Football 2011-2012

[eFestivals]

Suarez ALWAYS had the option of not opening his mouth on the Football pitch. A wise policy ...

Absolutely. As did Evra in the same incident.

Evra, no different to Suarez, chose to break FA rules (different rules perhaps, but it's still breaking the rules). The very fact that only one has been acted against gets to show that the rules are not being fairly applied.

Nothing of that is any justification for Suarez's actions, nor an objection to the punishment he's to get. It's condemnation of how the FA have chosen to implement the rules - rules that Evra signed up for no differently to Suarez.

[ralph250]

In reference to Evra - Chelsea groundsmen.

Firstly, It was 4 games, not 3.

Secondly per the report:

29. There was then a wider scuffle involving a number of people. But it was Mr Bethell and Mr Evra who came into direct physical conflict. The DVD evidence does not itself show whether or not Mr Evra actually struck Mr Bethell. It is just not clear enough. Mr Evra denies it but we accept Mr Bethell's evidence that he was struck on or near his right ear and it was clearly Mr Evra who struck him. We note that Mr Evra is right-handed but do not see that as a reason to reject that conclusion. Mr Griffin also confirmed his written statement that he clearly saw Mr Evra punch Mr Bethell on the side of the head and we have already said that we find Mr Griffin a reliable witness. Mr Bethell does not claim that it was a hard punch or that he was actually hurt beyond some redness around his ear. It is not even clear whether it was a true punch or more of a slap. It is probably best described a clip. But whatever the label we conclude that Mr Evra did strike Mr Bethell on the side of his head. That is violent conduct. Not dangerous and in fact around the bottom of the scale in terms of actual physical impact, but clearly violent conduct within the meaning of that phrase in The FA rules.

30. We have no doubt that Mr Evra was provoked by Mr Bethell but we make two comments on that: First, provocation is not a defence to a charge of violent conduct but only comes in as potential mitigation; secondly, it was Mr Evra's own violent conduct towards Mr Griffin which sparked off what followed. Mr Bethell had not been involved in any way in the Evra/Griffin barging incident.

-------

Evra was found guilty. Had to serve a ban and United had to accept that. But regards proportionality, whats described as a clip around the ear above with the weaker hand, mitigated by provocation & unsupported by DVD evidence, is a lesser offence than Suarez's in my personal opinion.

[The Nal]

in which case you've also got it wrong because that must have been before xmas that he'd missed training.

Edited January 3, 2012 by The Nal

[ralph250]

Absolutely. As did Evra in the same incident.

Evra, no different to Suarez, chose to break FA rules (different rules perhaps, but it's still breaking the rules). The very fact that only one has been acted against gets to show that the rules are not being fairly applied.

Nothing of that is any justification for Suarez's actions, nor an objection to the punishment he's to get. It's condemnation of how the FA have chosen to implement the rules - rules that Evra signed up for no differently to Suarez.

[eFestivals]

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me ? That is your train of thought here..

But words can hurt far more than a punch... The consequences of them and the view point them can be far more toxic...

As I said, an argument can be made for that - but I also pointed out that UK culture doesn't think racist language is worse than violence, because that's what the facts* get to prove.

(* taken as an average. There's always exceptions).

So why does English football take a different view? The only answer that seems to make any sense is that the FA are trying to poke Blatter in the eye.

Within Football in this country we have taken a stance against racism... We don't want to see it or hear it... Now yes, we have probably took a lesser view of mild violence but the FA have shown that there are lines with this which will not be tolerated. Punch a player and you will get three game ban... Hit a fan and you could be out for the season (Cantona)...

So I don't accept the FA don't take violence seriously... and I don't accept there is a need to change the 8 game fan because you only get 3 game for violent conduct...

I didn't say anywhere that the FA don't take violence seriously. I said that they're giving lesser punishments for it.

And nowhere have I said that they need to change an eight game ban. In the places where I've given a suggestion of what should change I've said or hinted that it should be the punishment for the deliberate violence in punching someone.

You've referenced the UK's anti-racist culture as justification for an 8 game ban for Suarez - fair enough. So why can't you also reference the UK's anti-violence culture as justification for a greater-than-8-games ban for deliberate violence?

The answer can only be that you're not referencing UK culture in either instance but are putting forwards your own personal view that is different to UK culture.

[eFestivals]

In reference to Evra - Chelsea groundsmen.

Firstly, It was 4 games, not 3.

apologies for my error and thanks for the correction.

And I'll point out again, I'm not trying to have a pop at Evra with this angle. That case involving him is merely an example of the lack of proportion in the punishments handed out by the FA.

Other examples might be what happened with Barton and Lumpard yesterday.

we accept Mr Bethell's evidence that he was struck on or near his right ear and it was clearly Mr Evra who struck him.

So: Evra deliberately used physical violence.

My *ONLY* point is this: how is deliberate physical violence a much lesser thing than using racist language?

Evra was found guilty. Had to serve a ban and United had to accept that. But regards proportionality, whats described as a clip around the ear above with the weaker hand, mitigated by provocation & unsupported by DVD evidence, is a lesser offence than Suarez's in my personal opinion.

If you want to keep coming back to E vs S then so be it....

1. it's not the "clip round the ear" that you want to now pretend it was, despite it being you that posted the actual facts.

2. Suarez was provoked by Evra's clear hostility as a result from having been fouled. If there was no hostility to Evra starting on Suarez then there'd have been no need for Evra to have mentioned it at all, as fouls are an inevitable consequence of playing football, and Evra would have to be brain-dead to not accept fouls as a part of the game.

3. Evra's claims are unsupported by clear video evidence (as has been posted here by people who've read the report).

4. In UK courts and legal practice, there is no doubt whatsoever that deliberate violence is a greater offence that racist language - as proven by the sentences available in law as sanction for either.

5 .I guarantee that if I called you a pastey-face before hitting you in the face, I know which you'd be more offended by.

All which just goes to prove that you're still posting unthinking bollocks and laughably believing yourself as unbiased as you were doing last week.

[eFestivals]

I don't understand why he would drop Rooney and fine him 200k just for going out for a meal? What purpose would that serve to his ego?

that he's the boss.

Regarding specifics, Fergie was right about Ince, Ruud, Keano and Beckham. He was wrong about Stam. But he admits that himself.

he might have been right in that it was time for them to go.

That says nothing about whether the way he went about getting rid of them was right.

[eFestivals]

possibly puts Bellamy in trouble too, for his comment to Krul over the christmas period:

.... and probably every single player in every single match.

[eFestivals]

Neil...

Let presume that both Evra and Suarez guilt in both cases is undeniable... For arguments sake...

What punishment would you of given Evra (hitting someone) and Suarez (racial abuse)....

I couldn't give a firm idea of exact punishments for each without knowing all of the fine details in each case.

But I'd give the deliberate* violence of punching someone a greater punishment than I would for verbal abuse of any kind, because I come from and live in a culture where deliberate violence is considered a worse thing than verbal abuse of any kind.

(* FYI: I keep typing "deliberate violence" to differentiate it from the sort of "violent conduct" that often happens during games).

[eFestivals]

So lets get back to this idea of why the FA might punish racism over deliberate violence...

First off... I don't think they do all the time... I think it very much depends on the incident (Eric Cantona).. but there is no doubt someone throwing a punch would only get three match ban usually...

I can see how violent conduct could lead to deliberate violence...

I fail to see how you logically get from a heated game to racial abuse without some big warning bells going...

One seems to flow and the other seems like "what's the need for that"....

Like hooliganism.. We have prioritised racism as something we want to stamp out... I think we all except that that from time to time a football game to boil over into violence due to the "violent conduct" which happens... Its hard to have a similar tolerance for racism...

That seems to more related to being proportional, realistic and sensible than just saying violence bad... racism less bad...

what is *ALWAYS* the cause of violence (aside from completely mindless violence, or violence in response to violence)?

It's offensive language. Offensive language leads to violence; violence does not (on a normal basis) lead to offensive language.

It's for that very reason, of violence being an escalation from offensive language (and not the other way around), that violence is considered the greater offence in law.

I'm not presenting some weird never-heard-of-before idea here, I'm presenting the firmly established principle of our culture and our laws that come from that culture. The weird one here is you by going against that.

Fuck knows why you're going against that (my guess is your normal stupidity), tho it's very easy to understand why from some others.

[eFestivals]

PS: the very proof of violence being the escalation has been given by Evra himself in this case, twice - by his threats to punch Suarez if he said it again.

(I'm amused that he didn't follow thru on those threats, especially as he doesn't appear timid on all occasions to throw a purch .... did he lose his bottle? )

[eFestivals]

I have seen bad tackles result in violence from the victim... Granted usually followed by bad language but that's not the prompt of the violence... So what you say here is simply untrue...

it's for that very reason why I've taken the trouble to differentiate what I'm getting at from "violent conduct" on the field.

Evra jumped into an argument that didn't involve him and punched someone. That's a million miles away from retaliating to a bad tackle within the heat of a competitive match.

I can't see how that's a lesser offence than using offensive language of any kind. It was very likely a response - an escalation - to offensive language.

I'm not trying to have a pop at Evra from another direction; I'm not trying to suggest that Suarez's punishment is too harsh. I'm saying that the proportionality of the punishments handed out by the FA is wrong.

[eFestivals]

I don't really know what this has to do with anything....

so you don't mean anything of your words along the lines of "Suarez should accept British culture" then?

I don't see how you can. British culture unequivocally deems violence as a greater offence than offensive language.

Again... you don't understand a football pitch...

Violent conduct leads to offensive language on many occasions on the field...

Violent conduct leading to deliberate violence leading to exchanging of insults happens as well...

They are -in-the-heat-of-the-moment things, in a manner that the instance of Evra punching someone wasn't and that Suarez using racist language wasn't.

And in the last line of yours, when an incident of violence changed into the throwing of insults, that would be considered the incident calming down. Calming from violence into something lesser.

"Lesser". It's considered lesser from every angle in our culture.

So how are you justifying offensive language as twice as bad as deliberate violence?

[zahidf]

I think the racism charge is a harsher punishment because It's highly publicised. If it seems like the punishment is too modest, then that would be worse than if it was seen as too harsh. Also, its an example punishment for both other players and fans, to prevent any other instancesm, for the FA to show that they are serious about racism, and because there is a massive conspiracy against LFC.

Did it say in the report that Suarez called Johnson Negro all the time during training??? if so, then someone should have said somenthing at some point...

[kaosmark2]

I think the racism charge is a harsher punishment because It's highly publicised. If it seems like the punishment is too modest, then that would be worse than if it was seen as too harsh. Also, its an example punishment for both other players and fans, to prevent any other instancesm, for the FA to show that they are serious about racism, and because there is a massive conspiracy against LFC.

Did it say in the report that Suarez called Johnson Negro all the time during training??? if so, then someone should have said somenthing at some point...

[eFestivals]

I wasn't talking about the Evra incident directly... I was talking about "violence" and "racism"...

and so was I. Talking about how violence of the type that Evra used in that other incident (rather than violence within a heated competitive footie match) is considered a greater crime in British culture than offensive language of any kind.

No matter how you skirt around things you can't get away from that simple undeniable fact.

So why are the FA dishing out punishments at odds with that very established principle? The proportionality of punishments is out of synch with what it should be.

[eFestivals]

I think the racism charge is a harsher punishment because It's highly publicised. If it seems like the punishment is too modest, then that would be worse than if it was seen as too harsh. Also, its an example punishment for both other players and fans, to prevent any other instancesm, for the FA to show that they are serious about racism, and because there is a massive conspiracy against LFC.

as I have to keep saying (why???), what I'm raising here is nothing directly to do with Suarez's punishment. I'd be making no comment on that level of punishment if the proportionality of other punishments fitted with that one.

Violence is considered the greater crime, so why didn't the violent crime get a greater punishment than the crime of offensive language?

Did it say in the report that Suarez called Johnson Negro all the time during training??? if so, then someone should have said somenthing at some point...

Why? Is negro an always-wrong word to use?

It's not. It's accepted and welcomed by some ...erm ... negros.

Given that Suarez wasn't using offensive language in those moments there'd be no need to tell him to stop using offensive language.

It would have been wise to advise him to be cautious about how and where he used it, but that's a different thing to the somewhat stupid idea that it's a word that can never be used in any circumstances.

-------------

Watching MotD on one of the last few nights, was anyone else thinking that Hansen had very recently had some 'acceptable language' training since his 'coloured players' comment a week or so back? I can't remember exactly now what it was he said a few times, but it was something like him saying "people" instead of "men".

[kaosmark2]

The Evra incident to me happened outside of a game so I don't see why its the FA issue anyway... Seems more criminal /civil to me....

Regarding "why are FA dishing out punishments at odss" blah blah...

Like I said...

The culture within football...

The issues facing football...

The logic of what is normal and understandable on the pitch...

You reject all these and think I am an idiot... Fine... but that's the way I see it...

I still think 9/10 football fans see the Suarez ruling the right one... But you claim I am in the minority... Up to you, but twitter etc shows you wrong... The ONLY fans crying foul are Liverpool fans... besides one or two...

[zahidf]

Why? Is negro an always-wrong word to use?

It's not. It's accepted and welcomed by some ...erm ... negros.

Given that Suarez wasn't using offensive language in those moments there'd be no need to tell him to stop using offensive language.

It would have been wise to advise him to be cautious about how and where he used it, but that's a different thing to the somewhat stupid idea that it's a word that can never be used in any circumstances.

-------------

Watching MotD on one of the last few nights, was anyone else thinking that Hansen had very recently had some 'acceptable language' training since his 'coloured players' comment a week or so back? I can't remember exactly now what it was he said a few times, but it was something like him saying "people" instead of "men".

[eFestivals]

The Evra incident to me happened outside of a game so I don't see why its the FA issue anyway... Seems more criminal /civil to me....

perhaps it should have been. But it wasn't, and the result of them taking action for that incident has made the punishment for this one look wrong against that punishment.

Regarding "why are FA dishing out punishments at odss" blah blah...

Like I said...

The culture within football...

The issues facing football...

do you think that the culture within football and the issues facing football in regard to racism are greater than they are in society at large?

The logic of what is normal and understandable on the pitch...

what is "normal on the pitch" is players winding each other up with words, and not punching people.

You reject all these and think I am an idiot... Fine... but that's the way I see it...

you keep saying how you see the punishments but not the why for those punishments. I keep asking and you keep not answering.

I still think 9/10 football fans see the Suarez ruling the right one... But you claim I am in the minority... Up to you, but twitter etc shows you wrong... The ONLY fans crying foul are Liverpool fans... besides one or two...

FFS, how fucking stupid are you?

At NO point have I said anything about the Suarez ruling is wrong, not as jot, not once, not anywhere. From the limited amount I know -and in isolation with itself - it seems fair and just, and I've posted that more than once.

Where it doesn't seem fair and just is in comparison with other punishments, such as with one handed out for deliberately punching someone which was deemed to be half of the crime that Suarez's racist language was, completely out of synch with British cultural legal punishments.

If the FA want Suarez's punishment to be thought of as fair within British culture then they need to immediately adjust the level of punishments for some other breeches of the rules to match British culture. Mindlessly repeating what people are saying on twitter without them referencing other punishments says nothing about what i'm getting at.

[eFestivals]

Threats of violence for a non racial reason are considered worse than abusive racial language by the police. Neil's got a fair point in asking why violent conduct is considered a lesser offence in football. If that's to do with the culture in football, then why should the culture of football in this country differ from the culture everywhere else in this country? Why should things unacceptable elsewhere be acceptable on a football pitch?

thanks for that - it's exactly what I'm getting at.

It's a fair point, although it transcends the Suarez-Evra debate and is more about the culture of football generally than this specific incident.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm getting at - nothing specific to this case as such, tho of course it's referencing the punishment that Suarez has got, and (by chance more than anything) a case involving Evra at another time.

I'm not sure that this angle of disproportionate punishments would have occurred to me if Evra hadn't been involved in that earlier case and that case having been referenced during this one. I'm not sure how common it is for punching incidents not on the field of play to be ruled on and punished by the FA, but there can't be many I'm sure.

But the fact of disproportionate punishments has occurred to me as a result of this case, and they do seem hugely disproportionate for those examples.

[eFestivals]

It seems weird is all. If i was at work and called someone negro all the time, i would expect someone to say something to me in terms off 'careful, some people may find it offensive'.

yup - tho perhaps things work quite differently at footie clubs where it's the norm nowadays to have a big mix of nationalities and cultures where things are done differently.

After all, it's one thing where everyone knows there's a likelihood of causing offence because that's their cultural norm and a different thing where there's perhaps a much lower likelihood of offence because it's not, and where you know the person is merely being their normal self no different to how you'd be in wising them up.

A good result from this incident is likely to be a higher likelihood of clubs giving appropriate training (tho getting that right will need the trainer to know the student's culture to identify where the problem areas are), but the bad side is likely to be a deeper retreat into treating such things as taboo.

I don't think that the "you just can't say that" attitude that prevails in this country does very much at all towards helping people understand what racism is and why it's wrong. It's just likely to lead to the sort of politically correct stupidity (which isn't politically correct at all) which has people calling a blackboard a chalkboard but not a whiteboard a penboard.

[strummer77]

Does Johnson speak Spanish ? or was he just saying in English things like "Hey Negro, how you doing"...

You would of thought someone would of said something wouldn't you...

[The Nal]

This is absolutely ridiculous.

[strummer77]

This is absolutely ridiculous.