Suarez

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tummy said:
He didn't say anything about the accusations though?

He could have said "Saurez is a racist and I'm sticking by my player" or he could have said "Evra was hearing things and I'm sticking by my player" he gave no indication of how he felt about the accusation of racism, other then saying he'd stick by his player, which is what any manager should do initially.
Click to expand...

So what is he "sticking by Patrice" about if it's not the allegation he made against Suarez, which is part of the same sentence that he says there was no doubt in his mind that something happened? :o

In one sentense he says he has no doubt in his mind that something happened and says he's standing by Evra. Please tell me what he's refering to if not the allegations made by Evra.

edit: as above, I don't have an issue with Taggart saying that but don't try and make out he's not implying Suarez was guilty.
 
cm1179 said:
ok. what offence was rooney charged with, or is elbowing an opposing player in the face, off the ball completely intentionally and with excellent visual evidence, not an offence in football these days? try doing it to someone in the street and see if you get away with it.
Click to expand...

Violence / Racism

Racism / Violence
 
cm1179 said:
ok. what offence was rooney charged with, or is elbowing an opposing player in the face, off the ball completely intentionally and with excellent visual evidence, not an offence in football these days? try doing it to someone in the street and see if you get away with it.
Click to expand...

Rightly or wrongly if the ref see's the incident and takes no action then nothing retrospectively can be done about it. Gerrard has got away with elbowing Michael Brown (granted he deserved it) and Welbeck because of the same rule. Rooney's wasn't the first and won't be the last unless the rule is changed (which it obviously should be)
 
Reading up on the FIFA E3/E4 stuff which this relates to.

It's interesting. Even with Saurez admitting making a comment in reference to Evra's skin colour breaks the rules. FA basically say that you should face punishment if you make a comment in reference to;

Colour
Disability
Ethnic Origin
Nationality
Race
Religion
Sex
Sexual Orientation

That the punishments for these are also up to the discretion of the committee investigation.
 
BaZ87 said:
So what is he "sticking by Patrice" about if it's not the allegation he made against Suarez, which is part of the same sentence that he says there was no doubt in his mind that something happened? :o

In one sentense he says he has no doubt in his mind that something happened and says he's standing by Evra. Please tell me what he's refering to if not the allegations made by Evra.

edit: as above, I don't have an issue with Taggart saying that but don't try and make out he's not implying Suarez was guilty.
Click to expand...

I think you're mis understanding me.

Taggart didn't say anything about the incident other then that something happened. He then promptly says that he will stand by his player, that ins't implying that he believes anything about the incident either way, just that he will stand by his player. I'd expect every manager worth their weight to say that (Didn't AVB come out and basically say the same about Terry) initially. You don't (or I don't believe you should) come out and comment on a open investigation (even if it's just an FA one), Taggart hasn't commented on it other then saying he's standing by his player.

That can't be hard to understand nor wrong.
 
Tom84 said:
Rightly or wrongly if the ref see's the incident and takes no action then nothing retrospectively can be done about it.
Click to expand...

are you sure that's true? if it is then it's ridiculous and needs to change. i'm sure there's been incidents where the ref didn't see something and something's been done about it afterwards
 
cm1179 said:
are you sure that's true? if it is then it's ridiculous and needs to change. i'm sure there's been incidents where the ref didn't see something and something's been done about it afterwards
Click to expand...

There lies the difference
 
Tummy said:
....
Click to expand...

He's directly refering to the accusation, which can't be questioned as in the same sentense he says he's standing by Evra. How can saying he has no doubt in his mind that something happened, while refering to the allegation, not be taken as his belief that Suarez did racially abuse Evra?
 
Robbo said:
Thank you.
Click to expand...

what do you mean 'thank you', can you go into a bit more detail please?

i'm still struggling to see why it seems to be one rule for certain players. this whole incident and the gerrard incident (another FA golden boy) seems to enforce this view i have.
 
cm1179 said:
are you sure that's true? if it is then it's ridiculous and needs to change. i'm sure there's been incidents where the ref didn't see something and something's been done about it afterwards
Click to expand...

yes, when the ref doesn't see something that's when the FA can act. He's saying if the ref see's something and decides not to punish it at the time then there's nothing the FA can do.
 
cm1179 said:
what do you mean 'thank you', can you go into a bit more detail please?

i'm still struggling to see why it seems to be one rule for certain players. this whole incident and the gerrard incident (another FA golden boy) seems to enforce this view i have.
Click to expand...

One is a racism incident, one is violence. They obviously have different rules for both.
 
cm1179 said:
what do you mean 'thank you', can you go into a bit more detail please?

i'm still struggling to see why it seems to be one rule for certain players. this whole incident and the gerrard incident (another FA golden boy) seems to enforce this view i have.
Click to expand...

You can't compare a racist incident to an incident of violent conduct. They're separate chargers.
 
DanH84 said:
yes, when the ref doesn't see something that's when the FA can act. He's saying if the ref see's something and decides not to punish it at the time then there's nothing the FA can do.
Click to expand...

but the ref gave rooney a yellow card from what i recall so it should have been investigated further surely?
 
BaZ87 said:
He's directly refering to the accusation, which can't be questioned as in the same sentense he says he's standing by Evra. How can saying he has no doubt in his mind that something happened, while refering to the allegation, not be taken as his belief that Suarez did racially abuse Evra?
Click to expand...

No, he's acknowledged something has happened between the two players. He's then said that he's going to stand by his player.

That doesn't imply he believes either player, just that he's obviously going to stand by his man initially.

(AVB said similar of Terry and I'm sure Kenny said similar initially of the incident, although he's since said a lot more)
 
Tummy said:
Reading up on the FIFA E3/E4 stuff which this relates to.

It's interesting. Even with Saurez admitting making a comment in reference to Evra's skin colour breaks the rules. FA basically say that you should face punishment if you make a comment in reference to;

Colour
Disability
Ethnic Origin
Nationality
Race
Religion
Sex
Sexual Orientation

That the punishments for these are also up to the discretion of the committee investigation.
Click to expand...

so if he had referred to him being French that breaches the rules, oh dear
 
cm1179 said:
but the ref gave rooney a yellow card from what i recall so it should have been investigated further surely?
Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding what everybody is saying.

If the ref sees the incident and decides it's only worthy of a yellor (or maybe not even that), then the FA won't retrospectively punish a player. If the ref misses the incident all completely, they will retrospectively punish the player (if they see fit).

It's ridiculous but that's how they do things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom