I honestly cannot believe that you believe this...Ian Darke is an American convert - one of the biggest homers we have broadcasting. respectfully disagree with you.
I have a real problem with all athletes - not just footballers - who constantly get away with actions the rest of us would be thrown in jail for; I don't care if it is on the field or not. We hold our servicemen and women accountable for their actions in the heat of a real battle - seems to me that biting someone in a game deserves the same accountability that would come from a similar incident on the street.
It also raises the question, if that's OK then what about something worse? How about jabbing someone in the eye deliberately and trying to blind them... is THAT OK? How the guy gets away with it legally, as you say, seems pretty incredible.
I'm not a fan of most of the British commentators either but I think Suarez is a sociopath. If that makes me a "moralizer," I'm not going to apologize for having a moral code.
I've long been convinced that having at least ONE American commentator with a feel for the game who's a big personality will be a significant point for the game over there. As you say, I just don't think the issue of a 'moral code' is a factor in the matter. If anything most Americans are probably MORE moralistic about some of this stuff, ('flopping' for instance),... not less.
The British ( and Latino) commentators are such an improvement over who they replaced (for the most part)it isn't funny. Indeed, it is really, really sad. I think we'll develop a great commentator before we develop a midfielder or striker who plays in the late rounds of the Champions League, but just barely. And re: moralizing:Suarez is just a victim of changing English values. Had he played in the 60's and 70's, he'd be famously and favorably known as Luis "Bites Yer Shoulder" Suarez.
Well, as you may know, Norman Hunter was always famously referred to as Norman 'bites yer legs' Hunter. The thing is he didn't actually bite yer legs TBH it would have been considered a very 'umanly' thing to do... a phrase which is entirely inappropriate, obviously, but sums it up in the attitudes of that time. I mean, can you imagine John Terry, (very much a throwback in that sense), biting someone? Smacking them in the mouth, yes. Biting, no That was the English reaction to that dutch guy, (forget the name), spitting in the German fellas hair back in the 80's. Moth people over here were appalled... but would have been quite comfortable if a fist-fight broke out.
Wait, Norman Hunter didn't actually bite someone? Damn, this Enlish Moralism thing is more deeply rooted than I thought.
It's just the Brit way - being sporting and all that. Of course a Mediterranean/Latin would laugh...they will do anything on the pitch as long as they can get away with it; and I can say that because I am one!
In professional sports we make a tacit agreement that what ever happens on the field should be handled by the sports officials not by the police. Lots of actions happen on football pitches that could get you charged criminally but don't (and shouldn't) because we have an agreement that it will be dealt with by the sport not the criminal authorities. Plus biting someone (and not breaking the skin) will most likely not land you in jail. Not saying I approve, but mostly it is just weird. If he had just walked up and cold cocked the guy you would have seen a very different reaction.
I hate the word "moralism." Morality is NOT relative. What is wrong for me is also wrong for you. It is wrong to bite people in a soccer game. If your culture says otherwise then your culture is wrong.
The issue isn't whether it's wrong. Everyone agrees it's wrong, it's levels of wrong. Which is worse biting a player or jumping into a tackle studs up? That is the debate. From my impression it seems like in South America the bite was seen as stupid and deserving of a ban but no worse than a lot of other things seen on a football pitch. While in England and America it was viewed as literally the worst thing to ever happen in the history of the World Cup, with multiple people calling for lifetime bans. For me it's somewhere in between.
Sorry, but without risking too much of a tangent on the subject, morality absolutely is not objective. That goes for a whole host of issues, not just sport. Nobody can just assume their morals are right. There are plenty of things you can make a very good case for, but so many others where both sides of an argument where people will consider themselves morally right.
I can't speak for america as I haven't seen the reaction there, but I can't help but be mystified by the claims that there Suarez's bite was perceived in England as being an "outrage". Yes, I've no doubt if you trawled the comments to articles on twitter* you'd find people saying he should be banned for life etc, but you didn't get too much here beyond speculation of how long he could be banned for. * if I actually wanted to hear the thoughts of Barry from Dorking I would go to Dorking and ask him. The fact that I've not done that, and nor has anyone else, suggests that Barry's input on the subject isn't hugely sought after.
Here's the thing. A studs up tackle can be seen as part of the game - It happens unfortunately. However, how many people have bitten people during a game? It is hardly a regular occurence in fact, off the top of my head I can only think of three.
I'm sure some would just see it as gamesmanship. It's not like the Mike Tyson bite where he actually bit a chunk out of somebody. That misses the point though. You stated that there is no relative morality, when variation over history and over different cultures proves that statement is completely false. There is no doubt that things you regard as perfectly acceptable now will be considered wrong in 50 years time, and things you regard as wrong will be seen as acceptable.
I don't think it's as simple as saying this or that type of behaviour is part of the game. I've seen studs up tackles, (usually referred to in England as a 'coward's challenge' because the guy's trying to protect himself from being hurt and risking hurting someone else), where it's almost an accident... he just gets there too late but clearly has no intention to hurt the guy. I've also seen incidents where he obviously IS trying to hurt the guy. An example was Roy Keane's on Alf-Inge Haaland but, tbh, it's difficult to think of too many others. Now, if someone wants to argue that Keane should have been banned for, say, a year for that act which looked deliberate, personally, I have absolutely NO problem AT ALL. The thing is there's a difference between someone going for the ball, (which is part of the game, even if it's mis-timed), and an act of sheer lunacy such as Keane's challenge AND Suarez's biting of an opponent. Those three are not really equivalents in any meaningful sense. Well, it's pretty regular with one guy
I agree with this much - especially the first line. That's why I always prefer that england busts out of the World Cup in the first round itself so that we don't have to hear the 'Wayne Rooney and England are world-class, england doesn't play well because they have a poor manager' broken tape recorder nonsense over and over again. Can't they just shut the Fvck up and say we are just not good enough and would be lucky to reach the second round? Actually kudos to them to latch on to the biting incident against a player they genuinely love to dislike since that is one thing I haven't seen English players do. I mean, as much as I hate diving, it's very annoying when they only attribute diving to only foreigners in the EPL when England's stars over the past few years Gerrard, Rooney and lampard have all dived but when they dove, there was contact but when Suarez dove, it's because the latter is a cheat. 2012-2013 season -Fergies last season with Manu. He has a mediocre team but Robin Van persie fired on all cylinders throughout the season to lead manu to a title. In the middle of the season, united play city (their main competitor) and at halftime, Manchester United is leading 2-0 due to two tap-ins by Rooney. At halftime, english commentators go on about how Wayne Rooney is without a doubt the best player in the premier league. When the match ended for a 3-2 win for Manu, wayne Rooney even with his two goals, wouldn't even be amongst the three best players in that match. What I don't understand is that why do epl commentators think that people in America watch football because they like English players? Or worse, do they actually think that Americans are dumb enough to buy into this whole English players are world-class nonsense? Or even worse, maybe these English commentators are just plain stupid in which case they really shouldn't be having that job. For the record, I wouldn't watch the EPL if it only hadEnglish players, might as well watch Serie B. Oh well, it's another 4 years of great English players and great national team, but guess what, I predict Team USA to advance further in the World Cup than england in 2018 also.
Agree completely - I was trying to think of another example apart from Keane on Haaland but am struggling as well. Keane got an 8 match ban in total for that I think., as you said would have had no issues with a much longer ban. I was actually surprised that he wasn't prosecuted for that like Duncan Ferguson was but that might be the difference between the Scottish and English legal systems.
Firstly, I dislike most English commentators too. They always seem to adopt a smug elitist attitute unless they are former football players (well except Andy Gray and Garth Brooks). I don't know what commentators you get over there. But from my opinion, I've always thought British and Americans have closer sporting culture to each other in how they view sport in general and how sport should be played, similar to Canada and Australia. I remember reading how sports played is a reflection of a countries culture. Sports also influence other sports. And hell, we still have Cricket, Golf, and the friggin Wimbledon Tennis Championship. I thought one reasons many Americans hate soccer is because of the filth involved. The diving, the rolling on the floor like your leg has been stung by hundred bees, even if you didn't get hit, men acting unmanly. In Suarez case, he bit a player, then fell on the floor, pretended he got elbowed, rolled over, and then grabbed his teeth, and pretended that it was HIM that felt pain. He then blatantly lied, despite video evidence and tooth marks. In order to understand "the elitist attitute". Hmm. That's like saying when Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield, that the people who showed any outrage adopted an "elitist attitute". Hell, the whole of the boxing community showed outrage and the boxing community is anything BUT elitist. I would have loved to see the reaction of the boxing community had Mike Tyson bit Holyfield, then pretended it was actually HIM that got hit, maybe elbowed for example, then he rolled over the floor in agony, and then lied saying he didn't bite him, despite Holyfields ear hanging off. That incident to American culture would be seen as hilarious, but also alien. It's not something Americans do, only mental people. Or in this case South American football players. (Hell, many South American boxers would do that if it meant they got away with it) And in the case of Suarez. It's the fact it's constant, the constant cheating, the constant diving by Suarez, the fact he bit for the THIRD time. But apparently there are people left in this country who just do not want to see that in the game. Kicking the ball out of play because a fellow opponent is injured. That's an English trait that has miraciously survived in the modern era. Only now to be an annoyance because now in football, most footballers just aren't injured anymore. See, in England, it used to be that you kicked the ball out of play because 100% that guy would only be rolling around in pain because he actually needs help. I became a big fan of the USA national team in this world cup. I just loved the way they had a never say die approach to the very end, and they played in an honest way. I watched in a pub, and the whole pub was cheering them on. The day they start playing like Uruguay, doing everything to win, play acting etc is a sad day. Definetely the day that Spanish becomes the dominant language and men like Johnny cash is long forgotten. But. I suppose thats just the way teams maybe have to play now. Times are definetely changing now I see former English footballers say that English players now have to make "more" of being fouled. This was in response to when Sturridge got elbowed in the throat by a Uruguay player who already had been yellow carded, Sturridge just got up like a man. Had that been the other way around, that Uruguay player would have rolled around in "agony" to get his opponent sent off.