So Luis Suarez has been banned for 10 games by the Football Association for biting Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic. I have been listening to one commentator tell me that the ban is excessive and should have been 8 games. How do they make a judgement like this? Does it depend on which part of the body they bite or how hard they bite? Does it depend on whether the person who is bitten falls over and rolls on the floor?
I don't know whether the FA ban should have been 8 or 10 games or even 3 games as Suarez himself suggests, but I am sure that there will be many others who will now try to copy this tactic on the football field. I can't help wondering about the kind of punishment that would have been given out if the bite had been part of an unprovoked attack in a city centre. If custodial sentences are handed out on these occasions then I think Suarez and the fans who think his punishment is excessive are lucky that the police have not become involved.
It is hard to think of a defence for biting but many Liverpool fans either think that defending Suarez is easy or they are too concerned with having their best players on the pitch and not watching the games. Now there's something to chew on (is that the right expression?)
Change the world