight to change perceptions but no sign of that yet. In this little episode I predict crocodile tears and special pleading.
We see a brilliant footballer with a fatally flawed approach and little self-awareness. He is a mercenary, super-talented little shit who will hopefully be made an example of.
And this is nothing to do with England. I thought he was a twat before we played Uruguay and other brilliant players have destroyed English dreams without provoking hatred (Pirlo, Ronaldo, most of the German team…etc. let’s face it, the list is very long)
Which foul do you mean, the Italian red card? Surely not as that was a textbook example of the type of foul that FIFA have stated should be treated harshly. Stone-cold red all day long (and I watch a lot of football). There have been a few similar incidents that weren’t punished (or maybe not seen clearly) and I can imagine that the refs will have been notified of this and are on the lookout for specifically that sort of challenge.
Or the Greece penalty? Again, an absolute nailed-on certainty of a penalty and had there not been another couple of players just ahead I suspect that would have been a red as well.
On the subject of the refs though, I see no reason to have a quota system in place for the officials. By doing so you get a mix but you don’t necessarily get the best.
Take the best ones wherever they come from, if that means 80% come from europe then so be it. Bar excusing them from refereeing their own country, let them ref wherever.
The Greece penalty, and it absolutely, nailed-on certaintly is not a foul.
What? :eek:
The greek player pulls his leg back to shoot, The IVC player stretches his leg out to place it directly in front of the the greek player’s shooting leg thus preventing him from taking the shot.
There are camera angles from the front, rear and side of the incident that shows this perfectly. The IVC player takes out the shooting leg. Absolutely clear. Even the IVC players weren’t reacting as if it were a travesty, just sad resignation.
There may be many contentious penalty decisions in the WC but believe me, this one isn’t.
This is one reason why tv review might be problematic for these kinds of things: even after seeing exactly what happened, people still disagree.
In my mind a clear penalty… but then again, I could also understand the two penalties against Holland (Australia and Spain) while consensus seems to be they weren’t. Although these last two could have gone either way.
True, but in this case it seems clear. The greek player shapes to shoot, the IVC leg gets placed between shooting leg and ball, greek player tries to shoot and hits IVC leg causing him to stub his foot and tumble over. I don’t think a video ref would take too long reviewing this one.
I would expect that to be the case, but I’ve read quite a few so called experts saying differently (Brad Friedel on the BBC website and some tweets from other pundits). Really surprising to be honest, because I agree that was a stonewall penalty!
I’d be interested to hear their justification.
Here’s the best angle and footage. I’ve nothing else to add.
I haven’t seen as many of this year’s games as I normally would, so I was wondering: has the refereeing been worse than normal? I mean, I can recall a few bad decisions, but then that happens all the time. Is it egregiously bad this time around?
I honestly think people are either biased or looking at the shortened clip. Or just tweeting before they really saw it. Or maybe just stupid - here’s what Fox had to say:
How is that even possible? It’s almost like there’s an optical illusion going on (in fact, if you stare at Sio’s back and not Samaras’s leg, you don’t see the contact at all).
I think they are letting the emotion of the situation get to them as well and perhaps seeing what they want to see.
If you played someone the clip without context, without them knowing what the game was or where on the pitch it happened I imagine that 99% would say “foul”. And that is all that really counts.