Football 2011-2012

[eFestivals]

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.

much the same exists with the word in the USA and the UK - some welcome it, some don't have a problem with it, and some object to it.

The pertinent point to me about the word isn't anything to do with that directly, but this fact: it's not racist by default (as 'nigger' is).

Given that black people in this country and elsewhere are quite happy to be called black people and that negro means simply black, it's stupid to get too much into how some people but not all consider the word to be.

Of far more importance is the context around the word's use. On that side of things, Suarez appears to have been (as much as it's possible in these circumstances) proven as using racist language.

[ralph250]

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.

[eFestivals]

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".

the thing with that view tho is that Liverpool have created good or great chances all season (outside of last night, anyway) - they've not been poor chances they've been having, they've been good or great chances but which have failed for one reason or another to hit the back of the net.

They HAVE come up against goalies on their better days, and they HAVE hit the post or bar far too often from what have been great scoring positions.

Some of that at least has to be put down to poor luck, even if some is down to too-poor shooting accuracy too often.

[strummer77]

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".

[Benj]

To be fair two of the signings are fine. Just Downing who has been rubbish.

[eFestivals]

They gave weight to Evras account aswell, as Suarez admitted saying "Dale, Negro" to Yaya Toure last year.

I can't see how that's of much relevance TBH.

What he said to Yaya might have been perfectly reasonable (if accepting the cultural angle). The different version to Evra with three 'negro's seems to be nothing other than repeating the word for (bad) effect.

[eFestivals]

Has Henderson played much?

Just about every game (perhaps every game?).

He's played some on the right wing (particularly earlier in the season) and wasn't impressive, but he's looked far better when played more centrally.

[ralph250]

Agreed with most of that Neil, but it still weakens the cultural defence slightly of being perfectly acceptable in his home country. As you say context is the main thing, and they found against Suarez for that.

Things like the contradiction (and evasiveness) on the pinch argument probably didn't help his claim that he was later being friendly/conciliatory either.

Mr Suarez's claim that the pinching was an attempt to defuse the situation

245. In paragraph 27 of his witness statement, Mr Suarez said this:

"Evra did not back off and Dirk Kuyt was approaching us to stand between us. At

this point I touched PE's left arm in a pinching type of movement. This all happened

very quickly. I was trying to defuse the situation and was trying to intimate to Evra

that he was not untouchable by reference to his question about the foul. Under no

circumstances was this action intended to be offensive and most certainly not

racially offensive. It was not in any way a reference to the colour of PE's skin."

(emphasis added)

246. Mr Greaney cross-examined Mr Suarez about this paragraph in Mr Suarez's witness

statement, just after showing Mr Suarez a clip of the goalmouth incident. The extract from

the transcript below omits the translation of the questions into Spanish, and Mr Suarez's

answers in Spanish. The answers given below are the interpreter's translation of Mr

Suarez's answers in Spanish.

"MR GREANEY: Mr Suarez, the first thing I would like to ask you, now that we have

seen those again, is: is it correct, as you say in paragraph 27 of your witness

statement, that you were trying to defuse or calm down the situation in the goal

mouth?

A. That's why I was explaining to him that it was a normal foul.

Q. Let me be as clear as I can. Was your aim, when you were in the goal mouth, and

speaking to Mr Evra, to calm down the situation?

A. I wasn't thinking about speaking to anyone. He was the one to come to me and

speak to me.

Q. What we want to know, or at least I do, is what was in your mind? Was it in your

mind to try to calm down the situation?

A. He was asking me, "Why did you kick me?" Those were football conversations,

and I replied, "This is a normal foul. What do you want me to do?"

Q. Do you see paragraph 27 of your statement? Does it read: "I was trying to defuse

or calm the situation"?

A. By the gesture I was doing with my hands, I could show that I was trying to

explain the situation, because these are conversations that you have in the field.

Q. Mr Suarez, I have to suggest to you that my question is really a very simple one.

In the goal mouth, and in particular as you pinched the skin of Mr Evra, do you say

you were trying to calm the situation?

A. Not after the pinch, because he was saying that he was going to hit me.

Q. I'll just make one more attempt, and then we will move on. In your statement,

over which we have understood you took some care, you have said of the pinching:

"I was trying to defuse the situation." All I wish to know is whether that is true or

not.

A. I was not trying to calm down the situation, but trying to explain to Evra why I

was doing this foul, and when - then he replied, "I'm going to hit you", and I was

trying to show him that he was not untouchable, not in the foul and not by the

gesture that I did with the - by the pinch I was doing to his arm, that he wasn't

untouchable."

247. Having said in his witness statement that he was trying to defuse the situation when he

touched Mr Evra's left arm in a "pinching type movement", Mr Suarez eventually

answered, after persistent questioning, that he was not trying to calm down the situation

by doing so.

248. It was plain to us that Mr Suarez's pinching of Mr Evra's arm was not an attempt to defuse

the situation. It could not conceivably be described in that way. In our judgment, the

pinching was calculated to have the opposite effect, namely to aggravate Mr Evra and to

inflame the situation. We infer that this was Mr Suarez's intention. Mr Suarez's face

reveals hostility towards Mr Evra, the pinching is preceded by Mr Suarez looking Mr Evra

up and down, and Mr Suarez steps away having pinched Mr Evra as Mr Kuyt steps in to

face up to Mr Evra.

249. What concerned us also was that Mr Suarez should have made what we considered to be

such an unarguable assertion in his witness statement, ie that the pinching was an attempt

to defuse the situation when it plainly was not.

250. The Commission asked Mr McCormick whether he accepted that the pinching could not

reasonably be construed as an attempt to defuse the situation. He did. The Commission

then asked Mr McCormick what, if anything, we were to infer from the fact that the

assertion was made in Mr Suarez's signed statement in the first place, there being no basis

whatsoever for it. Mr McCormick submitted that it was down to bad drafting. Mr Suarez

was intending to say that his response to Mr Evra's question "Why did you kick me?" was

an attempt to defuse the situation in that Mr Suarez put out his hands as people do when

they say "Look, there's no problem. There's nothing to get excited about".

251. We did not accept that that was a satisfactory explanation for Mr Suarez's plainly incorrect

assertion that the pinching was an attempt to defuse the situation. Mr McCormick had

already explained to us the care that was taken over the preparation of Mr Suarez's

witness statement. An English draft was prepared based on detailed notes of instructions

which had been given by Mr Suarez. That draft was translated into Spanish. There was a

further meeting with Mr Suarez with the two drafts, in English and Spanish in front of

him, and the interpreter present. The witness statement was then finalised and signed.

252. This was one example of where Mr Suarez's witness statement was demonstrated to be

inconsistent with the facts as shown in the video footage. No satisfactory explanation was

given for this inconsistency.

[eFestivals]

it still weakens the cultural defence slightly of being perfectly acceptable in his home country.

not at all, not in my view.

If something is acceptable in some circumstances, then it's not misleading to say it's something acceptable.

I say that from the angle of someone who has said those words in an acceptable context - eg: If you've jokingly told your mate to 'fuck off' (as many of us might do in the right circumstances) and someone then asks you if it was acceptable to say that, the automatic response is likely to be a simple 'yes'.

If someone then says that to tell someone to fuck off is abusive, it would be quite reasonable in those circumstances to tell them that they're wrong, and the fact that it can be abusive doesn't weaken the fact that nothing bad was meant.

C'mon ralph, factor in a little real life into your considerations. I don't mean this in any nasty way, but at times I'm reading what you post as tho there's a real danger of you sucking yourself up your own arse in trying to prove everything about what went on in the worst possible way.

If you want to take Suarez's words at simple face value as you're trying your hardest to do, then it has him making the KKK look like moderates. I guess it's possible that's Suarez's view, but my reading of the words has me putting more of real life into them.

As you say context is the main thing, and they found against Suarez for that.

yep - and from the little I know they got that part right in that he meant to cause offence to Evra, but that he's not actually a racist.

I take the context to be him trying to wind Evra up, not that he actually meant the words he used at their simple face value. It's the same words with each, but a huge difference in the meaning* and intent Suarez had with those words.

(* I'm not meaning that his claim of friendly usage is right).

Mr Suarez's face reveals hostility

This bit makes me laugh - Suarez has one of those faces which even when he's smiling it looks hostile.

(I'm not necessarily disagreeing with how the panel was viewing it to be in saying that, just saying that Suarez has a somewhat weird face).

252. This was one example of where Mr Suarez's witness statement was demonstrated to be

inconsistent with the facts as shown in the video footage. No satisfactory explanation was

given for this inconsistency.

Again, I'm not saying the panel got this wrong, but....

Having read thru the bits you posted above that bit I've quoted, it reads to me a little like Suarez perhaps didn't understand why he was being quizzed about the pinch and how his answers would be viewed. Perhaps if he had that moment again when knowing how they'd viewed his previous responses he's answer in a different way while not lying about things and be more convincing because of it.

Some of what you've posted from the judgement and how they've viewed thing I'm finding a little uncomfortable, from the angle that perhaps Suarez wasn't recognising the relevance to what he was answering and the conclusions that would be drawn from his answers. It's possible that either because of his (lack of) intelligence or because of cultural &/or language issues he didn't grasp the process in the way that he should have.

Whether I'm right with that I don't know, but some of those bits and pieces are increasing the feeling I have that the panel might have got it wrong - not to the extent that I'm now thinking they defo got it wrong (I think they probably got it right), but it's moving me in that direction a little.

[Benj]

Interesting article on the handling of matters by LFC

http://www.dailymail...tin-Samuel.html

Edited January 4, 2012 by Benj

[ralph250]

Neil, I've not made a determination of him being a racist on here. I'm saying that the Experts view, made his position weaker. It reduced the strength of the cultural defence imo, because to take the ignorance point, it made it that he was not just ignorant of another culture, but of his own.

Suarez statement last night "In my country, 'negro' is a word we use commonly, a word which doesn't show any lack of respect and is even less so a form of racist abuse", is contradictorily to:

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".

I'm not trying to establish that Suarez is a racist. I'm trying to highlight places where his case failed, and illustrate some of those by reference (partly, for your benefit as you admit to not reading the case). As you say, there's a high chance of sledging. It's my probable conclusion too, though I feel the subject matter is a deeply deplorable use for the purpose of sledging. Whilst in arriving at their judgment, the commission weren't to look at previous offences but Suarez has a history of gamesmanship where it's probable, and that has frankly worked in his benefit. Evra himself went with that, and Liverpool should be fucking glad that he did, as gave them something to hold onto. Had that been Gary "no yellow cards" linekar, then a finding of "I kicked you because you were black", and "I don't talk to blacks", in most cases wouldn't be afforded a the view of it being to gain a competitive advantage.

As an aside, Suarez would've known about the pinch, because skeleton arguments were submitted first, and the FA case was that this was a reference to Evra's skin colour.

edit: I'm out.

It's worth a read Neil.

Edited January 4, 2012 by ralph250

[lost]

Interesting article on the handling of matters by LFC

http://www.dailymail...tin-Samuel.html

Edited January 4, 2012 by lost

[lost]

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]

Neil, I've not made a determination of him being a racist on here. I'm saying that the Experts view, made his position weaker. It reduced the strength of the cultural defence imo, because to take the ignorance point, it made it that he was not just ignorant of another culture, but of his own.

Suarez statement last night "In my country, 'negro' is a word we use commonly, a word which doesn't show any lack of respect and is even less so a form of racist abuse", is contradictorily to:

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".

So his own context towards his use of the word doesn't have much relevance, because it's all over ridden by a more general dictionary-like context?

How he'd view a word will be set by how he encounters it and uses it himself, no different to anyone else - exactly as I laid out with that 'fuck off' example. The explanation of his you've quoted there will have been in response to the question he was asked about his use within that match. If his use of it has been non-derogatory, then that's the explanation he's give for it, exactly as I demonstrated with that 'fuck off' example.

And that "In the River Plate region" - how relevant is that? I don't know, but it might be no more relevant than saying "in the USA black people object to being called negro" - which is true, but it's also true that some WANT to be called negro.

In essence, what I'm saying is that what the word can mean means fuck all, and what limited explanation he might have given for the words meaning means fuck all. Neither thing proves anything to this case.

Nothing of any of that weakens Suarez's defence, not a jot - apart from to the stupidly literal (who can brand him to the right of the BNP while they're being that stupid). Refer back to the fuck off example I gave for the proof.

What matters is how he used it. If they're able to prove he used it as an insult (which they did) then they've got him, and the opposite (which they didn't) and he's in the clear. Sod all else about it matters.

I'm not trying to establish that Suarez is a racist.

I don't think you are, I've not said you were. But you are trying to suggest that everything about the judgement is sounder than it really is by the suggestion that that above "weakens" Suarez's case (and you've done similar with other irrelevant aspects).

I'm trying to highlight places where his case failed, and illustrate some of those by reference (partly, for your benefit as you admit to not reading the case).

If you're thinking that his explanation for his use of the word weakens his case because the 'experts' put a bigger negative connotation onto the word with a dictionary definition than he gave in a more casual and personal way, then you're failing at that. And if that's a part of why they think him guilty then their judgement is weaker than I've been thinking if they need to strengthen it with an irrelevance. Just read back on my 'fuck off' example for the proof.

Nothing of that is me trying to justify him lying about what he said. It's just sense about personal context with the use of words (as I showed with that 'fuck off' example).

As you say, there's a high chance of sledging. It's my probable conclusion too, though I feel the subject matter is a deeply deplorable use for the purpose of sledging.

how deplorable any insult is is how hard it hits home to the victim. There's nothing inherently worse to the victim of racial slurring than there is about (say) insulting that player's mother - how deep the offence goes is purely from the subjectivism of the victim of the insult.

It's of course a way of insulting that people from the UK are likely to shy away from because such things are just about taboo here, but that's less likely to be the case for most other nationalities who are less anal about such things.

Whilst in arriving at their judgment, the commission weren't to look at previous offences but Suarez has a history of gamesmanship

and Evra has a history of lying to try and the representatives of other clubs into trouble.

One is of more relevance than the other to a case like this, and it's not the gamesmanship that every player - including Evra - employs at times.

It's funny how it's deemed the history of gamesmanship by Suarez to be of relevance but nothing of Evra's history of the same (and for all we know might be the basis for everything we've discussed), nor Evra's other history of false allegations.

As an aside, Suarez would've known about the pinch, because skeleton arguments were submitted first, and the FA case was that this was a reference to Evra's skin colour.

known, yes. Grasped how others might give it relevance along with the different versions, not necessarily.

It might well have been an addition to the insults. But it might also have been well meant even within an otherwise hostile exchange, in a "lighten up, you girl" sort-of way - which is something like Suarez described it in the text you posted from the report, and actually isn't so far away from his original submission of (something like) "trying to lessen the situation".

His explanation to the panel might have been a been a better considered version of that original submission, and what I was trying to get at with what I said about this in my last post was that Suarez might not have realised how the difference might have been (and was) considered to be revisionism by the panel. It's quite possible that he hung himself by trying to be more complete in his answers to the panel, rather than that being any proof of duplicity.

It's worth a read Neil.

if I get time I'll read it, but I won't have time for several weeks with what I've got on.

[Ed209]

if I get time I'll read it, but I won't have time for several weeks with what I've got on.

[eFestivals]

I watched Money Ball over christmas about the guy who pioneered these techniques for baseball, goes on at the end to say the Red Sox adopted them for their championship winning team (which I believe is John Henrys club??) That article now makes me wonder if he's tried to bring the same techniques to Liverpool.

when he bought Liverpool there were loads of comments that he'd take the same angle towards Liverpool.

Most of what the club has done with signings since seems to bear that out (including the money spunked on Carroll), but the one that doesn't fit is Downing because of his age. I can only guess that Downing was considered for buying as his age helps spread the squad's ages a little better, otherwise it would have been loads of oldies and loads of youngsters but little in the middle.

[eFestivals]

With the time you've spent on here arguing it, you probably could have read it

yup, I'm sure I could have, several times over.

But they've been done in bits and pieces, and I'd like to read the report in one hit. Finding a chunk of time for me to do that isn't going to be possible for several weeks at least because of the stuff on my plate with moving.

[Benj]

and Evra has a history of lying to try and the representatives of other clubs into trouble.

One is of more relevance than the other to a case like this, and it's not the gamesmanship that every player - including Evra - employs at times.

It's funny how it's deemed the history of gamesmanship by Suarez to be of relevance but nothing of Evra's history of the same (and for all we know might be the basis for everything we've discussed), nor Evra's other history of false allegations.

[eFestivals]

It is to LFC, or at least their fans. They've been banging on about it since day one

I don't actually think that 'gamesmanship' - better said as what it is, cheating - or Evra's past porkies has any relevance to this case.

Gamesmanship is done by all players. Just as much as Suarez might have been doing it in winding Evra up, Evra might have been doing it in starting the confrontation with Suarez. Its bounds are limitless in all directions, and I don't think that delving into deciding what was or wasn't gets anyone towards the truth at the heart of the incident.

Likewise with Evra having told porkies in the past. If that gets dragged out and used against him then he's unable to have any complaint upheld.

, yet according to Dalglish "Luis' integrity can not be questioned"

If there is one thing you can say about Suarez, it is that his integrity can most certainly be questioned!

- you're not wrong.

But there's more than one kind of integrity. I know little about Suarez really, outside of his world cup handball and the ear biting. Do these impact on this racism case? Not a jot in any direct sense.

But perhaps in an indirect sense, if he's been shown to have lied when charged with an offence in the past (I've no idea if he has). But that would only puts him in the same place as Evra, and gets no nearer to the truth of this incident.

[strummer77]

At the end of the day, Evra and Suarez know.

The FA have made a decision. Liverpool have reluctantly accepted it.

More may come out over the next few weeks. It may not. Suarez will be back in a few weeks.

If you support Evra- justice has been done. If you support Suarez- he has the backing of those closest to him.

We all agree racism is wrong.

Let's move on, I've posted loads in here on this and I'm bored to death of it now. I miss the days when it was just Neil and Worm telling us how amazing Sunderland were. There's actual football on tonight. Let's watch it.

[Ed209]

But there's more than one kind of integrity. I know little about Suarez really, outside of his world cup handball and the ear biting. Do these impact on this racism case? Not a jot in any direct sense.

[Kowalski]

If you support Evra- justice has been done. If you support Suarez- he has the backing of those closest to him.

[strummer77]

And if you're in the third group, those who possess a wide angled lens - justice has been done.

Edited January 4, 2012 by strummer77

[strummer77]

Barton's red card not being rescinded is a bit of a joke isn't it? That and the Milijas decision the other day...

Maybe you need a media uproar from the media like on Rodwell for the FA to change their minds. Such a lack of consistency.

[lost]

Fergie's dropped de Gea according to the beeb