2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil

[Roger Wilco]

No, that's the rules of football, that's how sports work. There might be a possibility to appeal to CAS, but you appear to be under the mistaken impression, that this ban is unprecedented or even unusual in any way, and it simply is not.

If he filed a lawsuit his career would be finished. There's literally nothing the FIFA hates more than being bothered with civil courts, he would never play again.

 

[Roger Wilco]

And you didn't answer my question of where you're from. For how long have you been following this sport? I'm seriously baffled that you'd think Suarez is being mistreated here. You can object to the length of the ban or even the fact that he was banned at all, but when you're objecting to the principal right of FIFA to hand out a ban like that the way they did, I have to question your understanding of the sport.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I do dislike Suarez, but what you don't seem to be able to understand is, that this is how FIFA and UEFA and the various domestic leagues always handle incidents like this and always have. Suarez is not all special in that regard in any way.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

This is why Suarez can sue FIFA for damages - they punished a player with out a trial or evidence, and it costed him money and ruined his image during a Wolrd Cup.

Chin chin - i smell millions in a lawsuit.

Sue for what? Breach of contract? Does his contract say he is entitled to a trial or some other hearing? Is it a tort? Is there some customary rule or law requiring that he be given a hearing? Those are the questions that have to be answered affirmatively if you're suing someone. It's never enough to simply say "he was harmed, therefore he should sue." There has to be a legal right and a legal remedy.

You may note that I focused on the trial (or hearing) aspect of your post as opposed to the evidence aspect. There clearly is evidence. Not only eye witness evidence (from the person who says he was bit) but video evidence. I don't see why the former couldn't be enough by itself, but the latter certainly is. You may want to say the video isn't conclusive, but I'm not sure why it would have to be. It just has to be enough that they are satisfied (particularly in conjunction with the statements from the person who says he was bit and the physical evidence appearing to show bite marks).

If you can cite a rule (either contractually-based or arising from the law or laws FIFA is subject to) that says greater consideration is required, let me know. Otherwise, I think it's wrong to say that they didn't discuss or consider the evidence before making their decision. And if they reasonably concluded that he bit another player, I think it's absurd to suggest that action couldn't be taken.

 

[Jax]

This is why Suarez can sue FIFA for damages - they punished a player with out a trial or evidence, and it costed him money and ruined his image during a Wolrd Cup

HE FUCKING BIT SOMEONE for the 3rd fucking time and all accounts were caught on FILM! I don't understand all these people who are saying oooo thats a little harsh in any other job he would be fired and if you went around the streets biting people 3 times in 4 years then guess what you'd be locked up or sectioned away for mental health reasons.

Get a grip on reality FFS.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Ah, was it an own-goal or did the Brazilian kick it in? I've seen it several times now, but I can't make up my mind.

 

[Shaytan]

Ah, was it an own-goal or did the Brazilian kick it in? I've seen it several times now, but I can't make up my mind.

I think it's an own-goal but it's difficult to tell !

Goal for Chili !

 

[Skywalker]

Ah, was it an own-goal or did the Brazilian kick it in? I've seen it several times now, but I can't make up my mind.

It really looked like an own-goal to me. If it touched David Luiz then it barely did.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I'm going to answer these points in opposite order.

You don't need a contract to sue someone.

No, but you do need a legal cause of action. What is the legal cause of action?

All the video shows is a man slaming his head against another mans shoulder, with an open mouth. - Since there is no evidence of a bite marks - there is no case.

There is evidence of bite marks, whether you think it's enough evidence depends on your point of view. In addition, you have a witness who says they were bit, that's evidence as well (and, therefore, a case). Let me clarify. Are you saying his teeth did or did not make contact with another player's body?

 

[Roger Wilco]

Dead wrong imo, Howard fucking Webb.

Not positive, but I think it was an excellent and legal goal by Hulk.

 

[Skywalker]

Not wrong at all, that ball clearly went off his arm, and it looked to me like he intentionally turned his shoulder in to direct the ball.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Not wrong at all, that ball clearly went off his arm, and it looked to me like he intentionally turned his shoulder in to direct the ball.

Shoulder isn't hands though AFAIK.

 

[Skywalker]

Not wrong at all, that ball clearly went off his arm, and it looked to me like he intentionally turned his shoulder in to direct the ball.

Shoulder isn't hands though AFAIK.

No, but the arm counts.

 

[Roger Wilco]

^^
Impossible to tell from that angle.

Here it looks more like he touched the ball with his left arm if anything.

http://gfycat.com/HotReflectingAmericanwarmblood

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I'm going to answer these points in opposite order.

You don't need a contract to sue someone.

No, but you do need a legal cause of action. What is the legal cause of action?

All the video shows is a man slaming his head against another mans shoulder, with an open mouth. - Since there is no evidence of a bite marks - there is no case.

There is evidence of bite marks, whether you think it's enough evidence depends on your point of view. In addition, you have a witness who says they were bit, that's evidence as well (and, therefore, a case). Let me clarify. Are you saying his teeth did or did not make contact with another player's body?

Show me this evidence of bite marks. A Picture would be enought, because i didn't saw anything.

There is always a Legal case when the money are involved. I am not a lawyer to say what it will be.

There isn't always a legal case when money is involved. There may be a lawsuit, but it's followed by getting thrown out and legal sanctions imposed against the parties who filed it.

I am a lawyer. I am a US lawyer, though, so I can't speak for the laws of other countries. But maybe you should be less confident in saying that he could successfully sue unless you have at least some idea that there's supporting law. You can't just will a successful lawsuit into existence, the law has to be on your side.

 

[Shaytan]

Not wrong at all, that ball clearly went off his arm, and it looked to me like he intentionally turned his shoulder in to direct the ball.

Shoulder isn't hands though AFAIK.

What about the biceps ? (innocent question : I don't know and internet doesn't know too)

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I believe biceps are, but I could be wrong. It's a close case. The angle I saw seemed like it was a legal goal, but there was another angle when I looked away that the announcers said showed a handball (I feel bad looking away, though, since I can't actually say for sure).

 

[Roger Wilco]

Biceps is illegal.

The picture in Skywalker's post now is better. Maybe I was wrong. Still not totally convinced though.

 

[Skywalker]

Yeah, I found that second pic immediately after I'd posted the original one. I hoped I'd edited it in fast enough, but apparently not.

^^
Impossible to tell from that angle.

Here it looks more like he touched the ball with his left arm if anything.

http://gfycat.com/HotReflectingAmericanwarmblood

Thanks for that link, that's a much better angle.

 

[Shaytan]

Biceps is illegal.

The picture in Skywalker's post now is better. Maybe I was wrong. Still not totally convinced though.

I don't think that referees are always convinced by their decisions too but they have to chose. Even the video wouldn't help a lot in this case.