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!
