FA UNFAIR TO SUAREZ, SAYS HIS BOSS.

The appalling and disgusting behaviour of Liverpool's Luis Suarez has been matched by the utterly self-serving responses from a number of other footballng figures.

 

Among others, the Liverpool manager, Brendan Rodgers, has expressed his unhappiness with the punishment handed out by the FA for Suarez's actions. A 10-match ban, says Rodgers, is punishment "against the man rather than the incident". He's gone on to add the "We have a punishment with no intention of helping behaviour". What planet this moron lives on is open to debate but I suggest it's one inhabited by those whose entire world is ruled by football and footballers, rather than one in which the rest of society lives.

 

Suarez was not guilty of making a bad tackle and nor was he provoked into throwing a punch; he very deliberately and wholly gratuitously took hold of an opponent's arm and bit it. Shockingly, this was not the first time he's done such a thing and his previous punishment was a 7-match ban. Subsequent to that incident, he was found guilty of 'racially abusing' an opponent, an offence for which he received an 8-match ban. Along the way, he seems to have been more than happy to cheat, Maradonna-style, by using his hands in the penalty area.

 

For Rodgers and others to claim that the FA is now being 'unfair' is risible. Suarez has more than enough 'previous' to demonstrate that fines and talkings-to have no effect; of course the FA is punishing him, it was, after all, he who perpetrated his disgusting action and to suggest that the offender and the offence can somehow be separated and treated differently is incomprehensible. It is also a natural course for second and subsequent offences to be punished more harshly than the first and this is what the FA has done.

 

The behaviour of Suarez was a shocking disgrace and, in my view, he should be banned for good. The behaviour of those such as his manager in claiming that his actions were pretty minor and not worthy of serious punishment sends a message to younger supporters that this type of violence is acceptable; how long will it be before little Jimmy takes a lump out of the arm of young Bobby in the local park ? When Jimmy tells his dad that he only did what Suarez did and it wasn't really serious, what will his dad say ? What will Bobby's dad say when Jimmy's dad tells him it wasn't serious and he should forget it ?

 

Football may be our principal national sport but it's not beyond the laws of the country nor the morality of society, even if many of its players and representatives believe it to be so. It is time for proper action to be taken to correct this flawed view.

ANIMAL SUAREZ MUST BE BANNED

Fottball reached a new low point yesterday when the Liverpool player, Luis Suarez, tokk a bite out of the arm of one of his Chelsea opponents, Branislav Ivanovic. That this is not the first time Suarez has acted in this way makes it all the more shocking.

 

After the incident, the reaction from TV pundits was mixed with one, the former Liverpool player Alan Hansen, effectively saying that while Suarez behaviour was wrong, no one had really been hurt and doing anything serious about it would be excessive. How he could suggest 'brushing the act under the carpet' in such cavalier fashion escapes me.

 

Suarez behaviour was disgusting and bestial. He may be a very clever player but behaviour such as his cannot be excused or ignored and it certainly needs much greater sanction than an apology broadcast over 'Twitter'. If Liverpool FC have any claims to run a decent club, Suarez should never play for them again. If football as a whole wishes to be seen as anything but organised warfare, Suarez should also be ostracized by clubs worldwide and FIFA should ban him from all competition for a substantial period of time.

 

That none of this will happen is my only expectation. Football, and players like Suarez, are considered far too important for any normal standards of human behaviour to apply. While referees 'book' players for 'diving', acts like those of Suarez are well beyond the ability of anyone in the footballing hierarchy to deal with. No wonder that our children, many of whom worship animals such as Suarez, are so out of control.

TIGER WOODS IS A LUCKY MAN.

In the past, sport was something enjoyed by young men, and rarely by young women, of means; it was an amateur pastime and was played for enojoyment and prestige.

 

Today is very different. Most sports have been 'professionalised' and are now played with money in mind. The way in which they are played, the rules and the the prizes are all determined by financial considerations. Consequently some sports, though certainly not all, have been corrupted and are no longer played in a sportsmanlike manner; cheating has become a normal part of the 'game' in some instances. The prime example has to be football in which the rules seem to be ignored most of the time, particularly those relating to the direct interactions between players. Cricket, too, is no longer played in the gentlemanly manner that it was in my youth and players will happily get away with anything they can.

 

Today, we've seen two instances of rule breaches in different sports which seem to have been treated very differently. In the Formula 1 Grand Prix qualifying round in China, the Red Bull driver Mark Webber, recognized as being one of the top drivers around, ran out of fuel; as the adjudicators monitor the fuel to ensure it is within prescribed standards, Webber failed to provide a sample and suffered the full penalty for his offence. He will start from last place in the race tomorrow. In the 'Masters' golf tournament in Augusta, Georgia, Tiger Woods not only played a shot from an incorrect position but also returned an incorrect score; both of these are offences, the first having a standard penalty of 2 shots and the second of mandatory disqualification. At the discretion of the stewards, only the first has been applied, though the full story may not yet have been told.

 

In Formula 1, the stewards chose to be very hard on Webber, a man for whom little seems to go right; the rules are the rules. In Golf, a sport in which adherence to the rules is usually paramount, the stewards have chosen to be somewhat picky about which rules to follow. In fact, as more details are revealed, it seems that they may even have done their damnest to avoid doing anything in support of 'their man'. Woods clearly played from the wrong place and yet the rules official on the course said nothing; Woods reportedly told officials in the scoring hut what he had done and they did nothing. It was not until he told the press and public that the officials took any notice. Now they have done as little as they can; a 2 shot penalty but no disqualification.

 

There can be no doubt that what Woods did was wrong but it seems that he actually did all that he reasonably could have done to ensure that the officials knew exactly what had happened; it appears that he is not to blame for this debacle. Nonetheless, and I acknowledge that I do not like the man one little bit, he should have sought proper advice on the course and should have been disqualified for returning an inaccurate card. That he is happily playing the third round as I write tells me that the officials in Augusta have bowed to the financial and nationalistic pressures on them by allowing Woods to continue, albeit with a stroke penalty.

 

I had thought that golf was one of sports that was immune to corruption but now I begin to wonder. When money and, in the particular case of the USA, national pride are considered of over-riding importance, how can we be sure that adjudications on the application of the rules will be fair and just ? The simple answer is that we cannot.

MURRAY WINS BATTLE OF ERRORS.

Yesterday saw Andy Murray rise to number 2 in the world tennis rankings after his win over David Ferrer in Florida. At one point during the match a commentator remarked that Murray would become the second best player in the world as a consequence of a victory, something which is, of course, nothing to do with official rankings.

 

Murray's win was, at best, messy and lucky. The match was horribly scrappy with both players perpetrating huge numbers of unforced errors; it was anything but a match between 2 of the supposedly best players in the world. That the points gained from his win move him above Roger Federer in the official ATP rankings means only that he has gained more points over the last 12 months than the Swiss; it does not mean that he is a better player.

 

In fact, Murray continues to be a serious disappointment. His pained demeanour throughout yesterday's match contrasted hugely with that of his opponent and it also contrasts vastly with the usual positive and upbeat demeanours of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. Murray may be the number 2 ranked player in the world but he is far from being the second best. Djokovic is the best and Nadal probably number 2; on his day, Federer is still number 3 and Murray is vying for 4th spot with the likes of Ferrer and Del Potro.

 

Neither ranking points nor the excessive enthusiasm of commentators can change this.