Liverpool Don’t Deserve To Be Punished In Luis Suarez Bite Affair

The verdict is in on Luis Suarez. FIFA have issued a nine-game ban to the Uruguayan for international games, and a heavy four-month ban from world football. Included in this ban is the inability to train with his club Liverpool.

Uruguay plan appeal to FIFA, and say that they will due to “insufficient evidence”, but Liverpool may lodge no appeal to the governing body. If the English club wish to make an appeal it will have to be to a court, likely the Court of Arbitration for Sport, about the nature of the ban.

By Conor Carroll – @mrstability

With regards to an appeal, I personally don’t feel like there is a case to answer. The initial angles were unclear; nobody ‘knew’ what happened, but it certainly looked like another bite. The holding of his face afterwards by Luis Suarez could have been as a result of the elbow he received for his troubles. It’s unlikely that this is the case, but it’s an argument. Reverse angles are more clear, with a definite lunge down, and his prominent teeth at least making contact with Georgio Chiellini‘s shoulder. If not a bite, it was at least very close to one.

The ban of nine international games after such an incident is not surprising; although some might argue it’s not enough.

It’s the other part attached to this ban that has shaken world football – in particular the Merseyside area of Liverpool. Before fans of Liverpool’s rivals jump in, please pay attention.

For the ban to affect club football when the incident occurred on national duty is harsh. The club had no control over their player. There was no previous between the players. No other Liverpool players involved in the game that could have had any influence on the striker. Ultimately, Liverpool are an innocent body being punished by FIFA. If you want to make an example of the player, don’t have the club lose their man for 13 fixtures (nine premier league, three Champions League group fixtures, and the Capital One Cup third round fixture).

I know where the argument will come from; Eric Cantona received a ban of nine months for his infamous kung-fu kick in 1995. Two major differences arise in this case; the Frenchman was playing for his club at the time, and so for his club to be punished is fair and just. Making matters worse, it was on a fan NOT an opponent. That is why it was a ban from world football, because unless a stadium ban is in place, spectators are at every game.

Furthermore, this was not a case of using an abusive substance. Adrian Mutu received an initial seven-month ban, whilst at Chelsea (who subsequently cancelled the Romanian’s contract), and another nine-month ban in 2010 for a positive drugs test. Rio Ferdinand was banned in January 2004 for eight months for missing a drugs test. World football bans were imposed, not simply domestic or international.

As for the length of the ban, the nine games surpasses previous lengthy World Cup bans given after serious injuries had occurred.

Is a bite worse than a broken leg? Arguably; unless of course that break ends a player’s career.

Another throwback to the early 2000s; Roy Keane ends the career of Alf Inge Haaland in a deliberate case of going out to injure the Norwegian. He received a five-game domestic ban. Champions league football was not affected, nor was his ability to represent the Republic of Ireland.

Quite simply, I would argue that the ban should not have punished Liverpool (or any club he may transfer to during the transfer window); this is not rugby. In transferring the ban FIFA have set a precedent, one I would expect they will not follow. Club football is being punished over an incident on the international stage.

Have your say: Is the ban too lengthy, or not enough? Should there be an international ban? What will this mean for the future of suspensions in football? Let us know on Twitter/Facebook or in the comments below