Football 2011-2012

[ralph250]

Olly from redcafe's brilliant

http://www.abload.de...sworlduyptz.gif

http://h9.abload.de/...guitarepa4d.gif

Surprised you've not posted this yet either.

[eFestivals]

But Liverpool are defo alone on their stance.

Nope - that's only the case with people who want to believe that Suarez was found guilty beyond all doubt, which he hasn't been.

He's been found guilty on the balance of probabilities, which is something different and less certain. Anyone who's brain is working should be able to recognise that that leaves the possibility of error.

After all, the panel's judgement is merely their opinion, an opinion they've reached without any solid evidence to make that conclusion a certainty.

I agree with the panel's verdict on the basis they've reached it, but i'm still able to recognise that they might have reached the wrong verdict.

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.

if we take Evra's version as fully accurate then it's beyond all doubt that Suarez intended to racially offend Evra, but nothing of that says that he meant the racial offence beyond it's ability to wind Evra up.

Evra's version has Suarez saying "negro negro negro". As I posted last week, that sounds to me like a child saying a word that they know will wind his parents up - something said for the effect it has, rather than said for the meaning of the words themselves.

With regard to what Neils saying and the "ignorance is no excuse" thing, I agree to an extent. I just think, surely, someone would've said something to him in the 4+ years hes lived in Europe about levels of acceptability?!

I think that's perhaps an assumption too far. We'd all be likely to be more accepting of a foreigner saying something like that than a UK native I reckon, and in a situation where there's lots of nationalities as is the case at footie clubs I reckon that effect would be magnified.

Having said that, I'm of the belief that Suarez knew that he was being racially offensive.

[ralph250]

Yeah he's an idiot. But then... he's a footballer!

In a weird way, and I don't want this twisted into me backing Blatter, I think if Suarez had approached Evra and tried to talk it through after the game this whole mess could have been avoided or at least made a lot better. There may have been a misunderstanding, things may have been lost in translation, but those things could have been smoothed out one-on-one. Of course Suarez may have said the things Evra alleged and of course then them meeting up could have turned into a punch up.

I think though, believing what Liverpool do believe, they should have tried to make the two players speak to clear things up and make it clear that they regret any offence but none was meant etc. That in itself is the biggest mistake in all of this. If Suarez's claims are true, they were put on the backfoot by not doing this in the beginning.

[The Nal]

Olly from redcafe's brilliant

http://www.abload.de...sworlduyptz.gif

http://h9.abload.de/...guitarepa4d.gif

Surprised you've not posted this yet either.

[eFestivals]

Well obviously the person wouldn't know its wrong...

Its a totally irrelevant because, and you accept this, it isn't applicable to this case... Its besides the point... and ultimately they are STILL guilty and wrong...

Exactly - ignorance IS an excuse* because the person couldn't know he was doing anything wrong.

It isn't applicable DIRECTLY in this case, true, but it IS applicable to the sort of moronic comments you and some others have made about this case.

(* being an excuse doesn't change anything about whether someone is guilty of an offence or not, it merely puts context onto whether a person knew they were doing wrong or not).

[strummer77]

In the 48 hours after Evra’s complaint, any efforts to resolve the situation privately — PFA chairman Gordon Taylor has admitted he wanted to bring all sides together on the weekend the incident took place — was rejected by Liverpool, who by then were seeking a charge against Evra for a false allegation.

http://www.telegraph...-match-ban.html

Liverpool's evidence was worse – incomparably worse – and the club appear to have been blinded by pure contempt that a United player should lay this claim at their door. Liverpool threatened to pursue a defamation claim against Evra within 24 hours of his allegation and when Gordon Taylor, the Professional Footballers' Association chief executive, appealed for dialogue and an apology for any offence caused, Liverpool would have none of it.

http://www.independe...se-6283930.html

Edited January 4, 2012 by strummer77

[Benj]

With regard to what Neils saying and the "ignorance is no excuse" thing, I agree to an extent. I just think, surely, someone would've said something to him in the 4+ years hes lived in Europe about levels of acceptability?!

[Benj]

Exactly - ignorance IS an excuse* because the person couldn't know he was doing anything wrong.

[eFestivals]

He knew what he was doing, of course he did, to think otherwise is massively naive. I suspect he is not actually a racist, sadly for him you can't get away with that type of thing here any more and Im glad that he (and hope that Terry) has been caught and convicted.

It's a good thing to crack down on. It's a shame that the evidence in the Suarez case doesn't unequivocally nail him, even if it's still pretty damning.

And it's a real shame that the Terry case will be judge on a totally different basis via the criminal courts - which ever way that pans out with its verdict I feel it's going to muddy the racism issue more-so than the Suarez case by getting compared with the Suarez case.

I don't feel that they'll be right for any comparison, because:-

1. there's none of the cultural issues with the Terry case. It's far more clear cut - he either said it or he didn't. There's none of the nuances which might have been applicable in the Suarez case.

2. the level of proof required in a criminal court is far higher. If Terry is found guilty then people will start to put that unequivocal guilt onto the Suarez case when it doesn't apply, while if he's not then they'll be the belief that Suarez's doings are worse because he's been found guilty while Terry hasn't - yet if Terry had faced the same process as Suarez then Terry might have also been found guilty.

I can't see the FA proceeding with a case against Terry if he's found not guilty in court, I really can't - and yet if there's enough evidence to proceed with a criminal case against Terry there's likely to be enough evidence for the FA to convict him if he was to go thru the same process as Suarez.

I can totally understand why the FA wouldn't, but it'll make the FA processes look very unfair.

[Kowalski]

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?

[pink_triangle]

Downing should of scored last night... His inability to finish it off sums the lad up...

[eFestivals]

Are you just arguing the point now, or do you have any genuinely belief whatsoever that Suarez did not know what he was doing?

I'm making the general point that to say "ignorance is no excuse" is stupid. As I finally got Barry Fish to admit, if you're ignorant of something being wrong then you can't know it was wrong and so it is an excuse.

(note: being an excuse doesn't change anything regards the guilt of committing an offence).

As I made the point in stating VERY clearly, if I accept* Evra's version as accurate as the panel has done then it's beyond all doubt that Suarez knew what he was doing - that he was being deliberately racially offensive.

(* Not having read the full report via which I could make an independent view I fully accept the panel's view - just to make that clear).

[strummer77]

You can't have it both ways....

[Benj]

Surely if its actually got as far as a criminal case being bought against Terry, there must be some pretty substantial proof. The CPS would not bring such a case against the England captain, if they did not.

Hopefully any criminal punishment will be backed up by an FA one too.

As far as Im concerned the evidence against Suarez is pretty strong, he admitted to using the word, experts state that in no way is it used in a friendly way where he comes from AND under the circumstances it was used, there is no way he would have been using it in a friendly way.

[eFestivals]

You can't have it both ways....

Eh? Nothing of any of that is having anything both ways.

If I want to take your simple minded view then I can safely assume that you're guilty of wrong-doing at some point in your life (after all, who isn't?), and so that makes you murderer.

How daft to you want to take this angle to? As that line above gets to prove, I can outdo you if you want to do only stupid.

[Benj]

Yes you can? Those are two completely different contexts. One is about ignorance and one is about biting someone?

Neil's been dead right on this. He believes Suarez is guilty, but can see what Liverpool are trying to argue given what they believe. He's been reasonable and actually seems to be able to separate the two arguments unlike some 'experts' in the press.

[kaosmark2]

Oh your laughable... You actually not laughable, your a wind up merchant...

Throughout the thread you have said how you think he is guilty but took issue with everyone who actually agrees with you some how.

I answered your question....

[kaosmark2]

I think Downing has been veyr lucky that carrol has been such a high profile flop, it really has cushioned a lot of criticism downing has got because he has been both expensive and ineffective.

[eFestivals]

Surely if its actually got as far as a criminal case being bought against Terry, there must be some pretty substantial proof. The CPS would not bring such a case against the England captain, if they did not.

Nah, the CPS take a case forwards if they believe there's enough evidence to make a conviction 'possible', not necessarily 'probable'. It's not their job to guess how the jury will view it.

Tho having said that I'm guessing that the evidence they have is video evidence, which is likely to be about as strong as it can get.

Then again, it might come down to lip-reading from that video evidence which could be disputed, or perhaps there's witness evidence (other than the two players directly involved) but that will of course have to be weighed up for the possibility of collusion.

Hopefully any criminal punishment will be backed up by an FA one too.

if he's found guilty that will defo happen.

Things are more difficult for the FA if he's found not guilty tho. I reckon they'll find it hard to proceed against Terry if he's been found not guilty in court, even tho there might be better evidence against Terry than there was for Suarez.

As far as Im concerned the evidence against Suarez is pretty strong, he admitted to using the word, experts state that in no way is it used in a friendly way where he comes from AND under the circumstances it was used, there is no way he would have been using it in a friendly way.

Hmmm ..... the phrase used is disputed tho, and I'm unsure which version of words those experts went from in drawing their conclusions - that would make a fair bit of difference to the meaning whatever the body language might be telling them.

And while it's probably the case that they made the right assumptions about body language, at the end of the day that's simply an opinion, a guess on their part. The possibility of error is there. The only one who can really know for sure what Suarez was meaning is Suarez.

[eFestivals]

a lot of the stuff rolled out by the anti-racist brigade is just plain idiotic.

yep - to the extent that they're proving that they're not "the anti-racist brigade" at all, they're just plain stupid about racism.

[Benj]

And while it's probably the case that they made the right assumptions about body language, at the end of the day that's simply an opinion, a guess on their part. The possibility of error is there. The only one who can really know for sure what Suarez was meaning is Suarez.

[ralph250]

I think Carroll's played at least twice as well as Downing. Problem is Carroll's played like a £3mn striker, Downing's played like a £1mn winger. Carroll's had a few shots away, he's laid off the ball a few times, he's knocked it down. I felt he had an alright game yesterday, while Downing's shooting, crossing, passing, anything that might possibly create a chance, were all disgraceful. The closest he was able to come to creating a chance was by diving.

[ralph250]

Problem for Suarez is that, even in its noun usage, on slightly rough ground according to the experts.

200. First, there are some black people in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America who object

to the use of the word "negro" as a term of address, as they say it highlights skin colour

when this should be irrelevant. This is the use of the word "negro" (ie as a term of address)

which Mr Suarez contended before us is acceptable, yet his view appears to be contentious

with some in Uruguay and Latin America.

170. The word "negro" can have pejorative connotations, as it may be associated with low class

status, ugliness, vulgar behaviour, noisiness, violence, dishonesty, sexual promiscuity etc.

In the River Plate region, for example, "los negros" is sometimes employed as a general

term for the lower classes and especially for lower-class people whose behaviour is

deemed vulgar and not "respectable".

[kaosmark2]

Anyone see Jonathan Wilson's comment piece:

Is there a reason for the comparative lack of effectiveness beyond simple profligacy or lack of confidence? Are, in other words, Liverpool creating chances that are difficult to take? The signings of Stewart Downing, Jordan Henderson and Charlie Adam were apparently motivated by the fact that all three were among the top eight chance-creators in the Premier League last season (Blackpool, Aston Villa and Sunderland were eighth, 13th and 17th in the scoring charts last season; it may be that the sort of chance Adam, Downing and Henderson create is not the most efficient sort of chance, precise as Henderson's ball to Steven Gerrard for the third goal on Friday was).

http://www.guardian....rpool-home-form

Adaption of sabermetrics into football will get you so far, but numbers will only tell part of the story. I'd presume and hope there was more to their recruitment policy than "ooo look at these numbers, those guys set up lots of chances, lets chuck them all together and we're bound to score shedloads".

[eFestivals]

As I mentioned earlier, I suspect Suarez is not actually a racist and just said what he said to gain a competitive edge, if he had admitted this at the time and apologised, he would likely have a shorter ban and be viewed far less harshly than he is now by most.

yep. I haven't seen the full exchange of words that either has said was what happened, but from the first bits of Evra's version it defo seems to me that Suarez was out to wind him up.

The childish "negro, negro, negro" in response to "say that again and I'll punch you" makes it look that way to me.

And I've got to say, that that Evra version of what was said seems too unlikely to have been made up to me. If someone wanted to stitch up another player with lies then I'd have thought that a childish insulting version like that wouldn't have been anywhere near the top of the list of things a liar would have included.