Football Banter

yeah but meaning to do it and not meaning to do it i know which one i would rather have a bite or some footballer hurtiling at speed towards me hitting my leg with some force

lets just forget about it, its done now and like g and p said he never murdered anyone or anything like that! hes been fined and will more than likely get a ban dunno for how long though! but lets remember if something happens in an arsenal game and wenger don't see it then lets not go on about it and call him a liar, or if fergie comes out after a match what man utd don't win and has a moan at a referee or linesman then lets not start a thread over it cos all he did was have a moan he never murdered anyone so lets all just carry on and keep putting funny pics up and gifs on here instead and less of the hatred, we have Fernandez for that

Ok I'm sorry. The bite was out of order and he'll get a ban for it probably. I perhaps went over the top a little by saying what I did. I apologize for the hatred, that's not usually like me. Let's just put it down to me having a very bad day. I'll leave the hatred out of my posts in future.

(22-04-2013 06:13 )bytor Wrote:  Its a shame about this Suarez incident as it has overshadowed the really serious issue; scoring a last minute equaliser in 'Fergie time'

"Rodgers time"

(22-04-2013 07:11 )HannahsPet Wrote:  Dont know what the fuss is to be honest do we actually know if he actually touched him or pretend to bite him i saw more dangerous tackles during the game if suarez gets a ban for that when others get off what could have been career ending tackles then the FA is Mental

(22-04-2013 09:49 )HannahsPet Wrote:  yeah but meaning to do it and not meaning to do it i know which one i would rather have a bite or some footballer hurtiling at speed towards me hitting my leg with some force

(22-04-2013 13:08 )malicious fan Wrote:  lets just forget about it, its done now and like g and p said he never murdered anyone or anything like that! hes been fined and will more than likely get a ban dunno for how long though!

The main thing that frustrates me about the Suarez incident is the fact that he may get a 5-6 game ban, but Mcmanaman who could have easily put Haidara on the treatment table for months gets off scot free. There is such a lack of consistency when issuing bans for players.

Dangerous leg breaking tackles are obviously far more worse to be on the end of then a bite. The thing is though, such tackles can be accidental. You can't accidently bite someone, and it seemed he did it with little to no provocation so he deserves at least a 5 game ban. Also a human bite has more diseases then a dog bite. It is a bit OTT being all over Sky News though. He does himself no favours Suarez doing things like this knowing he's a scapegoat in the media.

(22-04-2013 14:43 )seth Wrote:  Also a human bite has more diseases then a dog bite.

Cracker. Suarez could've killed Ivanovic then. Disgraceful.

(22-04-2013 14:43 )seth Wrote:  Dangerous leg breaking tackles are obviously far more worse to be on the end of then a bite. The thing is though, such tackles can be accidental. You can't accidently bite someone, and it seemed he did it with little to no provocation so he deserves at least a 5 game ban. Also a human bite has more diseases then a dog bite. It is a bit OTT being all over Sky News though. He does himself no favours Suarez doing things like this knowing he's a scapegoat in the media.

But in the case of the Haidara incident, it was a reckless tackle from Mcmanaman and there was no need to go in that high with his foot. Players don't have the intention of breaking players a leg, but they should be held responsible for the recklessness and poor execution of a tackle . . . in most cases anyway.

Just to be clear as well, I don't condone what Suarez did and it was wrong to bite Ivanovic and he should get a ban. How long of a ban I don't know.

(22-04-2013 15:01 )groundnpound Wrote:  

(22-04-2013 14:43 )seth Wrote:  Also a human bite has more diseases then a dog bite.

Cracker. Suarez could've killed Ivanovic then. Disgraceful.

Nah you're right mate. It's okay to bite someone it's not a big deal.

(22-04-2013 15:02 )dan g 27 Wrote:  

(22-04-2013 14:43 )seth Wrote:  Dangerous leg breaking tackles are obviously far more worse to be on the end of then a bite. The thing is though, such tackles can be accidental. You can't accidently bite someone, and it seemed he did it with little to no provocation so he deserves at least a 5 game ban. Also a human bite has more diseases then a dog bite. It is a bit OTT being all over Sky News though. He does himself no favours Suarez doing things like this knowing he's a scapegoat in the media.

But in the case of the Haidara incident, it was a reckless tackle from Mcmanaman and there was no need to go in that high with his foot. Players don't have the intention of breaking players a leg, but they should be held responsible for the recklessness and poor execution of a tackle . . . in most cases anyway.

Just to be clear as well, I don't condone what Suarez did and it was wrong to bite Ivanovic and he should get a ban. How long of a ban I don't know.

Dangerous tackles should be punished with lengthy bans, intentional or otherwise. I not said anything to suggest that shouldn't be the case.