Posted by mister__joshua on 2014-07-11 12:28:30

I'll admit, when I saw it first time at full speed my initial thought was 'Get up you big girl' :P

Posted by gjopie on 2014-07-11 12:38:58

Are you a Liverpool fan, Chainsaw? Or just really into biting?

That tackle was a nasty cynical one, he was determined to not let Neymar play the ball. However, I don't believe he was trying to hurt him. On the other hand, there can be no other motivation to biting someone like that other than trying to hurt them!

Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-07-11 12:41:15

As Neymar himself said - It's just part of the game.

Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-07-11 13:06:38

Not a 'pool fan, no. (If you had to make me choose, it'd be Arsenal, not a huge fan of modern football corporations though nor sufficiently into football to support the more local sides.)

I'm not into biting either gjopie. However I find the difference in outrage (nothing vs OMFGWEMUSTLOSEOURFREAKINGMINDS) to be ridiculous.

Posted by CroixFer on 2014-07-11 13:09:39

To me it was 100% deliberate. Obviously, I do not believe he was trying to put him in a wheelchair forever, but definitely he was in an anger state and was trying to hurt him badly. I would have agreed for a red card here and may be even a temporary ban.

That being said, bitting someone during a game is not to be tolerated, specially with 100 million people watching your game (many of them under 18 I am sure). So a ban is also appropriate.

Posted by gjopie on 2014-07-11 13:52:53

Fair enough, Chainsaw, and although I think you've exaggerated the difference in reactions, there is clearly a difference in public opinion between the two challenges (which you don't share). I don't know about other people, but for me, the difference comes down to a couple of things: multiple offences (he has bitten a player 3 times now), the intention behind it (a bad tackle leading to a broken leg is something that can happen through innocent lack of ability - a bite is always intentional), and the deception (not only did Suarez lie about doing it, but the way he went to ground afterwards clutching his face just added insult to injury - can you imagine if Zuniga had gone down clutching his knee?).

And hopefully that is the last I'll ever type about Suarez!

Posted by Wreckage on 2014-07-11 14:30:40

Human bites are about the most dangerous weapon one could use. If you are dealing with a knife or an animal bite they might carry dangerous germs, the human teeth however are perfect for any bacteria and viruses that can survive in a humanoid biotope. Combining that with skin penetration, bleeding, potential mouth injuries bite attacks rank on a completely different scale than attacks that only can break bones.

Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-07-11 14:36:30

@JimmyFantastic
> As Neymar himself said - It's just part of the game.

Source? He doesn't say it in his first interview afterwards, not in any quote I've seen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28257955

"I won't say he came to injure me - I don't know what was going on in his head - but everyone who understands football can see that it wasn't a normal challenge."

@Wreckage
> Human bites are about the most dangerous weapon one could use.

:rolls eyes: Srsly? You realise how totally stupid you sound?

Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-07-11 14:40:24

@gjopie I ask you to put that in context with the utterly ridiculous response by Wreckage immediately following your very reasonable points. You really think I'm exaggerating?

I agree with everything else you said.

Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-07-11 14:57:27

Try watching the video you posted. 45 seconds in.

Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-07-11 15:00:25

Ah, at work, sorry. Had to rely on the transcript.

Doesn't change the point though.

Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-07-11 15:01:37

Relying on what people report is sparta.

Posted by koadah on 2014-07-11 15:40:52

The point is chainsaw that you are being just plain stupid.

The severity of Suarez's ban is largely due him doing it THREE times. Get it?
He keeps doing it. He shows no sign of changing.

Posted by keggiemckill on 2014-07-11 15:43:17

Quit being silly you sissy kickers. Knees are way worse as we ALL CAN SEE from the two injuries.

Bite didn't break skin < Broken vertebrae from Knee.

Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-07-11 15:49:54

I'm down with the ban, koadah.

It's the public outcry that makes me think most people have their priorities all wrong.

Posted by koadah on 2014-07-11 16:17:00

Not really IMO. I don't think anyone is saying that the knee in the back is fine. Let's see what happens if the same guy goes and knees a second person in the back. Or a third.

The problem with the bite for a lot of people is that it shows a dangerous lack of control. After all that has happened to do it again makes you wonder what he will do next.

Liverpool have done well to get rid of him. It may be that they waste the money and end up with a weaker football team. But least they'll gain some integrity and help their reputation.

Personally I am still seething that Wenger tried to buy him last year. He should have gone out on a high with the FA Cup.

Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-07-11 16:50:33

Got Ozil and Sanchez, I think Wenger is doing well now.

Posted by diegomaradona on 2014-07-11 16:51:29

my offer: you can bite me in my shoulder 3 times and i break your vertebra once! do u accept? see...

Posted by koadah on 2014-07-11 17:27:37

If I got to the point that I would bite you anywhere you would not be in any fit state to do anything afterwards.

Posted by Wreckage on 2014-07-11 17:49:31

"Bite didn't break skin < Broken vertebrae from Knee."

First of, it's about the potential risk of the action. Not about the outcome after the fact.

Secondly, take a closer look. http://transform.fairfaxregional.com.au/transform/v1/crop/frm/storypad-35ns5Wme2fedmBqQ6qZE6iD/bedcc0a3-6d19-4251-8e5c-442615214aa2.jpg/r0_0_620_349_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg


Also, others have pointed this out. In football feet get used, thats why this is a very tough sport and thats why Americans don't seem to get why people fall around all the time. Footballers have very muscular legs and human legs are a lot stronger than human arms. However, if you go into a football game you have to expect some legs flying around. Because they just are the main tool to play the game.
Teeth have no purpose in the game.

Then there is intentional and unintentional fouls. The referee gives a red card for intentional fouls. But how can you tell if an action was intentional and the player wasn't just trying to go for the ball and failed? You never can tell. What kind of body control do you need to turn around to a defender who isn't involved in the game and accidentially bite him into his shoulder?

Posted by xnoelx on 2014-07-11 18:33:30

It's partly just cultural. I mean, in MMA and boxing (and even your average drunken pub fight), it's fine to batter someone round the head causing possible irreversible brain damage, and even death in the case of boxing. It's fine to break a bone during a submission attempt, or through legal blows. But biting is similarly regarded as unacceptable in both those sports. It's not about the severity of the possible injury, it's just one of those nonsensical differences in attitude that develop over time. Which is pretty much the definition of culture.

Posted by Cavetroll on 2014-07-11 20:32:59

It wasn't deliberate. And I also thought at the time that Neymar was acting. Considering how much diving the Brazilians were doing the whole tournament, it was an easy mistake to make. Honestly, the tackle didn't look that bad. Even when I watch it after knowing the outcome, I wonder how he broke a bone from such a light touch.

Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-07-11 21:05:42

Because Neymar is made of glass.

Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-07-11 21:09:41

It was deliberate. It's very common in a football game to target the best player with some rough challenges in order to shake him up a bit.

Did he intend to break his back? No. Did he intend to hurt him? Absolutely. He jumped and lead with the knee straight into Neymar in a challenge with which he had no chance of getting to the ball; the sole intent was to clatter Neymar. Just because he didn't get into a full blown flying knee does not make it any less of an intentional clattering.

Wreckage is still in cloud cuckoo land. Potential risk? There was a 1 in a billion (being kind) chance of Suarez causing a fatal infection with that bite. There was a very good chance (let's be kind to you again) say 1 in 10 of that knee doing serious damage, which it did. You equate the 2 because you have no perspective whatsoever, I suspect because you've never done any kind of combat sports.

Posted by Wreckage on 2014-07-11 23:17:39

Nah, I just read a medical evaluation of the incident.

Anyways, I changed my mind. You're right. It stands to reason that such a kick is much more dangerous, it can also be potentially fatal.
Not that there was anything wrong with the decisions for the made reasons.

Posted by Cavetroll on 2014-07-12 00:28:43

I only said it wasn't deliberate because you dared someone to do so. I do think the foul was deliberate, but only to 'clatter' Neymar, like you said. But I still don't think it was that hard of a fail. I think Jimmy is right about Neymar being made of glass. I've always thought of him as the Brazilian Justin Bieber.

Posted by garyt1 on 2014-07-12 00:50:20

Biting is just not acceptable in our society. And probably never has been in human society. You can see rough brawlers in a pub and very rarely will they bite...

Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-07-12 00:59:58

I'd like to see any of you take a clean knee to the lower vertebrae and be standing afterwards. Made of glass my arse.

Some of you should get down to the thai boxing gym and take a few clean knees to the gut before you comment on how much a knee hurts.

Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-07-12 01:21:38

> Biting is just not acceptable in our society.

If Suarez had been spitting, would the bans have been the same? Roughly, I think, yes. It should be viewed in that vein. It's not nice, it's nasty, and we don't want to see it. Lengthy-ish bans, plenty of public shaming, that's all good.

The ludicrous hyperbole; saying bites are the most dangerous weapon a human possesses and he should be banned from all sport forever? That we can do without.

Posted by pythrr on 2014-07-12 09:13:04

Please remove this blog.

Signed, pythrr's legal team

Posted by licker on 2014-07-12 11:10:30

If they wanted to KO nymar why didn't they do it in the 5th minute instead of the 85th (or whenever it was)?

Anyway, once again proof of whinesaws love of the whinge.

Posted by jamesfarrell129 on 2014-07-14 11:29:54

Bit late to this party, but

> It was deliberate. It's very common in a
> football game to target the best player with
> some rough challenges in order to shake him up a bit.

You mean like the entire Brazilian team spent the previous 80-odd minutes doing to Rodriguez every time he got near the ball? Its things like Neymar's injury that almost make me believe in karma...