Football 2011-2012

[eFestivals]

I think its an issue with the club actually, they should be educating signings that have come from a different country/culture to ensure things like this don't happen, especially as Suarez is known to have a fiery temperament. It could be argued that the club have let him down here.

I agree with that completely - but it's normally the case that something has to blow up in the way that this has done for that realisation for the need of education to happen. There hasn't been any previous case as far as i'm aware which would have alerted any club to the need for education about this sort of thing.

Given the way that all clubs supposedly do naff all to support their overseas signings (things might have improved in the last year or two I guess) then it's likely that no club has been giving this sort of education to their players.

And I don't buy this excuse that the FA have made the decision based on the testimony of Evra. That's total bullshit, especially in a day and age where there are microphones everywhere. Suarez himself has admitted what he said.

If there were microphones that backed up Evra's allegations which Suarez seemingly denies saying then I can't see why the FA would have needed so long to consider things - so I think it's a safe assumption that there's no recorded evidence except for perhaps for the seconds after the players had spoken with the ref.

Suarez has admitted the words he used on that occasion after speaking to the ref, and nothing further from what is in the public domain.

That's a different thing to the assumption that the FA have seemingly taken about what was meant by those words.

And it definitely seems odd that they can make that assumption of Suarez's words but not Evra's that it was a response to.

This whole issue about it being down to differences in culture is Liverpool FC's problem/fault IMHO.

If no club is giving the education that you rightly say is necessary then surely it's football's fault and problem rather than just Liverpool's?

[eFestivals]

I see what you mean, but if you let it pass on cultural reasons you are setting a precident and opening a whole can of worms.

Oh, I agree entirely.

At best - with the words taken in the Uruguayan cultural sense that's been claimed for them - then it can be said that Suarez's words were unwise and stupid to say in Britain, but not racist. And with that in mind, to then brand him as having been racist is wrong.

That doesn't mean that the FA should let it go, but a more appropriate 'punishment' might have been something along the lines of him having to attend a racism educational programme.

What I'm saying is that the FA needn't have 'let it pass', but they could have found a more appropriate middle ground if that's how things were.

If suarez is allowed leniency because things are done differently in uruguay, whats to stop a british player using the culture of their own town/city where words which would be considered racist by most of us are used within particualr groups without causing offence. I think we are on dodgy ground if we say some people can use some words and others cannot. I would rather them be overly strict with a no tolerance policy, then start to look at things too subjectively.

Nope, I can't see how a claim like that could be accepted, no matter what 'local culture' there might be. People from Britain can be deemed by default as knowing how British law stands in a way that can't be said by default for people from overseas.

[eFestivals]

I dont know the other memebers of the panel but Denis Smith a former wrexham manager was one and there is nobody in football with more integrity than him from what I have seen.

I know nothing of his integrity, but it is the case that he's a good mate of fergie's.

The was no mate of anything Liverpool's on the panel to balance things up against that. I feel it was unwise to have Smith on the panel because of his strong fergie connection.

Regarding the findings being kept secret, I havent got a clue what is the normal case in this situation. If these finding are normally published (which I would expect) then there would be major concerns if the rules changed in this case. However if usual policy is not to publish the evidence then liverpool to me would look like they were throwing toys out of the pram if threatening to withdraw players or sides from competitions.

in the Utd/Chelsea case where Evra was deemed as telling porkies, that part of the judgement at least was made public.

[eFestivals]

I wonder, depending on whatever evidence the FA present, if the police might take a look...

someone would have to first make a criminal complaint to them. They're not going to pick it up by themselves at this late stage.

Obviously, I am not saying there IS a legal case, just saying I wonder if their might be depending on any available evidence...

From what's in the public domain, I'd say that the evidence is too weak for them to pursue a case. While the words used are admitted, there's more than enough around them to put reasonable doubt on the intention of the words. The words by themselves are not by default racist.

I believe it's the case that the FA work on a different basis, one which is far closer to the level of civil law than criminal law. Criminal law has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt", while civil law is something like "beyond doubt".

[strummer77]

I must admit I don't think there is a hope in hells chance but I just thought it was an interesting point to consider when talking about how badly or not he has been treated. In the end, its only an eight game ban...

[sifi]

If I called someone who work for a competitor of the firm I worked for at some kind of professional conference a racist slang-word, and they complained to my boss, I'd probably get fired or suspended, I'd say.

[eFestivals]

John Mackie for Reading got 3 games. There was no issues to look at either, it was very clear cut.

yep, but he also admitted the offence which Suarez didn't.

On the basis of that case, most 'commentators' of the Suarez case seemed to think he'd get a 6 game ban if found guilty, but he's instead got a ban of 8 games.

On hearing that he'd got 8 games, I've made the assumption that the FA have built in a 2 game reduction that they'll give on appeal. But of course I could be wrong about that.

[eFestivals]

If I called someone who work for a competitor of the firm I worked for at some kind of professional conference a racist slang-word, and they complained to my boss, I'd probably get fired or suspended, I'd say.

yup - but also if you were to do that, it wouldn't have the cultural complexities of this case.

And if you had used a racist insult within an already-happening verbal spat with that person, that would also put a different context to it from the more simple 'walking up to the guy and being racist to him' scenario.

The context of course doesn't make it any more right, but it does put a different angle on it. We're all capable of saying things in the heat of the moment that we wouldn't necessarily do with a greater amount of consideration.

[strummer77]

On hearing that he'd got 8 games, I've made the assumption that the FA have built in a 2 game reduction that they'll give on appeal. But of course I could be wrong about that.

[eFestivals]

If you're right on that point, that is pathetic and corrupt.

Yep, I agree.

But because of the complexities of this specific case, I can see that the FA won't be wanting to be branded as having been in any way 'wrong' about how they've handled things any more than Evra or Suarez won't have been wanting to be branded as wrong.

By building in an easy reduction to an appeal they can believe of themselves that they've been fair and reasonable by giving that reduction.

----------

Anyway, I hope the FA get moving and publicly release the documentation. Eight games might seem more reasonable once that's been seen, tho going by Liverpool's public response to the judgement I'm not sure it's going to be seen that way by all people. If the judgement is based on just the stuff that's been stated by the papers and ultimately comes down to nothing more than the panel's interpretation of the cultural angles around that then there's a more than reasonable possibility they've got it wrong.

For clarity in all directions, I'm hoping that judgement nails Suarez properly - otherwise it's a mess that will never be resolved to a decent amount of people's satisfaction.

[eFestivals]

wow - Terry is going to court!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16284813

I've gotta say I didn't think it would happen.

[The Nal]

wow - Terry is going to court!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-16284813

I've gotta say I didn't think it would happen.

[Kowalski]

wow - Terry is going to court!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-16284813

I've gotta say I didn't think it would happen.

[eFestivals]

Got to question Capello's judgement. Should he really be getting picked as England captain?

yeah, I'm not comfortable with that either.

Tho I believe the idea around it was "innocent until proven guilty", which is sort-of fair enough. Even so, the situation around that game would have allowed someone else to be captain in his place that day without it really reflecting back onto the possibly of a court case, and I reckon that would have been the more sensible approach to take.

[kaosmark2]

So when's Evra getting an 8 match ban for angrily referring to Suarez's background?

I get the need to make an example, but it seems both excessive and heavy handed considering what we know so far the word is of Evra vs Suarez. Also when you bear in mind the situation of John Mackie.

Good to see Terry being taken to court. I would never have believed it genuine had he got off without it being taken that far.

[eFestivals]

So when's Evra getting an 8 match ban for angrily referring to Suarez's background?

Do you mean the "you South American" thing, or the something Evra has supposedly admitted to saying in Spanish?

I'm of the belief that they're separate things (I'm pretty sure one or more reports I read of "you South American" stated that was said in English), so I'd love to know what the Spanish thing is.

[The Nal]

Interesting that Liverpool have removed the bit about Evra being "a player who has previously accused people" (or whatever way it was worded) out of their official statement now.

[kaosmark2]

Do you mean the "you South American" thing, or the something Evra has supposedly admitted to saying in Spanish?

I'm of the belief that they're separate things (I'm pretty sure one or more reports I read of "you South American" stated that was said in English), so I'd love to know what the Spanish thing is.

[kaosmark2]

Interesting that Liverpool have removed the bit about Evra being "a player who has previously accused people" (or whatever way it was worded) out of their official statement now.

[eFestivals]

Maybe someone pointed out the precise details of the Chelsea case and advised them to. As people here have referenced before, there's a public perception of Evra having accused people of racism before, while the actual details indicate that isn't what happened.

the actual details are that he was deemed to be exaggerating - it's hardly an irrelevance to Suarez if he feels he's been falsely accused.

But it's also no actual evidence of anything this time of course, so while Liverpool might like to use it within an appeal (tho I guess it's relevance to that will depend on what basis exactly the panel reached their conclusion [suarez's admission of using a certain word might be it]), it's the sort of mudslinging that's better left out of the public domain.

[eFestivals]

Considering that 'negrito' isn't an inherently offensive term (it's not like we have the term here), the 'racism' is clearly for referring to his race while arguing.

As far as I'm aware, the word in question is actually 'negro' and not 'negrito'. Everything I've read more recently (and from a number of sources) has said 'negro'.

But much the same applies with that, and it's use is perhaps less likely to be racist than 'negrito'.

Atm, it seems like a political verdict rather than an actual judgment. I hope the details get released, because if not, the FA are in for a lot of criticism of their process and reasoning.

Impossible to say without the detailed judgement. Hopefully the details will get released and their thinking stands up to scrutiny.

[eFestivals]

So anyway .... off to the multi-screen pub tonight, so by spinning my head 360 degrees I might get to follow four matches (and probably miss the interesting bits of all of them ).

So for a bit of pre-xmas fun, hows about a game of prediction?

Aston Villa v Arsenal, 0-3

Man City v Stoke, 1-0

Newcastle v West Brom, 2-0

Everton v Swansea, 1-1

Fulham v Man Utd, 1-3

QPR v Sunderland, 0-2

Wigan v Liverpool, 0-1

[The Nal]

Aston Villa v Arsenal, 0-3

Man City v Stoke, 3-0

Newcastle v West Brom, 2-1

Everton v Swansea, 2-1

Fulham v Man Utd, 0-1

QPR v Sunderland, 1-1

Wigan v Liverpool, 0-4

[eFestivals]

Aston Villa v Arsenal, 0-3

Man City v Stoke, 3-0

Newcastle v West Brom, 2-1

Everton v Swansea, 2-1

Fulham v Man Utd, 0-1

QPR v Sunderland, 1-1

Wigan v Liverpool, 0-4

Blimey - Stoke letting in three and Liverpool scoring four.

[The Nal]

Blimey - Stoke letting in three and Liverpool scoring four.

Edited December 21, 2011 by The Nal