John Terry Racism Trial
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
- Status
What's it to do with you? Are you Purdy's wingman?
Not at all, I usually disagree with Purdy but your posts are just completely inane.
Inane? Not really. The point of my reply was to educate him A- that he's being totally ridiculous if he thinks Shelvey was the more innocent of the two parties involved in the red card at the weekend and B- how ridiculous posts are that are full of stared out swearies
If anyone thinks that Shelvey's tackle is worse than Evans's, they're just plain bonkers, blind, or on the wind up.
Now, as far as Suarez / Terry goes... Suarez did not admit any racist language at all. He admitted saying "Por que negro?" - "Why black?" during the altercation, in reply to Evra saying "Don't touch me.".
However, the FA decided that Suarez had used the word negro 7 times, which was 3 less than Evra said to French TV, 2 more than Evra told the 4th official after the game, and 6 more than he told the referee on the pitch.
The FA also decided that which mode that Suarez used the word(s) was mainly unimportant. He was being insulting and as far as they could ascertain, made reference to Evra's skin colour.
He got an 8 match ban due to The FA deciding 7 times aggravated the offence. He was also fined a weeks wages.
Terry has been found guilty of the same offence it seems. The FA don't care if it's "racist" or not. Terry's defence that he was querying Ferdinand will matter about as much as Suarez's defence that "negro" in Uruguayan Spanish doesn't necessarily refer to skin colour, nor does it carry the oppressive undertones the direct English translation does. They're just bothered if the player is being insulting, during which they consider there has been any reference to skin colour. That's the rules. It has nothing to do with the criminal case Terry was acquitted of. Balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt, whatever, that makes no difference in Terry's case, there's video evidence, of which there was none of Suarez, which along with the lost in translation thing is why all that BofP thing was pertinent in the Suarez case. It matters not a jot for Terry, there can be little argument that the words "black ****" are insulting and reference skin colour, no matter the context and that Terry said those words.
Terry gets 4 games as he only said "Black ****" once, and gets fined a weeks wages.
Suarez got 8 (4 for the offence, 4 for the 7 times) and gets fined a weeks wages.
The FA aren't very good at this, but the punishments are vaguely similar.
The only real discrepancy (if there is one) is that the FA said Suarez got 4 games for breaking the rule and an extra 4 for the 7 times thing, plus the fact he was a high profile player at a high profile club. Obviously the FA think Terry is a no-mark and Chelsea have no history. Otherwise he'd a got a lengthier ban
I don't understand why the FA have made such a big song and dance about either case.
Suarez should have been banned, fined, and been told "Yes, we understand that "negro" in Uruguay doesn't directly translate and you might not have meant to racially abuse Mr. Evra, but we're not in Uruguay, we're in England and we don't like people using the word negro on our football pitches under any circumstances".
Terry should be banned, fined and told "We understand you were querying what Mr. Ferdinand thought you had said, but you can't use the words "black" and "****" adjacently on our football pitches under any circumstances."
It would have saved everyone all the bother. Everyone would have gone home happy knowing where they stood and why.
Now, as far as Suarez / Terry goes... Suarez did not admit any racist language at all. He admitted saying "Por que negro?" - "Why black?" during the altercation, in reply to Evra saying "Don't touch me.".
However, the FA decided that Suarez had used the word negro 7 times, which was 3 less than Evra said to French TV, 2 more than Evra told the 4th official after the game, and 6 more than he told the referee on the pitch.
The FA also decided that which mode that Suarez used the word(s) was mainly unimportant. He was being insulting and as far as they could ascertain, made reference to Evra's skin colour.
He got an 8 match ban due to The FA deciding 7 times aggravated the offence. He was also fined a weeks wages.
Terry has been found guilty of the same offence it seems. The FA don't care if it's "racist" or not. Terry's defence that he was querying Ferdinand will matter about as much as Suarez's defence that "negro" in Uruguayan Spanish doesn't necessarily refer to skin colour, nor does it carry the oppressive undertones the direct English translation does. They're just bothered if the player is being insulting, during which they consider there has been any reference to skin colour. That's the rules. It has nothing to do with the criminal case Terry was acquitted of. Balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt, whatever, that makes no difference in Terry's case, there's video evidence, of which there was none of Suarez, which along with the lost in translation thing is why all that BofP thing was pertinent in the Suarez case. It matters not a jot for Terry, there can be little argument that the words "black ****" are insulting and reference skin colour, no matter the context and that Terry said those words.
Terry gets 4 games as he only said "Black ****" once, and gets fined a weeks wages.
Suarez got 8 (4 for the offence, 4 for the 7 times) and gets fined a weeks wages.
The FA aren't very good at this, but the punishments are vaguely similar.
The only real discrepancy (if there is one) is that the FA said Suarez got 4 games for breaking the rule and an extra 4 for the 7 times thing, plus the fact he was a high profile player at a high profile club. Obviously the FA think Terry is a no-mark and Chelsea have no history. Otherwise he'd a got a lengthier ban
I don't understand why the FA have made such a big song and dance about either case.
Suarez should have been banned, fined, and been told "Yes, we understand that "negro" in Uruguay doesn't directly translate and you might not have meant to racially abuse Mr. Evra, but we're not in Uruguay, we're in England and we don't like people using the word negro on our football pitches under any circumstances".
Terry should be banned, fined and told "We understand you were querying what Mr. Ferdinand thought you had said, but you can't use the words "black" and "****" adjacently on our football pitches under any circumstances."
It would have saved everyone all the bother. Everyone would have gone home happy knowing where they stood and why.
Last edited:
um dont they both 'get the ball'?
getting the ball doesnt make it not a foul though. for me both should have gone. evans is two footed and shelvey is out of control and airborne.
oh and terrys ban is the same as suarez. the +4 is cos it was apparently used multiple times.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
One of the MANY excuses Suarez had in his changing story(I find it hilarious that Suarez not remembering every single incident is completely fine but Evra not remembering makes him an instant liar), was that he pinched Evra's skin in a jokey way, Evra said this wasn't the case and was saying whatever it was at that point. VIDEO EVIDENCE that the FA had that I believe in this case wasn't public, showed that Suarez who claimed he was joking and wasn't angry as he did this, was... well I don't think they officially said exactly how he looked just that his explanation didn't go with the video.
In other words the video most likely showed something along the lines of Evra angry, Suarez angry and him pinching him in a non jokey way... which again suggests that he was pinching him and referring to his skin colour in a non jokey way. If Suarez is lying about this, well, it doesn't put the rest of his story in a good light really does it.
Fact is I don't believe either players are racist, the papers go out of their way to find anyone who would come out of the woodwork and make such claims and the scummy papers didn't manage to find one guy Terry racially abused in a club, no black players who said he was a racist? Same goes for Suarez, I don't think he's racist either, and the ridiculous "but he knows black people", "there are black people on his team", "there is a black person in his family" are very bad reasons for believing he couldn't say something racist..... saying something racist and being racist are entirely different things.
You can say something racist without being a racist, and you can BE a racist and never let another soul on the planet know it.
As for that tackle, lol, Shelvey is second to the ball and lands with his full weight onto someones STANDING LEG, this is the single most dangerous thing that can happen in tackling. His rear leg does actually touch the floor but when you're moving forward the momentum is in that front leg which lands on another players locked out leg.
Evan's foot hits the ground before the contact, his full weight is in that leg with studs into the ground, his leg is locked, there is no where for that leg to bend, any contact on the front of that leg is insanely dangerous.
Neither tackle was "good", Shelvey's WAS worse, and Shelvey made the dangerous contact and hurt the other player. Its pretty damn rare for two players to get sent off even making identical tackles, its almost always the guy who gets the ball first who gets away with it and the guy who misses the ball and/or causes injury that gets the punishment.
RVP's, lol, its not a red, he gets the ball, his body and leg underneath him are completely on the floor, his other foot is as low to the ground as its going to get, the studs aren't particularly showing either. To even suggest its a red is a joke, again almost every tackle involves someone lunging at some point, its very hard to go at speed from standing to sliding without at some stage being completely off the ground, if you're on the ground before the tackle, before the other player is there, that's just called a normal tackle.
In other words the video most likely showed something along the lines of Evra angry, Suarez angry and him pinching him in a non jokey way... which again suggests that he was pinching him and referring to his skin colour in a non jokey way. If Suarez is lying about this, well, it doesn't put the rest of his story in a good light really does it.
Fact is I don't believe either players are racist, the papers go out of their way to find anyone who would come out of the woodwork and make such claims and the scummy papers didn't manage to find one guy Terry racially abused in a club, no black players who said he was a racist? Same goes for Suarez, I don't think he's racist either, and the ridiculous "but he knows black people", "there are black people on his team", "there is a black person in his family" are very bad reasons for believing he couldn't say something racist..... saying something racist and being racist are entirely different things.
You can say something racist without being a racist, and you can BE a racist and never let another soul on the planet know it.
As for that tackle, lol, Shelvey is second to the ball and lands with his full weight onto someones STANDING LEG, this is the single most dangerous thing that can happen in tackling. His rear leg does actually touch the floor but when you're moving forward the momentum is in that front leg which lands on another players locked out leg.
Evan's foot hits the ground before the contact, his full weight is in that leg with studs into the ground, his leg is locked, there is no where for that leg to bend, any contact on the front of that leg is insanely dangerous.
Neither tackle was "good", Shelvey's WAS worse, and Shelvey made the dangerous contact and hurt the other player. Its pretty damn rare for two players to get sent off even making identical tackles, its almost always the guy who gets the ball first who gets away with it and the guy who misses the ball and/or causes injury that gets the punishment.
RVP's, lol, its not a red, he gets the ball, his body and leg underneath him are completely on the floor, his other foot is as low to the ground as its going to get, the studs aren't particularly showing either. To even suggest its a red is a joke, again almost every tackle involves someone lunging at some point, its very hard to go at speed from standing to sliding without at some stage being completely off the ground, if you're on the ground before the tackle, before the other player is there, that's just called a normal tackle.
Myopic. I'm not gonna bother with the Suarez stuff because that's pointless. Suffice to say, I don't believe the FA care about actual racism , but they don't like the players being caught saying anything that might be construed as racist. But the tackle...
Both players tackle with excessive force and with disregard for the safety of their opponent. Both players according to the rules, should have got a straight red, no question. There's absolutely nothing in the rules about "getting there first" or which one gets hurt.
The reason why you don't often see two reds is that usually in this scenario, refs dish out a yellow each for 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. But this one was deffo two reds. Neither player had any right to challenge for the ball like that.
Evans's is two footed and looks to me far more likely to end with a bad injury to his opponent, but that's nothing to do with it.
Last edited:
Begs the fun question of what constitutes as racially abusing a white person...
Still interested to see how Terry deserves half the ban Suarez got
I think it has been fairly explained due to Suarez saying it at least 10 times it is worse. Although there is no evidence of Suarez actually using offensive language.
Also what silly billy posted what is in your quote, they deaf? (Pink Floyd, not Kiss
)EDIT: Sorry I swear Tom, musn't have been brought up properly
Last edited:
They both hit each other in the same spot with the same part of their boot. Both tackles were as bad as each other although at least Shelvey's wasn't two footed.
there's a lot of things you could call him but that's not really one of them
LOL, are people expecting him to go up to the ref and say:
"He called me a negro."
"He called me a negro."
"He called me a negro."
"He called me a negro."
"He called me a negro."
"He called me a negro."
"He called me a negro."
He means he went up to the referee and said 'he called me a negro x times'???
Obviously.
However, it's one of those subjects that people tend to be obtuse about. Which is a shame, as it diverts from the main issue.
Suarez was wrong to use the word "negro" even in Uruguayan Spanish. Not because necessarily it was inherently racist, but because it could be construed as such, in English, the direct translation is a word no longer used in decent society and carries that stigma. And we are in England after all. Using the word in an altercation made that worse. Suarez's ignorance of that, wilful or not, doesn't mitigate the use of the word under FA rules.
That whole saga could have been diffused far more sensibly by all parties involved. However it suited Man U to make a big deal out of it, Liverpool FC were utterly and embarrassingly irresponsible and unprofessional and the FA are idiots to man.
It has very little to do with John Terry. You can't, as an Englishman (England Captain!!) , or anyone, use the words "Black ****" on a Premier League football pitch, be filmed doing so, no matter the circumstance and expect not to get banned and fined.
I have some sympathy for Suarez, but still think he was wrong and stupid. Terry, not so. A simple "Hey hang on, what did you think I said?" would suffice. Not shouting "I didn't call you a black ****" across the pitch. That's offensive. That's even if you believe his version of events.
Last edited:
I haven't seen the full reports so I don't know at what time he said it to ref - maybe he said it before all 7 alleged utterances had been made (the point I was trying to make is maybe he reported it after the first instance, would he have to go up and tell him every single time?). Also he probably didn't view it as pertinent at the time; the idea that somebody could try and hold it up as evidence of inconsistency is ludicrous. If he said "Suarez called me XXXX exactly one time, and one time only" at the conclusion of the match then fair enough, but I highly doubt it.
Last edited:
- Status