« | Home | »

The Bite


This is the day after the incident that will no doubt be the one for which this World Cup is best remembered (it will take something pretty tasty in the remaining games to dislodge it). The tournament now divides into pre-bite and post-bite. The world is already awash with virtual newsprint expressing various shades of bemusement, amusement or (most often) outrage at Luis Suárez and his ravenous teeth. I hesitate to add to the surfeit of noise. But really, why is one footballer biting another so uniquely shocking?

Matthew Syed, fulminating in this morning’s Times, says ‘there is a case for a lengthy worldwide ban that sends an unmistakable signal that talent can never justify the kind of behaviour that, in other circumstances, might bring a man before a judge for common assault.’ But football matches are full of assaults that would, in other circumstances, count as criminal acts. They break each other’s legs, for God’s sake, and it’s not always by accident. The Italian defender Chiellini, who looks like he can look after himself, went down under Suárez’s attentions as though he had been punched, but he hadn’t. I guess it hurt, and he certainly had the scars to prove it, but they were only pinpricks compared to the damage that other kinds of fouls can do.

Is it the curious intimacy of the contact? Biting, or anything involving the mouth, seems categorically distinct from the usual run of flailing elbows and wild lunges. It looks wilful because it belongs to a completely different realm of human activity: eating, or perhaps love. In no sense is it part of the game. But for that reason it can hardly have been deliberate. What was Suárez trying to achieve? To get Chiellini to punch him in retaliation? There are far better ways of managing that. It was such a stupid thing to do that it must have been impulsive. The problem with a defence of crime passionnel is that Suárez has form. It’s his third bite, which suggests at the very least that there is a part of him that is beyond all reasonable control. That makes people very uncomfortable.

In the end Suárez’s problem is not that biting is so much worse than the other things that players do, but simply that the other players don’t do it. Once norms exist, however arbitrary, universal adherence makes any breach a very serious matter. Whatever it is that Suárez can’t control is something that everyone else can control. That makes him a real renegade. It’s like the moment Eric Cantona jumped into the crowd at Crystal Palace to karate kick a fan who had been giving him terrible abuse (something for which he was very briefly jailed). In some ways what was most surprising about that incident was that it doesn’t happen more often, given what footballers do to each other and what fans do to each other. How many players must have wanted to return in kind some of the poison coming their way from the crowd? But since it doesn’t happen, there was something truly shocking about seeing Cantona breach the invisible boundary that separates the violence that happens on the pitch from the violence that happens in the stands. Suárez has breached another such invisible boundary and it looks like he is really going to pay for it.

Comments on “The Bite”

  1. @torcheculs says:

    exactly, what we need is in fact MORE biting and MORE great football @sdwatk @sarah_cawthorne http://t.co/13nBpGUczJ

  2. 503melchendorf says:

    Thanks for stating the blindingly obvious, Dave. So if LS is engaged in impulsive behavior beyond all reasonable control, shouldn’t the authorities insist on his getting professional help during his suspension? He needs to think about what he’s doing. Luxurious inactivity will not help him achieve this goal.

  3. mwest says:

    The bite is the central, incipient, human act of doom-enchantment in the Book of Genesis. Flowing like innocence from the mouths of babes, it first appears among the earliest of our visible instincts, which we both exalt and fear. And with only lovers left alive, Suarez doesn’t stand a hope in Hell.

  4. ibivi says:

    Suarez is bonkers and Fifa should have done something about him before the World Cup. He’s done it before it turns out. It is the most outrageous thing I have seen in football. He needs to “pay” with more than money.

  5. Amateur Emigrant says:

    I’m surprised David Runciman thinks the bite “can hardly have been deliberate”. A leg-breaking challenge or an elbow in the face can be accidental or made to look accidental, but a bite can be nothing but deliberate, even if it is delivered in a condition of toddler-rage which probably best describes Suarez’s mental condition at the time. People don’t get accidentally bitten in any sport on a regular basis.

    His ridiculous attempt to disguise the bite as accidental in the immediate aftermath, comically holding his fulsome choppers and looking for blood on his fingers, is the giveaway, especially since he mentioned nothing of a blow to the mouth in his post-match comments, just a shoulder in his chest and a blow to his eye, studiously avoiding mention of the teeth. The movement of the two players is all Suarez to Chiellini, not the reverse which could plausibly account for accidental incisor to shoulder contact. The reaction too of Chiellini is identical to that of Suarez’s previous victims – a startled, violent flinch, shocked disbelief that he had been bitten.

  6. zbs says:

    Seems just sort of hilarious to me. What ever this “condition” is, I prefer to witness the bizarre fullness of human brilliance and folly together on the field and always rankle at self-righteous indignation that would have sportsmen conduct themselves like moderate politicians. To rail against Suarez’s jaw-clutching dive is a variety of hypocrisy that robs the institution of diving of any meaning. Give me the weirdos.

  7. alynch says:

    Cannibalism before killing seems pretty objectionable to me, if not Mr Runciman.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement