Yep.
Which is where he could have tripped himself up in the commission, by saying something like "Look I called him X, Y and Z but A, B and C"
By confirming he said anything in breach of those he could have set himself up for a ban.
Suarez
- Thread starter the wopster
- Start date
- Status
Yep.
Which is where he could have tripped himself up in the commission, by saying something like "Look I called him X, Y and Z but A, B and C"
By confirming he said anything in breach of those he could have set himself up for a ban.
Forget the standing by Evra bit for a moment - I only mentioned it because that part of the sentence made it crystal clear that he's refering to the allegations.
When refering to an allegation, if you say that there's no doubt in your mind that something happened, you're implying that you believe the allegation.
it certainly is ridiculous if that's the case. so in the FA's book, if clattengerg had done nothing, the FA would've stepped in and (hopefully) hit rooney with a ban and fine but because he had been carded, they take it no further. stan collymore ***, dunno why the pratt durham is sticking up for him, obviously a fan boy!
sorry for going a little off topic but this kind of thing does grate with me a little with the FA and their favourites
doesn't look he does get a card afterall (though i don't for one minute think it was a bung like the yt uploader) but hey ho, golden boy marches on. violence obviously not as bad as racism in the eyes of the FA
Last edited:
~something happened doesn't have to refer to the racism though, it could refer to the running battle they had on the pitch, or just a general bit of "handbags" between the players.
I saw nothing wrong with what Taggart said, nor that he was implying that Suarez was guilty, just that ~something had happened between the two. I might have worded that wrong, I didn't think Taggart was implying that Suarez was guilty, just that something happened and that he was obviously sticking by his man. That in itself doesn't lend to the idea that he believe Saurez to be guilty.
Not necessarily. He's merely suggesting he believes something obviously happened, that doesn't mean that something was definitely racism. Fergie's stance from day one has been that the club will leave it up to Evra as to what he wanted to do and all that interview in the mirror does is echo that.
EDIT: or alternatively what Tummy said
Dont get me started on that
So if the reports that Evra made the South American comment are true, he should be banned for 8 games too?
I'm not sure how he can be refering to anything other than the allegations when in the same sentence he says he's standing by Evra (which can only be in reference to the allegations).
We're not going to agree so we'll leave it there.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,009
- Location
- Surrey
You're not going to agree because your last 3 posts have said exactly the same thing
I'm not sure why you can't see that it could be referring to him being aware of a general incident happening between the two players but Fergie doesn't know the full extent and is waiting for the FA to investigate.
I'm not sure why you can't see that it could be referring to him being aware of a general incident happening between the two players but Fergie doesn't know the full extent and is waiting for the FA to investigate.
Hey, don't pick an argument with me again
That is literally what the rules say. I however think that this case hinged on the word "negro" even if it's part of a longer lexis. It also states that it has to be meant in a derogatory manner (that's a minefield of context et cetra)
I don't think there is a single person in this thread that can defend that the word "negro" doesn't carry a very negative history certainly in the western world, it's unacceptable to call a "black" person that word. The argument of "It's accepted in my country" really has no legs to stand on in this sort of commission / investigation either (imho)
He quite clearly can be though
There was a running battle throughout the game? Yes? So he could be referring to any number of incidents. As I said, Taggarts comments don't lend themselves to either side of the argument other then to say he accepts ~something happened and that he will stand by his man.
Non issue with what was said, and before you play the "United fan card" I'd be saying the same had this being the reverse or this being other managers in any situation.
You're not going to agree because your last 3 posts have said exactly the same thing
I'm not sure why you can't see that it could be referring to him being aware of a general incident happening between the two players but Fergie doesn't know the full extent and is waiting for the FA to investigate.
I think we all know Fergie well enough over the last 20 odd years to know this isn't the case.
Irrelevant. This particular quote could have being referring to any number of "somethings" that happened over a running battle spread over the entirety of the game.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,009
- Location
- Surrey
Yeah but you've also said that he's received this sentence because he's a Liverpool player so I think we can just take what you say with a pinch of salt.
Hey, don't pick an argument with me again
That is literally what the rules say. I however think that this case hinged on the word "negro" even if it's part of a longer lexis. It also states that it has to be meant in a derogatory manner (that's a minefield of context et cetra)
I don't think there is a single person in this thread that can defend that the word "negro" doesn't carry a very negative history certainly in the western world, it's unacceptable to call a "black" person that word. The argument of "It's accepted in my country" really has no legs to stand on in this sort of commission / investigation either (imho)
I wasn't picking an argument. It was a genuine question.
Lets assume Suarez has said Negro/Negrito or whatever (we don't know for certain that he did though), should he be punished based on the word he used or his intetions when using the word? For example (I'm not saying this happened), is Suarez naively using a Spanish variation of Negro with honest intentions worse than Evra calling Suarez a South American with the intentions to offend?
He quite clearly can be though
So he's refering to 2 things (as he can only be refering to the allegations when he says he's standing by Evra) in 1 sentence?
Last edited:
I see what your saying, BUT can we extrapolate this to a ~slightly different situation?
(arguments sake) Lets say I call K1LLSW1TCH, a Welsh tosspot? He retorts with calling me an English tosspot. In this situation, the outcome (imho) would be to tell us both off and maybe ban us each. You'd have to impose the same ban on each of us.
However, I think that it all hinges on the use of the word "negro" and say if I was calling him a "Welsh negro" then a situation similar to this *could* arise? Does that make sense?
I'm not saying I agree with the ins and outs and decisions of this case, I'm saying it's good that the FA are taking a hard line on racism (as it shouldn't be tolerated in any aspect of modern society)
I fear the punishment is almost, *almost* secondary to the label of being a convicted racist.
I feel (and fear) that given the use of the word negro has over shadowed things, that's not to say I agree one way or the other (despite how it sounds), and has lead to this situation.
He's referring to ~something happening (that could be any number of things from the running battle) and that (in the sense that any manager would) he's going to stick by his player.
Last edited:
1. It's good to see him get a decent length ban, hopefully terry will get the same treatment if found guilty
2. Evra never claimed that chelsea stewards were racist towards him, that is a ill informed myth. do some research and you will see there are ZERO quotes from him over it.
3. lol at all the liverpool fans on twitter going mental and embarrassing themselves and their club
4. liverpools statement is truly hilarious, basically saying evra is a liar and that suarez isn't racist because he knows black people... you couldn't script it. whoever wrote that deserves all the ridicule they are currently recieving from just about every direction. They may as well have just photoshopped a picture of him and tokyo sexwhale hugging each other and smiling (blatter stylee)
5. What happened to Dalglish saying they would accept whatever the FA's decision was ?
Suarez is a great player but a nasty piece of work, just accept him for what he is. You can still cheer for him all you want but the guy is universally hated in football for a reason. He was the most hated player in the dutch league (ask any dutch fans) and he is now probably the most hated player in the english league.
ITS NOT A COINCIDENCE
calm it down
2. Evra never claimed that chelsea stewards were racist towards him, that is a ill informed myth. do some research and you will see there are ZERO quotes from him over it.
3. lol at all the liverpool fans on twitter going mental and embarrassing themselves and their club
4. liverpools statement is truly hilarious, basically saying evra is a liar and that suarez isn't racist because he knows black people... you couldn't script it. whoever wrote that deserves all the ridicule they are currently recieving from just about every direction. They may as well have just photoshopped a picture of him and tokyo sexwhale hugging each other and smiling (blatter stylee)
5. What happened to Dalglish saying they would accept whatever the FA's decision was ?
Suarez is a great player but a nasty piece of work, just accept him for what he is. You can still cheer for him all you want but the guy is universally hated in football for a reason. He was the most hated player in the dutch league (ask any dutch fans) and he is now probably the most hated player in the english league.
ITS NOT A COINCIDENCE
calm it down
Last edited:
No, they are far more annoying because they are a bunch of 1-2 line paragraphs; DM at least gives my eyes something to soak up before they have to jump down a couple of lines
No, they are far more annoying because they are a bunch of 1-2 line paragraphs; DM at least gives my eyes something to soak up before they have to jump down a couple of lines
It
Could
Be
Worse
I was more worried about the content not the layout, as the discussion seems to have quietened down.
I wasn't trying to 'say' anything. It was a question.
Are we simply saying that if somebody uses a certain word then they should be banned for x amount of games or does the intetions of the player and context in which it's used play a part?
For example, John Mackie is reported (although not confirmed) to have called another player a ****** (I hope it's ok to say that given the thread) which is near impossible to defend the use of. He was banned for 3 games + 5 more suspended. Suarez is reported to have used a Spanish variation of the word Negro and his reported defense is cultural differences. Should Suarez receive the same ban as Mackie simply because he used a certain word or should any punishment be based on his intentions when using the word? And as above, if Evra has made reference to Suarez's nationality, should he too receive the same ban as it would breach the same rule?
*we'll assume that Suarez has received a straight 8 game ban (rather than 3+5) because he's reported to have denied the use of the word had racist intentions.
- Status