Cannibal Tendencies: Luis Suarez Given Heavy 10-Match Ban By The FA For Feasting Upon Human Flesh

Chris Wright

24th, April 2013


Soccer - Barclays Premier League - Liverpool v Chelsea - Anfield

After pleading guilty to a violent conduct charge, Luis Suarez has been given a ten-game ban for biting Branislav Ivanovic at the weekend, which comes into force with immediate effect.

A statement of the FA website reads:

“A three-person Independent Regulatory Commission today upheld The FA’s claim that a suspension of three matches was clearly insufficient and the player will serve a further seven first-team matches in addition to the standard three.”

We don’t have to tell you that this apparently means that a friendly little chew on a buddy’s bicep is roughly a two-game ban worse worse than being found guilty of flinging racist terms about willy nilly in the FA’s big book o’ crimes and punishments.


The FA have fnargled themselves into a “just can’t win” cul-de-sac of precedents with the bans they’ve been doling out in recent years.

While the bite was obviously deplorable, you’ve got to wonder if Suarez is being punished for being Suarez here.

Any thoughts Pies fans?

Posted in Liverpool, Newsnow

Share this article: Email


  1. tim says:

    Clearly Suarez is being punished for being Suarez,but part of the punishment surely is taking into account his offending history? Whilst the FA might be reluctant to take into account what suarez has done in non-fa games, the fact that he has been punished by the FA rather a lot now supports the increased offences every time. You can’t just compare it to the Evera racial abuse and say the FA are saying that the bite’s worse – it just isnt like that. The FA are punishing Suarez for his offence but also for his continued failure to learn. Suarez is what the police call a habitual or prolific offender, in the criminal justice system he would be given increasing sentences so why not in the FA?

  2. Steve-o says:

    Punished for being Suarez? Yes. And rightly so.

    Is biting someone worse than racially abusing someone? If it isn’t, it is pretty freaking close.

  3. Si says:

    This is going to do wonders for Liverpool’s (utterly laughable) persecution complex.

  4. Tabs says:

    This is a joke, 10 games is ridiculous thats a quarter of a season, for a stupid incident that never caused injury, 3 games would have definitely been sufficient. Obviously im not saying you should bite people but there are worse things that go on such as spiting and intentional dangerous tackles that get much less than this. The FA are just responding due to the shock and hype factor drummed up by stupid tabloid newspapers, I would rather someone bit me like that than spit in my face.

  5. C says:

    How does it deserve a ban only one shorter in games compared to pushing and abusing the ref like Di Canio and Prutton. This retrospective thing is a load of balls. Defoe does the exact same thing in ’06 and only gets a yellow because the ref saw it, how is that fair? Wouldn’t have been anywhere near that long if it wasn’t Suarez.

  6. tipo 00 says:

    @si – ha, i mentioned their siege mentality in another article and people claimed they didn’t know what i was on about!

    if someone constantly dives, handballs and generally cheats (with the odd racism and bite thrown in), then maybe punishments should be harsher than for one-off offences (eg liverpool fans saying “but defoe bit someone too!”) until he stops acting like a massive, massive shit.

    i’d want him out if i was a liverpool fan, he’s turning them into a laughing stock. but of course they’d slide down the table like a well-oiled turd without him.

  7. Rob says:

    As a Liverpool fan, I don’t really have a problem with it as he’s done it before and needs to realise that it’s not acceptable. He should pay the club compensation for the amount of game time he misses. However I do think that other offenses like elbowing players in the face need large bans too.
    As for the diving, is there really any player in the league who doesn’t dive anymore? I saw Clint Dempsey take a shocking dive at the weekend that the commentators barely mentioned.

  8. Rory says:

    In fairness to Suarez, biting people isn’t that big a deal in South America and Suarez has been routinely bitten by some of his best friends!
    I’m with the first poster on this, he is of course being punished for being Suarez, because with repeated offending like this, the only answer is to increase the punishment till he learns his lesson.
    He’s an awesome player and a complete nut job, shades of Maradona.

  9. Raul says:

    He deserves to be punished, but 10 games??? A joke, and after the incident between McMannoman and Haidira a few weeks back its a baffling decision. Ban him for 4-5 games, it was a stupid thing to do, but the way the tabloid media have been persecuting him, you’d swear he was one of the Boston bombers. He does need to get his head sorted though, off the pitch he seems to be a grounded individual, but he seems to have a jekyll and hyde personallity once he steps out on the pitch, yes he is a competitior along with being a gifted player and “plays on the edge”. yes he does dive, and plays rough wiith opposing defenders but he has to find a balance where he remains a warrior on the field without turning into an animal

  10. Jarren says:


    Man I did not expect that.

    4 games, yeah. 5 games, harsh but ok.


    As you say Chris, it sets an awful example when he’s banned for 8 games for alledged racist abuse yet a spur-of-the-moment arm gnaw results in 10 games off.

    Are the F.A. afraid of a spate of cannibal copycat situations?

    Should we be afraid of Phil Jones seeing the red mist descend and be confronted with the sight of him eating Walcott’s right leg?

    Have we reason to be concerned that Fellaini may start feasting on brains?

    10 games is ridiculous. Yeah, what Suarez did was gross and pretty fucked up, but it was NOT on the same level as racism. Hell, it wasn’t even on the same level as certain career threatening tackles that GO UNPUNISHED.

    And may I just remind everyone that I’m a United supporter.

  11. dc says:


    Banning someone for doing something slightly stupid that caused literally no bodily harm whatsoever to the other player… the administrative bodies of this sport are an absolute joke.

    let’s just start banning everyone who trips another player. soon we’ll be watching a reality TV show instead of a an exciting, intense game of football.

    at this point, i’d happily advise suarez to leave England. I’m sure other places will appreciate his talents more…

  12. Maria says:

    How many games did Aguero get banned for his two footed stamp on Luis? How is nibbling Ivanovic, causing no injury so much worse than some of these stamps and leg breaks we see?

  13. tipo 00 says:

    a lot of people keep comparing his 10 match ban to other incidents where players weren’t banned, or that he only got 8 matches for his racism.

    MAYBE, he should get continually longer bans until he realises he is constantly acting like a twat. he has so much previous it’s hard to feel sorry for him.

  14. Les says:

    Simple difference between the aguero incident and suarez here. Tackling is part of the game, even horrendous lunges like that. So we can’t ban tackling from the game. I’d be astounded if any of the pool fans or suarez defenders thought that biting is part of the game. its not. its just an act of barbarism from a man with no respect for the game, his fellow professionals or himself.

  15. JLBK says:

    In the commotion of butthurt Liverpool fans, this gem was missed by @Rory:

    “In fairness to Suarez, biting people isn’t that big a deal in South America and Suarez has been routinely bitten by some of his best friends!”

    Truth is 10 games is harsh and he is definitely being punished for being Suarez but I don’t see how they have a choice. He has a terrible track record for behavior and I think the FA figure, “we’ve banned him before and he doesn’t seem to learn so let’s do something drastic and see if it gets through to him”.

    I thought Gary Neville was spot on in saying Liverpool cannot by any means get rid of him. First of all he is far too brilliant of a player. Secondly, as teammates and managers and owners and supporters, you can’t just turn your back on a player because he makes mistakes. I’m not condoning any of his actions but the fact is, he’s human and he made some mistakes. Would my opinion be different if he was not a 20-30 goal a season striker? Maybe. But Liverpool need him and he’s the only reason they are not in the bottom half of the table right now. A lot of the furor going on is media bullsh*t and anti-Suarez overreacting. The guy is an a$$ but by no means is he beyong turning it around. Whether or not he will take this opportunity to do so is a question mark and totally up to him.

    –United Fan

Leave a Reply