XRAY - Model racing cars

Its been the World Cup that keeps on giving...that was until Uruguays Luis Suarez took a bite out of it and gnawed away at the competition. It wasnt quite a Zinedine Zidane moment, but it was against Italy and a bite, not a headbutt. They both leave indelible images that equally disgrace and puzzle on the biggest stage of all - the FIFA World Cup. The evidence is irrefutable: in the 79th minute of a scoreless match against Italy, Suarez did what hes done twice before on a soccer field. Suarez bit his opponent. At least, thats how the vast majority see it. Sure, an argument can be made it was a headbutt gone wrong and Suarezs teeth went first into his opponent. Although, Im not sure how believable that narrative is or what kind of methods of convincing would be necessary for one to buy that argument. A grown man biting another human being - let that sink in. This is Mike Tyson, now times three. This time the meal was Giorgio Chiellinis left shoulder. As previously mentioned, at first glance it looked as though the Uruguayan headbutted the Italian. From Suarez sitting on the field grabbing his front teeth, to the replays showing the motion of his head to shoulder and the marks left on Chiellinis body, adjudication of the crime should be elementary. Suarez is a serial biter. Requisite action and severe punishment is required. Uruguay scored the match winner less than two minutes later, sending them through to the round of 16. All Italy has is the marks from their battle. Suarezs disgraceful track record is as pronounced as his bite. The striker was banned seven matches by the Dutch Football Federation in 2010 after his team, Ajax, had suspended him for two matches for biting PSV Eindhoven midfielder Otman Bakkal. It was an in-your-face, lashing out kind of moment that ended in a munch. Much like Tuesday, the referee didnt see the incident and ignored the player pulling down his shirt to show the bite marks. Last April, Suarez was back at his biting ways, chomping down on the arm of Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic. The FA handed Suarez a 10-game suspension. Message thought to be sent. Biting isnt where the dirty laundry list starts or ends. Suarez drew international headlines in 2011 for racial remarks made towards Manchester United defender Patrice Evra during a match. These were disgusting words from a shameful individual. Liverpool FC stood by Suarez, excusing his unbecoming behaviour simply because he was their best and most important player. A safe haven was created inside Anfield. It was a backward step by the club in an era when the game is staunchly trying to stomp out racism in the stands and on the field. The FA suspended him eight matches and levied a fine. The message not sent as Suarez refused to shake the hand of Evra before a 2012 match at Old Trafford. Liverpool has been rewarded for their loyalty to Suarez by the player staying at the club, although threatening to leave along the way, and leading them to Champions League qualification this past season for the first time since 2009-10. Where is the motivation to punish internally when the rewards of appeasement are so great? The lesser of Suarezs crimes against the game came at the 2010 World Cup, soiling the quarterfinal match with a game-saving handball off the goal line denying Ghana a place in the semi-final. It was a sure goal Suarez saved like a goalkeeper; afterwards excusing himself by explaining it was his sacrifice for the greater good of the country. He was sent off and suspended for the semi-final. Asamoah Gyan missed the ensuing penalty and Uruguay advanced through penalties. Call it gamesmanship if you may and there is certainly an argument to be made Suarez did the right thing. Win at all costs, correct? Perhaps. The "cheater" tag does not easily wipe away. A noted lack of integrity and poor sportsmanship continue to haunt the player. The handball at the time looked bad on the sport, yet Uruguay was rewarded. No justice. Over the years, Suarez has been labeled a cheat, a diver, an irritator and an undesirable. He has been in locker-room spats and fan incidents. For all his talents, he is a stain on the game. Being the centre of talking points is one thing, biting and bringing the game into disrepute are other altogether. "Theyre things that happen in football, but it was nothing,” explained Suarez post-match. "Were all footballers." The fact he cannot acknowledge wrongdoing is troubling. Biting is not normal behaviour on the field or anywhere. Its primitive. Its disrespectful. This lame excuse comes from the same individual who claims he doesnt garner respect from those in the British media. “Too many people in England laughed about my attitude,” Suarez proclaimed after his two-goal performance against England. Character counts. He has none. Empowering and/or sheltering this individual simply make matters worse. He must continue to be exposed as the misfit he is. Excuse-mongering has ensued by individuals, including the media, saying Suarezs actions are no worse than high, dangerous tackles in the game. Those who are saying such drivel need to understand the injustice they are doing by downplaying the moment. A blasé attitude towards Suarez biting deserves a blasé response to their work. Suarez as three-times-a-biter cannot be defended. Attempting to defend shows a lack of understanding of the sport and, even worse, the human condition. Comparing likewise inexcusable acts is an exercise of misdirection and speaks to the contrarian approach many utilize to garner attention or a reaction from their following. The industry is suffering through this: its an infliction that comes from market competition. “Suarez is a sneak and he gets away with it because FIFA want their stars to play in the World Cup,” said Chiellini on the bite. In fairness, its difficult to put this on Mexican referee Marco Rodriguez. One man on a field cannot see everything. The pressures of the moment make it understandable why he couldnt comprehend and react to what happened when a player pulls down his shirt to claim he was bitten. Its been said in this space before, two officials are needed on the field to properly officiate a game that has become too fast on a field too big with too many flashpoints. Same goes for the other controversial calls on the day: Claudio Marchisios sending off and Greeces late penalty. These two calls will be hotly debated, rightly or not. Two referees, rather than one, have a better shot at getting it right. Four eyeballs rather than two have a better chance of catching a biter. Chiellini does raise the point about star treatment. Simply because one can score or save, jump or run better than most should not mean preferential treatment. This will be a test for FIFA to act swiftly and appropriately. FIFA already fails to have the confidence of the consuming public. Most watch despite dysfunction and mistrust. Failing to punish Suarez would continue to perpetuate the sentiment that FIFA does as FIFA pleases. There is a public relations element to this as much as it is about throwing the book at a serial degenerate. What is an acceptable punishment? How do your come up with a rational response to an irrational situation? No more Suarez this tournament should be a given. How about a suspension for a two-year international cycle? It sounds about right. But what changes? Many will continue to excuse his behaviour because hes really good. Suarez will continue to live in a bubble of denial. And there will be those around him like Uruguayan teammate Diego Lugano who said “You couldnt have seen (the bite) today because nothing happened.” Ignorance is bliss. The footballing world will not ignore. Brazil 2014 has captured the imagination with the goals, the dramatics and overall exceptional play. Suarez in Natal will trump all and thats not right, nor good for those individuals the game has captivated like never before. Suarez is not needed at this World Cup. He is not needed in football. We are worse off suffering through his petulance. The problem is, because he is an exceptional talent and can score, this petulance will be continued to be accepted as collateral to success. He will continue to be coveted. Liverpool will celebrate his play, as will his native Uruguay. The rest of the world will shudder. A villain in sports is a good thing when the venom comes from a place of competition, not shameful acts. There will be other great players. There are others right now to be celebrated. Enough of this Suarez. Weve had enough. .Y. -- Sore nose and all, Sidney Crosby had a goal and three assists to help Pittsburgh beat Buffalo 5-3 on Friday night, snapping the Penguins mini-slump and slowing the Sabres late-season surge. . Despite Arsenals financial firepower, the 31-year-old midfielder was the only arrival in the January transfer window. Signed until the end of the season as injury cover, Kallstrom might not be fit until mid-March after arriving Friday at Arsenal having injured his back earlier in the week while training with Spartak Moscow. http://www.bearsfootballpro.com/Customized/. A question that was repeatedly posed last season, and the season before that and in the 2011 campaign before that. .m. ET, CBSOPENING LINE — Colts by 5RECORD VS. SPREAD — Cincinnati 8-8, Indianapolis 11-5SERIES RECORD — Colts lead 18-10LAST MEETING — Colts beat Bengals 27-0, Oct. .Y. -- The "for sale" sign is up at the Buffalo Bills with the hiring of financial and legal advisers who may begin talking with prospective buyers within the next month.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Hey Kerry, Thanks for your insight on some great situations! I dont always agree with your assessment but I appreciate it. My simple question is this; since when did goalie interference become a reviewable thing? During the Hawks-Kings game 1, Toews was driving the net, got a bounce off the skate of a d-man and the pucks goes in the net. As the puck is crossing the line, Toews gets a gentle nudge from said d-man falling onto Quick, even though he did everything but levitate to avoid him. Goal called good on-ice, Toronto calls no goal for goalie interference. While it didnt matter in the end, Id still love to understand better. Thanks! JasonHouston, TX ----- Hi Kerry, I would just like to have some clarification on this disallowed goal in the Los Angeles versus Chicago Western conference game #1. The call originally was called a goal. Then when reviewed they said that there was goalie interference. Isnt the rule you cant review goalie interference? And if they called it off because of goalie interference why was there not a penalty? Thanks,Jordan Pearson ----- Kerry, Can you tell me why Jonathan Toews spectacular goal on Jonathan Quick was disallowed in second period today? Theres no doubt there was contact, but Toews received a slight push in the back on the drive to the net. Even if there was a goal disallowed by contact, I thought that call had to be made by the on ice officials. It looked from the lengthy headset conference that the call was made by Toronto. What gives? Mike Kedzierski Jason, Jordan and Mike, I can understand your confusion once referee Marc Joannettes initial decision to allow Jonathan Toews goal was reversed following discussion with the other members of the officiating crew and then a rather lengthy teleconference with the Situation Room personnel in Toronto. The correct protocol was implemented by the on-ice officials to determine that Toews goal would be disallowed based on incidental contact with Jonathan Quick in the goal crease. The officials quickly gathered for a conference just 10 seconds after Joannette pointed into the net to signal the scoring of Toews goal. The conference (protocol) became necessary because the other officials had important information to share with Joannette on how and why the puck entered the net illegally from their perspective. This play was a classic case of incidental contact with the goalkeeper that should result in no goal and no penalty under Rule 69. Toews received a lead pass through a seam that required his abrupt hard left turn toward the crease for the Hawks captain to make a scoring attempt. Slava Voynov followed close behind in pursuit and used an active stick to separate Toews from the puck a split second before Quick, positioned fully within his blue paint, pushed his paddle toward the puck and made contact with Toews skates at the edge of the crease. In spite of the contact to his skates by Quicks goal stickk, Toews was in too close and going too hard (momentum) to effectively stop or avoid contact with the goalkeeper, regardless of any effort to "levitate", Jason.dddddddddddd Voynov placed his glove on the pants of Toews after the Hawk was in flight from contacting the goal stick with his skate. Toews made significant contact with Quick inside the crease, causing the goalkeeper to be knocked laterally and allowed the puck to enter the net off the skate of Voynov. Referee Joannette was unable to observe these developments and render an initial decision on the goalkeeper interference, based on his position deep behind the goal line and against the end boards on the opposite side of the goal as Toews was attacking the net. By the time the referee had curled to the other side, the contact had long since taken place and the puck was in the net. Both linesmen rushed to the referee following his point toward the net and as Toews got up off the ice to celebrate. I am firmly convinced the goal was disallowed in the subsequent conference of officials, held at the timekeepers bench, based on the accurate information provided by the other members of the crew to referee Joannette! The system then broke down and needless confusion was created when the referee picked up the headset and engaged in a lengthy conversation with the Situation Room personnel in Toronto that lasted over a minute; even though interference on the goalkeeper is not reviewable. Beyond protocol, it is mandatory that the referee take the call when the headset is passed through the hole in the glass at the timekeepers bench and when a disputed goal has been scored. All goals are reviewed and Hockey Operations does need to be kept informed, since they have to answer questions from irate general managers (and on occasion owners). That part is reasonable and should be expected. This unusual delay however gave Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville, game broadcasters, members of the media and you (the fans) an impression that the call was reversed through video review. That impression is understandable because none of you have ever been on the other end of that headset nor have you had the direct line ring in the officials dressing room between periods. Toronto wants to know every detail and control the process where they can. If they could referee the game from mission control, Im convinced they would. Since that is not yet an option the phone line is their best source to exert and maintain control. The nature of this particular conversation however, should have been very brief and controlled by the referee. Joannette should have informed the caller on the other end of the line that, "following a conference of the four officials, it was determined that incidental contact with goalkeeper Quick by Toews took place prior to the puck entering the net. We have NO GOAL and NO PENALTY on the play!" The ref should have then handed the headset through the hole in the glass, moved back from the side boards to his broadcast position, clicked on his microphone and made the exact same announcement to the hockey world that was waiting patiently for the referees decision. ' ' '