The Luis Suarez Saga Trilogy

Luis Alberto Suárez Díaz was arguably the talk of the town this week. It all started out in a lesser known competition before moving on to the most watched league in the world, which then ultimately culminated in the final act on the world stage. A very fitting sense of progression in that sense as the main character goes through his life in white, red then blue.

The punishment meted out for this act has divided opinions. Many, egged on by the media, wanted a heavier sentence for a repeat offender, while others (including the victim himself) thought it to be overly harsh. This act of violent misconduct, in my opinion, is a case of recidivism versus consequence versus intention.

This is the third time that it had happened (albeit on different body parts). Logically, a repeat offender deserves a tougher sentence than a first-timer. Since the precedence has been set by various FAs in the past (7 and then 10 matches), it is only fitting that the third time be more than this number. However, were the previous punishments justified? Just because this is an unconventional / childish act of violence, did it get sensationalized more than others?

This brings me to the other factors. In comparison to other violent acts such as head butts, boot to the knee or elbow to the head, is a superficial bite more serious or life threatening than an elbow to the head? Does a bite have a higher chance of ending a player’s career than a boot to the knee? One might argue that a bite might cause an open wound when infected. I wouldn’t deny that, but that is if the skin was broken. Besides, the studs of a boot causing an incised wound isn’t all that uncommon.

The difference between those other violent acts and a bite would be the intent of the person in question. Most of the other behaviours can be reasoned to be accidental, but there is no way a bite can be argued as such.

There was another recent incident involving a goalkeeper and a striker which ultimately resulted in the death of the player who received a boot to the mid section. The consequences were dire in this case, but the aggressor claims that it was unintentional. So, how does the FA or FIFA resolve this?

Take for example another older incident where a player admitted after he retired that he had wanted revenge and intentionally set out to injure another, thus ending the career of the latter. That had serious consequences and was deemed unintentional initially, but after the admission, nothing could be done retroactively.

So, what do I think?

I do not want to think about it. It doesn’t change anything. I am just laying out these points to aid objective thinking unclouded by the media and general population. Just note that I am not defending the action, but merely debating the punishments.

The world cup has just reached the knockout stage and I am sure that there will be more on show from the grandest stage of the beautiful game.