Was four-month ban enough for Luis Suarez?

Luis Suarez is a man who makes the unthinkable plausible and the surprising seem expected.

But while his unprecedented 40-yard goal against Norwich in December characterised the seemingly unlimited talent of the 27-year-old, Suarez’s career has also been tainted by a darker side.

Ever since head butting a referee at the age of 16 he has been no stranger to disgrace, but the latest of Suarez’s on-field misdemeanours could prove the to have the worst outcome.

WATCH THE LATEST WORLD CUP HIGHLIGHTS

The result of the assault 11 years ago saw him threatened with eviction from the Nacional academy, but this would evidently do little to prevent the recurrence of similar events in his future.

Allegations of racism, a prodigiously inflictive handball and various calls of foul play have made Suarez a frequenter of the back pages since his time in England.

But he has never shied away from this fact. The same lack of remorse that shows during his time at Nacional – he was caught drinking and partying just days after the head butt – still remains.

But while the chances are that most strikers sporting the tenacity of Suarez will at one time in their career face suspension for violent conduct on the field, for Suarez, this is his third bite alone.

Before he took a munch on a member of the opposition while playing for Ajax in 2010, biting was simply not an issue on the football pitch. And it shouldn’t be.

Every other one of his peers would have learnt that biting was unacceptable by the time they turned six, but for Suarez his anomalous intent on breaking the rules is one attribute that he has never grown out of.

Much outrage has also channelled out of the fact that this has been done on the world’s stage, but let it be remembered that this is not even the first time Suarez has been guilty of gross misconduct on a World Cup pitch.

His 2010 handball against Ghana may have seen no further consequences than a red card, but this bite on Giorgio Chiellini was equally efficacious. Italy lost the game, and no doubt put some of this blame on a disgruntling Suarez.

It is the notion that Suarez could have the audacity to go and carry out an even more repulsive act than in 2010 that has created the consensus of a deserved and justified lengthier ban.

Missing nine games of club and international football may not seem like much at first, but a dive into the fixture list sheds light into the severity of FIFA’s punishment.

During his four-month prohibition of ‘all football relating activity’, Suarez will miss all of Uruguay’s Copa America qualifying campaign.

This is a tournament in which the holders will be needing to re-stamp their authority following the World Cup resurgences of neighbours Chile and Colombia, and his presence will be missed.

Not only this, but during key clashes against Manchester City, Spurs and Everton, Liverpool will be without their talisman striker. Steven Gerrard may hold unparalleled status in the city of Liverpool, but Luis Suarez – in terms of pure footballing attention – is not far behind.

Considering the immense admiration of the Uruguayan, this adds another factor to contemplate.

Whether you believe – as Ian Wright first suggested – that Suarez’ tendency to bite is a matter of deep-lying mental issues, there is no denying that his actions are not fit for any football pitch, anywhere in the world.

Perhaps the most shocking part of all of the whole affair is the notion of Suarez being a repeat offender, and just two days after the event we have been reminded that this was not just a one off event.

The front page of the Daily Mirror on Sunday read the story of a young Liverpool fan ‘expelled’ from school for biting a class mate, and this only amplifies the severity of his actions.

By the end of his ban Suarez will have missed 39 games for Uruguay, Ajax and Liverpool as a result of misconduct, and as a professional this is a blatant disregard of responsibility.

Suarez will inevitably let down both his club and national side through his failings to act appropriately, but overall the greatest damage will be that done to his fans.

For adults Luis Suarez may never have displayed a moral design for life, but for a child Suarez has gone and demonstrated that biting a sporting opponent is acceptable.

For the corruption of his figure as a role model alone, the substantial ban was deserved. After his banishing from all football stadiums and training pitches he may return having learnt nothing – he is just as likely to disregard as he is assimilate his responsibility.

But at least for the next four months we can be safe in the knowledge that biting will not take place in a football stadium again. Only from here can FIFA stop the action being repeated at any level, anywhere.

However, considering his shameful track record of duty, responsibility and the repeated circumstances, some people will no doubt question whether FIFA’s actions are actually enough to reform Suarez.

Keeping him off of a football pitch for four months may be a mechanism for FIFA to lay down the rule book, but there is no saying that Luis will truly learn from it. He gets away largely undamaged.

Being denied access to official training and playing pitches will purposely affect his game temporarily, but I have no doubt that a professional payer earning £10 million a year would have equivalent facilities in his own home.

Four months off may leave him estranged to the team environment when he returns in November, but as a world class athlete he will be working as hard as ever to maintain his physical shape until then. Four months paid leave almost sounds appealing.

Considering his ignored bans for diving, biting and handling the ball in the past, it’s thus a surprise that the topic of more serious punishment for Suarez is one that hasn’t been heavily talked about.

The current situation may act as a deterrent for other players in the game but in Suarez’s case the consignment of a prison sentence doesn’t seem too unfathomable. Racism, assault and biting are all actions that could see the spectator arrested in the stands of a football stadium, so why do such contrasting rules apply on the stadium’s pitch?

I’m not saying that arrests should be made for every act of misconduct, but for a player who has openly shown defiance to learn from his punishments, it almost feels appropriate.

When ex-Rangers striker Duncan Ferguson head butted John McStay in 1994, he immediately faced a three-month prison sentence. Like Suarez, he had collected a disreputable number of minor assaults and crimes in the years leading up to the event, and was subsequently arrested on his third strike.

This is Suarez’s third strike for biting – let alone his racism spat with Patrice Evra and head butt in Uruguay – so, if the governing body had grown exhausted of his actions, Suarez could theoretically have faced prison. The Scottish FA and police’s actions turned out to be effective and Ferguson was never again held responsible for an assault; on or off the football pitch.

Only time will tell as to whether the generally well-received punishment will prove effective for Suarez. In a ban fitting for Suarez himself, there really is no way of predicting how things will pan out, and similarly how Suarez will react to it.

Suarez’s situation is as unstable on the pitch as it is off the pitch, and we may never even see him play in the Premier League again.

In five months’ time it seems just as likely that Suarez could be making the back-pages with praise for an emphatic return to the scoresheet as he could for a fiery El Classico head butt.

Really, there is no point in guessing. If by December it is the latter, then it may not only be Luis Suarez’s respect that is sent down.

Who says FIFA have nothing to learn from the Scottish Football Association?