Let's Put A Little Perspective On Luis Suarez' Misdemeanors

 During the second half of today's 2-2 draw with Chelsea at Anfield Luis Suarez bit Branislav Ivanovic on the arm. I'm not putting the word 'allegedly' in here, it's quite clear he did it, he's guilty and he should be banned. But yet again I've no doubt it will be blown out of proportion by the media and fans of rival clubs, while many Liverpool fans will attempt to defend a man who, not for the first time, was in the wrong.

One game ban

No punishment

 In the immediate aftermath of today's indiscretion the commentary team and thousands of people on social networking sites were very quick to criticise, and they can't really be blamed, the video evidence was pretty conclusive. But one question I didn't see properly asked was why did he do it? It's very possible it was just a heat of the moment thing, an instinctive action with the sole aim of winding up an opponent and gaining an edge. But it's also very possible Ivanovic (certainly no angel) had done or said something to make the Uruguayan react how he did. Suarez needs to come out with a pretty honest, very public statement in the near future, making clear his regret and offering sincere apologies, but also explaining why he did it. If he was wound up or feels he was provoked into it by his opponent then he needs to make it known. And if Ivanovic did nothing wrong then Suarez needs to make this clear too in order to stop so many people pointlessly defending him.

Almost no mention

National scandal, even TV weathergirl gets involved

The referee today spoke to both men straight after they tangled, so it looks like he saw them clash. He obviously didn't see the bite otherwise he would have shown Suarez a red card, but he clearly did see the overall incident. I've long argued the FA's rule that they cannot apply retrospective punishment unless the officials completely miss something is daft but it remains in place. The only way action can be taken is if none of the officials see something, it's purely down to whether or not an incident was seen and not how it was interpreted. There is one get out clause for the FA though, they can take action in 'exceptional circumstances'. That's where they can choose if they would like to punish Suarez or not, and I think it's not overly difficult to guess which option they will choose..........

No witnesses, one man's word against another, 8 game ban

TV evidence, millions of viewers, 4 game ban

 It all comes down to whether or not the bite should be classed as an exceptional circumstance. Well, I think it should, and it shouldn't, it's a tricky one. Why should it be an exceptional circumstance that deserves a punishment? Well, he bit him. Plain and simple really. Why shouldn't it be? He didn't really hurt him, and he didn't particularly endanger his opponent. The FA recently chose not to take extra action against Callum McManaman of Wigan after his shocking challenge against Newcastle despite him causing serious injury to his opponent, and on that basis any action against Suarez seems incredibly harsh.

Becomes worldwide hate figure

Never mentioned, goes on to coach England under 21's

 A few months back Eden Hazard kicked a ballboy at Swansea (not very hard, but he still kicked him). My first reaction at the time was that Hazard was lucky because the ref sent him off. The red card carried a mandatory three game ban and meant he was already dealt with, there was no need for a witch hunt as the match officials dealt with it correctly and promptly. The danger for Suarez is that a pantomime will develop, with him in his familiar role as the villain. The FA will be forced to react because the referee missed it. 

 Do I think Suarez should face a ban? Yes I do, he bit his opponent. How long should the ban be? In my opinion three matches, the standard ban for a red card. I think banning him for longer than Hazard received for kicking a ballboy would be grossly unfair.

 Is there any reason for Suarez to feel aggrieved if he is punished? No there isn't, he bit his opponent. And yes there is, there is a precedent for this exact incident in recent Premier League history.

?

No punishment

 

 In 2006 Jermaine Defoe bit Javier Mascherano and faced no punishment whatsoever. His guilt was easily as clear as Suarez' and the FA chose not to act, despite having the same powers to that they have today. 

 The purpose of this article (unlike several others I've written) is not to defend Luis Suarez, it's merely to put his actions into perspective. He's not the first to do what he did today, but there's already been more fuss made in the last couple of hours than was made over Defoe. What he did wasn't dangerous when compared to the reckless actions of so many others who fly into tackles knee high and escape unpunished. He didn't pick on someone weak or vulnerable, he went for possibly the scariest opponent in the entire league. 

 But one thing that is certainly clear is that controversy follows the talented South American and he's not always the unlucky innocent party. He brings a lot of it onto himself. But it's also very hard for him to get a fair hearing, nobody has a real sense of perspective on anything he does. Those who love him will defend him to the hilt, those who hate him will pick up on any slip up and over exaggerate any indiscretion.

 I suppose at least what he's done today will mean the enemy down the other end of the East Lancs will get a few less column inches when they wrap up the league title tomorrow, and that can't be a bad thing..