Skrtel

Haven't read all the comments, but most Pool fans I saw accepted both stamps and the result well. Of course there are idiots on all the boards, including ours. Best to ignore them.
On the Suarez incident he accepted he called him negro. The fact it means something different in his own country is neither here nor there. But I don't think it made him a racist and a minimal punishment would have been OK. Don't quite know though while you all seem to hate Evra. Still water under the bridge, neither of them plays for those clubs now.

Also SAF was a great manager but did come out with some daft quotes.

On the Suarez incident he accepted he called him negro. The fact it means something different in his own country is neither here nor there.
=========================================================
That's a refreshingly sensible post, manusince, but the question of what 'negro' might mean in Uruguay did not come into the final verdict.
The FA brought in language experts, and they accepted Suarez's defence that it could feasibly have been used inoffensively, even in that situation:

"If Mr Suarez used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally”

They also said:
" If Mr Suarez used the words "negro" and "negros" as described by Mr Evra, this would be understood as offensive and offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally.”

So those people who mock that defence are barking up the wrong tree. That defence was accepted by the FA's own language experts: what it came down to was whether he used it in Evra's version of what was said, or in his own.

Both players gave very different accounts of what was said, so what it came down to was which version the FA believed. Liverpool's argument was that this was a subjective decision, as there was no corroborating evidence either way.

Deciding it on what the FA called "balance of probability" was a new policy, introduced by Bernstein. Before that, the FA took the view that they didn't want to second-guess the Law.

So although there was TV footage of what Schmeichel said to Wright, for example, the Law took the view that it was insufficient evidence, and left it at that. Had they kept the same policy for the Terry case, he wouldn't have been done either. The Law would have decided.

I also believe that if you don't have enough evidence to do somebody "beyond reasonable doubt", you cannot complain if somebody expresses doubt. You are not entitled to act as though he was convicted by a Court of Law, so the reaction to Liverpool's stance was b0110x.
They were perfectly entitled to doubt it, especially on the grounds of no evidence.

In footballing terms I don't care: Liverpool won most of his banned games anyway, and he's moved on, so it doesn't matter to me in those terms. But I believe that what the FA did was a fundamental wrong, and I also believe it's back-fired on them.

As for Evra, he's moved on too, and I don't much care in those terms, either, it's water under the bridge. But I can tell you this: if Danny Welbeck had made that accusation against Suarez, I wouldn't have believed Suarez's version (I still would have thought they shouldn't do him without evidence, but I wouldn't have believed him). As it was, I didn't know who I believed, but actually, that wasn't the point.
There was no evidence.

All fair points and not much argument from me. Still viewing the images I don't think he was saying anything pleasant. But I accept your views on evidence and the Welbeck comment too.

Irrespective of what Skrtel thinks or says, the FA will decide, and it doesn't look good. My own take on it is that he is guilty. If they fast-track the hearing, then he is out for most of April. Time to move on if that is the case; now is Lovren's chance to prove a lot of people wrong.
I've got no views on Evans, although I have to say he's never looked a dirty player.
Suarez? with the language differences and language barrier, I still hold doubts as to his guilt.

JimmyTheRed

By the way Wessie you should have been on the panel. Best defense I have read, well put and very fair.

T shirts for sale

Surely the whole point of a potential (and worthwhile in my mind, purely for this reason!) appeal would be that it will delay any ban? To the club, it would be far more serious to lose him for the Arsenal game than for Hull away? Though with an international break, I'm not sure when the appeal hearing would take place, and probably would be before the Arsenal game anyway?

I think I am right in saying that the appeal will be fast-tracked for today.

JimmyTheRed

3 game ban it is