Football 2011-2012

[strummer77]

Oh c'mon - wise up.

This thread is full of people who want to condemn Suarez for racism on the basis that Suarez supposedly doesn't get what racism is, and yet many of those same people are displaying that they don't get what racism is by their unthinking attitude to the non-racist use of that word. It's laughable.

There should be no problem with using that word in a non-racist manner. The only reason it's unwise to use the word is because some people can't differentiate between what is racism and what isn't, as comments like the condemnation of any use of that word gets to show.

Edited January 4, 2012 by strummer77

[ralph250]

are you sure? Rule K allows an FA judgement to be appealed to an independent tribunal.

Given that this judgement wasn't an FA judgement but the judgement of an independent tribunal, it doesn't look to me as tho anything of this is applicable (and that sports lawyer that the Guardian used agrees).

Edited January 4, 2012 by ralph250

[strummer77]

But none with any real quality did they? None I can really remember. A were few blocked well by Kompany mind you, cracking player.

He has issues with his knees and played 90 minutes against Newcastle on Friday. He cant play two full games a week anymore.

Couldn't agree more. Think he was just looking for another wide player to knock crosses into Carroll. they ended up with Enrique, Downing, Bellamy and Johnson all trying to whip crosses in for Carroll. Think he won one header last night.

Edited January 4, 2012 by strummer77

[strummer77]

They need a striker, but one that can actually score. I'm not sure who there is.

[strummer77]

Carroll spent LONG periods isolated upfront last night on his own...

Not enough support from midfield and could do with someone along side him...

Really not a fan of Carroll but I think they could use him better.

[The Nal]

In regards to Carroll, he won 7 aerial duels- four more than anybody else on the pitch.

[strummer77]

Need a striker, need a striker need a striker.

[The Nal]

Last I'll say about the Suarez/Evra thing.

Link to papers reactions here. Not pretty reading for Liverpool.

And a City fan last night. Its not just Utd fans. Far from it. This was never a Liverpool vs Utd issue. Although it did fan the flames.

[eFestivals]

He could bring arbitration proceedings under rule K of the FA's rules. Such an arbitration would be limited to a challenge to the validity of the decision on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness. An arbitration would probably take place behind closed doors before a three-person tribunal. The process would take months rather than weeks, and it is likely that the suspension and fine would take effect pending the arbitration.

.... which makes that route completely pointless from the club's point of view.

They'd be a point to it for Suarez of course in that he could be cleared at the end of it (and be £40k richer, tho I doubt that's of much importance to a highly paid footballer), but that doesn't come without its own cost with the effect onto the player until the process is concluded.

And against that is the fact that being cleared isn't guaranteed - and is in fact the less-likely result because it's likely that a further hearing will reach the same conclusion from the same evidence as the original panel did, no matter what the real truth of the matter might be (which only Suarez and perhaps Evra know).

There's no benefit to the club in going that route, and dubious benefit for the player. It's hardly surprising that they've decided to move on no matter how they feel about the verdict.

Irrationality/unreasonabless would fall under Wednesbury unreasonableness test, which set out that the courts couldn't just overturn a public body/administrative decision because they disagreed with it. They had to show they the public body had either taken into account factors that it shouldn't have, failed to take into account factors that it should have, or the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable body could make that decision.

I can't see where Suarez or the club could claim that the panel had failed in any of those three parts. They've not so far claimed anything about the panel having taken into account things it shouldn't have, or failed to take into account things it could, or that the decision is 'unreasonable'.

The claim the player and club have made is that an aspect (the non-racist cultural usage) wasn't given the correct weighting in reaching the conclusions the panel made, but that wouldn't fall under 'unreasonable' - it's the panel's job to decide how much weighting such things should be given, after all. The same applies with the panel believing Evra over Suarez.

It appears to be the case that all of the correct procedures have been followed, and that the panel reached their

conclusions in a fair and reasonable way, weighing everything up to reach a conclusion. The conclusion is little more than an opinion because there's no smoking gun, but it's an opinion they're allowed to reach if they've properly considered everything.

Liverpool's objection to the verdict is with them reaching the conclusion they have done, but not really how they've reached that conclusion. I can't see grounds for a judicial review, or a re-hearing because of one.

I'd guess that about the best Liverpool & Suarez could hope for in a perfect world would be for the case to be re-heard, and where they better presented the parts which they felt led the panel to reach the wrong conclusion - but of course if processes like this allowed re-hearings like that many of them would go on forever, and it wouldn't alter the faith people might have in the judgement at the end of it, it would have the opposite effect of just muddying things further to the point where no judgement could ever be trusted.

[eFestivals]

Need a striker badly. I'd break the bank myself and get a top one in. If we had a top goalscorer we would currently be sitting fourth, no doubt about it in my opinion. If we get one and he makes that difference, he'll pay for himself longterm.

I'd say that with a properly decent striker they'd be third and possibly higher .... but dreams count for nothing. Only the reality matters.

[eFestivals]

The guy was on Skysports News the other day, so presumably knows his stuff.

yet the sports lawyer that the Guardian dragged out disagrees. One of them knows his stuff, but which one?

It's pretty much the standard lawyer stuff, of them claiming to know the law but unable to say how the law will rule in any case. If they knew the law as well as they like to think they do then they'd be more able from the start to say how any case will go better than they do.

[eFestivals]

that "ignorance is no excuse" thing is really starting to annoy me.

As I asked in this thread recently - and no one was able to reply - if you've been doing something for all your life and no one has ever told you it's wrong, how are you supposed to know that it's wrong?

(That's something aside from Suarez - I'm not trying to suggest that he didn't know it was wrong. If Evra's version of what was said is correct, then it's beyond all doubt that Suarez knew he was being racially offensive).

[strummer77]

Last I'll say about the Suarez/Evra thing.

Link to papers reactions here. Not pretty reading for Liverpool.

And a City fan last night. Its not just Utd fans. Far from it. This was never a Liverpool vs Utd issue. Although it did fan the flames.

Edited January 4, 2012 by strummer77

[eFestivals]

What a great final post on the subject

Go on then, prove to me it's as great as you've just stated it is ... or are you going to bottle it exactly as you did last week, because you know your own stupidity? So answer me this....

If you've been doing something for all your life and no one has ever told you it's wrong, how are you supposed to know that it's wrong?

[eFestivals]

You could apply that stance to many of the laws of this land... What if someone never told you mugging old ladies was wrong...

Stop being a plum

so prove I'm a plum and answer this question....

If you've been doing something for all your life and no one has ever told you it's wrong, how are you supposed to know that it's wrong?

I have a tenner with your name on that I won't have to give you, because you're the plum who can give no sensible answer to the question I've asked you.

[eFestivals]

If someone didn't know it is wrong, it is very much besides the point... It has no bearing on their guilt.

absolutely right, but that's zero to do with the question I asked you.

Not knowing acting racist is wrong isn't a defence. Its bullshit.

absolutely right, but that's zero to do with the question I asked you.

So you obviously are admitting that what you think is a "great point" is something you don't have the intellectual capacity to back up with anything sensible, thus proving it's no great point after all.

[ralph250]

Agreed Neil.

It's a tough test. It was more a general point, and thus not necessarily applicable to Liverpool's case, that I'm unconvinced that a verdict couldn't be quashed under any circumstances which seems to be the narrative in some places.

[eFestivals]

I find it laughable that you are suggesting Suarez may not have known that the term could draw offence from people. You are laughable

that "ignorance is no excuse" thing is really starting to annoy me.

As I asked in this thread recently - and no one was able to reply - if you've been doing something for all your life and no one has ever told you it's wrong, how are you supposed to know that it's wrong?

(That's something aside from Suarez - I'm not trying to suggest that he didn't know it was wrong. If Evra's version of what was said is correct, then it's beyond all doubt that Suarez knew he was being racially offensive).

What i find laughable is just how huge your stupidity is.

[The Nal]

I think the City fan might have something to do with us playing last them last night mind...

[strummer77]

Not knowing acting racist is wrong isn't a defence. Its bullshit.

[eFestivals]

Agreed Neil.

It's a tough test. It was more a general point, and thus not necessarily applicable to Liverpool's case, that I'm unconvinced that a verdict couldn't be quashed under any circumstances which seems to be the narrative in some places.

Oh, I know the verdict could be crushed (if that's how they ruled) at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, if Liverpool or Suarez chose to take the case there.

But that's a different thing to doing it within the normal sphere of the FA, and because of that it doesn't actually serve too great a purpose. The club will be more concerned about the sanctions than the verdict, and all of the appeal routes outside of an appeal to the FA over the sanctions only and not the verdict mean that the player - and so the club - suffers the sanctions anyway.

They could have appealed the sanctions of course, but that risks an increase in sanctions. And those sanctions seem reasonable enough in light of the unappeal-able verdict, so it's pretty much a no-win in taking things to any appeal.

From where things had got to, it was pretty much a no-brainer for Liverpool to chose to accept the verdict and the sanctions, even tho they continue to disagree with both.

[The Nal]

[eFestivals]

I answered your question....

No you haven't. The question is this, and you've not even attempted to answer it....

If you've been doing something for all your life and no one has ever told you it's wrong, how are you supposed to know that it's wrong?

[strummer77]

Ive no idea if Suarez meant it racially or not, not sure we'll ever know. But at the very least he was idiotic to even approach the subject.

Edited January 4, 2012 by strummer77

[strummer77]

From where things had got to, it was pretty much a no-brainer for Liverpool to chose to accept the verdict and the sanctions, even tho they continue to disagree with both.

Edited January 4, 2012 by strummer77