Is Biting in Football Physiological or Pathological?

Is Biting in Football Physiological or Pathological?

To football referees and pundits it is pathological, especially if one comes from England.

This is especially true since Surez, scored the winner against England.

To me biting is a physiological in every sense, in the animal world including human, the mammal emancipated from animal instincts.

But taken inhibitions out in a moment of state of trance.

In football unlike in cricket, everybody, managers, players and spectators and everybody who is addicted to soccer is in a state of trance (I wish to call it involuntary meditation) for 90 to 120 minutes.

If one watches a spectator in this trance state one may see involuntary movements, the doer does not realize, the reflex action that simulate the player/players he/she watching.

In this scenario, it is an involuntary action but not voluntary.

Is is justifiable to punish for involuntary action?

Only the doer knows it.

In this country we have rugger players biting ears of the opposite players in the scrum or pack without getting caught which nobody can see in camera, unless we have camera mounted down under on the playing field.

This action is voluntary since the doer knows he cannot be caught.

I do not think a professional player will do that in under full media cover.

My objection is one cannot look at a video and decide that as involuntary physiological action or voluntary pathological incident by a panel of football judges.

They are part of the game caught up in this trance state and rules can be bent to suit the panel not the player.

In this scenario, the player like in cricket should confess (did no catch the ball or did whip the bail before the ball was in hand).

Surez antics after the incident may have been collaborative but in that sense he should not be penalized since that was after the fact or the act.

Even a psychologist might not be able to delineate this in a moment of post-traumatic psychoanalysis (drama).

In this case psychologist takes over interpretation, which I am against since he can be wrong 50% of the time.

Lie detector may or may not be useful.

The bottom line is, that the player owns the responsibility of bringing the game into disrepute.

I would have given Surez a suspended sentence in this case not a total ban.

After all in this country Buddhist monks who propagate hate go scot free and rank criminals get suspended sentence!