A Uruguayan official has criticised the English Football Association for "double morals" after they handed Liverpool forward Luis Suarez a 10-match ban for biting Branislav Ivanovic.
The incident occurred in the Reds' Premier League match with Chelsea on Sunday, but because the referee took no action against the South American at the time the FA was able able to act retrospectively and issue the suspension.
... first the ban Suarez for 8 matches for the term 'negrido', which wasn't even meant in a racist way, only perceived that way by a player trying to make a meal out of it.
Then they only ban Terry, who said some much harsher and more racist stuff, fully knowing what it means to say that here in the west (unlike Suarez, who grew up with the term 'negrido', not meaning anything racist), for only 4 matches or something.
And now this. There have been biting incidents before, punished less severely, or not at all.
Not to mention all the double-footed high tackles and sometimes elbows which are thrown out, which could cause ALOT more damage, which are also often barely punished.
I'd rather be bitten by an opponent instead of getting an elbow in the mouth/eye-socket/nose, or having an opponent sliding in full speed, studs up, right on my knees/ankles.
Should Suarez be punished!? Ofcourse! What he did was ridiculous and unsporting and all that. But 5 matches would have been punishment enough, especially when taken into account the comparison to similar incidents, or much more serious attacks, like elbows and high tackles.