comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 56 seconds ago
Of course, there are big differences between Cavani and Silva/Mendy and, as you say, Silva's error seems potentially more serious. What I'm saying is that, if I were reaching for a precedent, I'd go there before Suarez/Evra - both were Instagram posts where it seems clear no harm was intended. If there were another debate about how Silva/Mendy differed from Cavani, of course we could go on all day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, the cases are closer because of the similarities in mood/context, but there is still a big difference. Silva's is a case of lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity on issues of race, because there is simply no way of removing the racial connotation. Cavani, on the other hand, was speaking in his own native language and used a word in a context in which its meaning is completely different to its etymological origin.
Certainly the FA can look into it, but they would be well advised to consult this with actual language experts. Both as a native Spanish speaker and student of linguistics myself, I can only see one possible correct interpretation in this case.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 10 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 0 seconds ago
It's different because instead of one person hearing it 7,800,000 read it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is different. One person heard racist abuse being thrown at him. 7,800,000 didnt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahahaha the mental gymnastics coming towards 606 is going to be huge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that it is the same thing, when they are used in different contexts Robbing? II accept it was the
same word and that he will get a ban.
In my eyes though a word used to offend carries a different punishment to the same word being used as an endearment
Ahahaha the mental gymnastics coming towards 606 is going to be huge.
-------------------
Oh God. This is so cringy its painful.
I am a man u fan so I don't think Cavani did anything wrong, but I can understand fans of other teams thinking he did something wrong, due to the team that they support.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 56 seconds ago
Of course, there are big differences between Cavani and Silva/Mendy and, as you say, Silva's error seems potentially more serious. What I'm saying is that, if I were reaching for a precedent, I'd go there before Suarez/Evra - both were Instagram posts where it seems clear no harm was intended. If there were another debate about how Silva/Mendy differed from Cavani, of course we could go on all day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, the cases are closer because of the similarities in mood/context, but there is still a big difference. Silva's is a case of lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity on issues of race, because there is simply no way of removing the racial connotation. Cavani, on the other hand, was speaking in his own native language and used a word in a context in which its meaning is completely different to its etymological origin.
Certainly the FA can look into it, but they would be well advised to consult this with actual language experts. Both as a native Spanish speaker and student of linguistics myself, I can only see one possible correct interpretation in this case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I don't disagree with you here. What would/will you say to Liverpool fans who seem to think that Cavani's and Suarez's apparent use of the same word should be treated the same?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
I even forgot how to do a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the announcement:
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/aug/06/new-charging-policies-and-sanctioning-guidelines-for-discrimination-published-070720
Seems to be regarding discrimination, which is not the charge that Cavani will face.
I could be wrong, but I think the journalist is mixing up the wrong rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 10 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 0 seconds ago
It's different because instead of one person hearing it 7,800,000 read it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is different. One person heard racist abuse being thrown at him. 7,800,000 didnt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahahaha the mental gymnastics coming towards 606 is going to be huge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that it is the same thing, when they are used in different contexts Robbing? II accept it was the
same word and that he will get a ban.
In my eyes though a word used to offend carries a different punishment to the same word being used as an endearment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of context = mental gymnastics. That's what I learned yesterday.
I've said what I've got to say on it but yeah I do find all this fairly amusing. People will say anything on here
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
I even forgot how to do a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the announcement:
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/aug/06/new-charging-policies-and-sanctioning-guidelines-for-discrimination-published-070720
Seems to be regarding discrimination, which is not the charge that Cavani will face.
I could be wrong, but I think the journalist is mixing up the wrong rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"FA Rule E3(1), as it was insulting and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute, and constituted an “Aggravated Breach”, which is defined in FA Rule E3(2), as it included reference, whether expressed or implied, to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin."
Just don't think that relates the link above.
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 3 minutes ago
Ahahaha the mental gymnastics coming towards 606 is going to be huge.
-------------------
Oh God. This is so cringy its painful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Said without a hint of irony, as well.
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
The FA are officially investigating it, he'll get a 1/2 game ban and that's that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That wouldn't be bad tbh, he's only been coming off the bench in the second 1/2 of games anyway.
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 27 seconds ago
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay!
What Cavani wrote in his own native language was none of the above, neither express nor implied.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 34 seconds ago
The video and photos of Suarez at the time make it clear imo that it wasn't a term of endearment but meant to offend
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if it's the same word it doesn't matter! Words exist in a vacuum where they can only have one meaning! Relationship, context and likely intent must all be thrown out of the window! Sick of these mental gymnastics!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot to log in with your Poolmy account.
Still, one thing is clear, you can say practically anything to a straight, white, atheist.
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
I even forgot how to do a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the announcement:
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/aug/06/new-charging-policies-and-sanctioning-guidelines-for-discrimination-published-070720
Seems to be regarding discrimination, which is not the charge that Cavani will face.
I could be wrong, but I think the journalist is mixing up the wrong rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You got there before me but yes, whilst I take Winston'a point, I personally believe that the FA will take this approach so as not to be seen to be saying some references to skin colour are acceptable and some aren't. From a PR point of view they are going to need to be seen as tough in all forms of potential racist language, especially after the recent incidents with Greg Clarke.
What I'm saying is that they're telling players that any reference counts as discrimination, so Cavani has absolutely no leg to stand on, regardless of the context.
Cavani made a reference. FA determines any reference is discrimination, and misconduct, their discrimination rules apply, meaning a 3 match ban.
FA Rule E3.1 sets out various obligations regarding a Participant’s behaviour. A breach of Rule E3.1 is
considered “Misconduct”. Acts of discrimination are considered to be amongst the most serious type of
Misconduct which a Participant can commit. For this reason, any act of discrimination is considered to
be an “Aggravated Breach” of E3.1. An “Aggravated Breach” is defined as a breach of Rule E3.1, where
it includes a reference, whether express or implied, to any one or more of the following: ethnic origin,
colour, race,
Obviously, I'd prefer he didn't suffer a 3 match ban, and obviously I believe that context matters. I think it's reasonable that they wouldn't impose the 6 match standard to something like this, and I believe he will get 3 games.
The Bernando case whilst similar, also predates the new rules so is functionally irrelevant to be honest.
Welsh, they’ll have to stay within their own guidelines though.
There’s no mention of ‘discrimination’ in the charge against Silva, is there?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
I even forgot how to do a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the announcement:
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/aug/06/new-charging-policies-and-sanctioning-guidelines-for-discrimination-published-070720
Seems to be regarding discrimination, which is not the charge that Cavani will face.
I could be wrong, but I think the journalist is mixing up the wrong rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"FA Rule E3(1), as it was insulting and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute, and constituted an “Aggravated Breach”, which is defined in FA Rule E3(2), as it included reference, whether expressed or implied, to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin."
Just don't think that relates the link above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winstons - I honestly don't know. I would say you have a reasonable position there but, as I mentioned above, I think its going to be dealt with partly with an eye on PR after the Greg Clarke incident. The FA are going to want to show that they have 0 tolerance for any sort of connection to racism.
You got there before me but yes, whilst I take Winston'a point, I personally believe that the FA will take this approach so as not to be seen to be saying some references to skin colour are acceptable and some aren't. From a PR point of view they are going to need to be seen as tough in all forms of potential racist language, especially after the recent incidents with Greg Clarke.
----
That's basically what I think it boils down to. I disagree, but they can hardly set up new ruling to handle stuff like this, and then not use it.
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
I even forgot how to do a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the announcement:
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/aug/06/new-charging-policies-and-sanctioning-guidelines-for-discrimination-published-070720
Seems to be regarding discrimination, which is not the charge that Cavani will face.
I could be wrong, but I think the journalist is mixing up the wrong rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...includes a reference..."
You can make a statement including a reference to any of the above without the statement constituting abuse.
Abuse becomes discriminatory abuse when it references one or more of the above.
A mention of race or gender, for example, doesn't constitute abuse.
"...includes a reference..."
You can make a statement including a reference to any of the above without the statement constituting abuse.
Abuse becomes discriminatory abuse when it references one or more of the above.
A mention of race or gender, for example, doesn't constitute abuse.
----
I don't disagree with you. All I've pasted there is what they've told the players.
It's likely deliberately vague so they can kind of do what they want with it. Basically, it'll leave them a wide enough grey area to do anything, but if they decide that it fits that bill (which technically it would), then it would be a 3 game minimum ban.
Again, completely disagree with the ban, just reading how they've set the ruling up.
Apologies, I realise I have jumped threads and now we have two going on. I'll try to tie them back up. In theory you are correct, although I don't know the specifics of the charge and I imagine the regulations and guidelines will be broad enough that they can have it covered of they want.
As I said, I dont think you are wrong. I just feel that they will consider this to be a tweet of a racial nature and that this will be enough to allow them to use the anti-racism language.
It is a complicated area due to the cultural and societal boundaries between Uruguay and the UK.
Looking at the Utd fans comments on here, if correct, I don't see how Cavani could possibly be getting a ban.
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 11 seconds ago
"...includes a reference..."
You can make a statement including a reference to any of the above without the statement constituting abuse.
Abuse becomes discriminatory abuse when it references one or more of the above.
A mention of race or gender, for example, doesn't constitute abuse.
----
I don't disagree with you. All I've pasted there is what they've told the players.
It's likely deliberately vague so they can kind of do what they want with it. Basically, it'll leave them a wide enough grey area to do anything, but if they decide that it fits that bill (which technically it would), then it would be a 3 game minimum ban.
Again, completely disagree with the ban, just reading how they've set the ruling up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it's clear as mud
I think you might be giving them too much credit though. Rather than purposefully engineering the rule to be vague and malleable, the incompetent twaaats have probably just made a hash of the definition.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
Looking at the Utd fans comments on here, if correct, I don't see how Cavani could possibly be getting a ban.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that the part where several of us likened it to the Silva incident and expect him to get a one game ban?
Sign in if you want to comment
Cavani Tweet
Page 12 of 24
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 56 seconds ago
Of course, there are big differences between Cavani and Silva/Mendy and, as you say, Silva's error seems potentially more serious. What I'm saying is that, if I were reaching for a precedent, I'd go there before Suarez/Evra - both were Instagram posts where it seems clear no harm was intended. If there were another debate about how Silva/Mendy differed from Cavani, of course we could go on all day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, the cases are closer because of the similarities in mood/context, but there is still a big difference. Silva's is a case of lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity on issues of race, because there is simply no way of removing the racial connotation. Cavani, on the other hand, was speaking in his own native language and used a word in a context in which its meaning is completely different to its etymological origin.
Certainly the FA can look into it, but they would be well advised to consult this with actual language experts. Both as a native Spanish speaker and student of linguistics myself, I can only see one possible correct interpretation in this case.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 10 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 0 seconds ago
It's different because instead of one person hearing it 7,800,000 read it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is different. One person heard racist abuse being thrown at him. 7,800,000 didnt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahahaha the mental gymnastics coming towards 606 is going to be huge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that it is the same thing, when they are used in different contexts Robbing? II accept it was the
same word and that he will get a ban.
In my eyes though a word used to offend carries a different punishment to the same word being used as an endearment
posted on 30/11/20
Ahahaha the mental gymnastics coming towards 606 is going to be huge.
-------------------
Oh God. This is so cringy its painful.
posted on 30/11/20
I am a man u fan so I don't think Cavani did anything wrong, but I can understand fans of other teams thinking he did something wrong, due to the team that they support.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 56 seconds ago
Of course, there are big differences between Cavani and Silva/Mendy and, as you say, Silva's error seems potentially more serious. What I'm saying is that, if I were reaching for a precedent, I'd go there before Suarez/Evra - both were Instagram posts where it seems clear no harm was intended. If there were another debate about how Silva/Mendy differed from Cavani, of course we could go on all day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, the cases are closer because of the similarities in mood/context, but there is still a big difference. Silva's is a case of lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity on issues of race, because there is simply no way of removing the racial connotation. Cavani, on the other hand, was speaking in his own native language and used a word in a context in which its meaning is completely different to its etymological origin.
Certainly the FA can look into it, but they would be well advised to consult this with actual language experts. Both as a native Spanish speaker and student of linguistics myself, I can only see one possible correct interpretation in this case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I don't disagree with you here. What would/will you say to Liverpool fans who seem to think that Cavani's and Suarez's apparent use of the same word should be treated the same?
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
I even forgot how to do a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the announcement:
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/aug/06/new-charging-policies-and-sanctioning-guidelines-for-discrimination-published-070720
Seems to be regarding discrimination, which is not the charge that Cavani will face.
I could be wrong, but I think the journalist is mixing up the wrong rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
posted on 30/11/20
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 10 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. 20times, 20legend (U1270)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 0 seconds ago
It's different because instead of one person hearing it 7,800,000 read it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is different. One person heard racist abuse being thrown at him. 7,800,000 didnt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahahaha the mental gymnastics coming towards 606 is going to be huge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that it is the same thing, when they are used in different contexts Robbing? II accept it was the
same word and that he will get a ban.
In my eyes though a word used to offend carries a different punishment to the same word being used as an endearment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of context = mental gymnastics. That's what I learned yesterday.
posted on 30/11/20
I've said what I've got to say on it but yeah I do find all this fairly amusing. People will say anything on here
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
I even forgot how to do a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the announcement:
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/aug/06/new-charging-policies-and-sanctioning-guidelines-for-discrimination-published-070720
Seems to be regarding discrimination, which is not the charge that Cavani will face.
I could be wrong, but I think the journalist is mixing up the wrong rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"FA Rule E3(1), as it was insulting and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute, and constituted an “Aggravated Breach”, which is defined in FA Rule E3(2), as it included reference, whether expressed or implied, to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin."
Just don't think that relates the link above.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 3 minutes ago
Ahahaha the mental gymnastics coming towards 606 is going to be huge.
-------------------
Oh God. This is so cringy its painful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Said without a hint of irony, as well.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
The FA are officially investigating it, he'll get a 1/2 game ban and that's that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That wouldn't be bad tbh, he's only been coming off the bench in the second 1/2 of games anyway.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 27 seconds ago
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay!
What Cavani wrote in his own native language was none of the above, neither express nor implied.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 34 seconds ago
The video and photos of Suarez at the time make it clear imo that it wasn't a term of endearment but meant to offend
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if it's the same word it doesn't matter! Words exist in a vacuum where they can only have one meaning! Relationship, context and likely intent must all be thrown out of the window! Sick of these mental gymnastics!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot to log in with your Poolmy account.
posted on 30/11/20
Still, one thing is clear, you can say practically anything to a straight, white, atheist.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
I even forgot how to do a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the announcement:
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/aug/06/new-charging-policies-and-sanctioning-guidelines-for-discrimination-published-070720
Seems to be regarding discrimination, which is not the charge that Cavani will face.
I could be wrong, but I think the journalist is mixing up the wrong rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You got there before me but yes, whilst I take Winston'a point, I personally believe that the FA will take this approach so as not to be seen to be saying some references to skin colour are acceptable and some aren't. From a PR point of view they are going to need to be seen as tough in all forms of potential racist language, especially after the recent incidents with Greg Clarke.
posted on 30/11/20
What I'm saying is that they're telling players that any reference counts as discrimination, so Cavani has absolutely no leg to stand on, regardless of the context.
Cavani made a reference. FA determines any reference is discrimination, and misconduct, their discrimination rules apply, meaning a 3 match ban.
FA Rule E3.1 sets out various obligations regarding a Participant’s behaviour. A breach of Rule E3.1 is
considered “Misconduct”. Acts of discrimination are considered to be amongst the most serious type of
Misconduct which a Participant can commit. For this reason, any act of discrimination is considered to
be an “Aggravated Breach” of E3.1. An “Aggravated Breach” is defined as a breach of Rule E3.1, where
it includes a reference, whether express or implied, to any one or more of the following: ethnic origin,
colour, race,
Obviously, I'd prefer he didn't suffer a 3 match ban, and obviously I believe that context matters. I think it's reasonable that they wouldn't impose the 6 match standard to something like this, and I believe he will get 3 games.
The Bernando case whilst similar, also predates the new rules so is functionally irrelevant to be honest.
posted on 30/11/20
Welsh, they’ll have to stay within their own guidelines though.
There’s no mention of ‘discrimination’ in the charge against Silva, is there?
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
I even forgot how to do a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the announcement:
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/aug/06/new-charging-policies-and-sanctioning-guidelines-for-discrimination-published-070720
Seems to be regarding discrimination, which is not the charge that Cavani will face.
I could be wrong, but I think the journalist is mixing up the wrong rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"FA Rule E3(1), as it was insulting and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute, and constituted an “Aggravated Breach”, which is defined in FA Rule E3(2), as it included reference, whether expressed or implied, to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin."
Just don't think that relates the link above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winstons - I honestly don't know. I would say you have a reasonable position there but, as I mentioned above, I think its going to be dealt with partly with an eye on PR after the Greg Clarke incident. The FA are going to want to show that they have 0 tolerance for any sort of connection to racism.
posted on 30/11/20
You got there before me but yes, whilst I take Winston'a point, I personally believe that the FA will take this approach so as not to be seen to be saying some references to skin colour are acceptable and some aren't. From a PR point of view they are going to need to be seen as tough in all forms of potential racist language, especially after the recent incidents with Greg Clarke.
----
That's basically what I think it boils down to. I disagree, but they can hardly set up new ruling to handle stuff like this, and then not use it.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
I even forgot how to do a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the announcement:
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/aug/06/new-charging-policies-and-sanctioning-guidelines-for-discrimination-published-070720
Seems to be regarding discrimination, which is not the charge that Cavani will face.
I could be wrong, but I think the journalist is mixing up the wrong rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how they rule. If they rule that Cavani using that word amounts to discriminatory language, then absolutely the minimum 3 game ban will apply.
Give that the players' handbook describes discrimination as literally any reference to the below, I can see them applying that rule to be honest.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE?
DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE INCLUDES A REFERENCE WHETHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Ethnic origin
• Colour
• Race
• Nationality
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Gender reassignment
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...includes a reference..."
You can make a statement including a reference to any of the above without the statement constituting abuse.
Abuse becomes discriminatory abuse when it references one or more of the above.
A mention of race or gender, for example, doesn't constitute abuse.
posted on 30/11/20
"...includes a reference..."
You can make a statement including a reference to any of the above without the statement constituting abuse.
Abuse becomes discriminatory abuse when it references one or more of the above.
A mention of race or gender, for example, doesn't constitute abuse.
----
I don't disagree with you. All I've pasted there is what they've told the players.
It's likely deliberately vague so they can kind of do what they want with it. Basically, it'll leave them a wide enough grey area to do anything, but if they decide that it fits that bill (which technically it would), then it would be a 3 game minimum ban.
Again, completely disagree with the ban, just reading how they've set the ruling up.
posted on 30/11/20
Apologies, I realise I have jumped threads and now we have two going on. I'll try to tie them back up. In theory you are correct, although I don't know the specifics of the charge and I imagine the regulations and guidelines will be broad enough that they can have it covered of they want.
As I said, I dont think you are wrong. I just feel that they will consider this to be a tweet of a racial nature and that this will be enough to allow them to use the anti-racism language.
It is a complicated area due to the cultural and societal boundaries between Uruguay and the UK.
posted on 30/11/20
Looking at the Utd fans comments on here, if correct, I don't see how Cavani could possibly be getting a ban.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 11 seconds ago
"...includes a reference..."
You can make a statement including a reference to any of the above without the statement constituting abuse.
Abuse becomes discriminatory abuse when it references one or more of the above.
A mention of race or gender, for example, doesn't constitute abuse.
----
I don't disagree with you. All I've pasted there is what they've told the players.
It's likely deliberately vague so they can kind of do what they want with it. Basically, it'll leave them a wide enough grey area to do anything, but if they decide that it fits that bill (which technically it would), then it would be a 3 game minimum ban.
Again, completely disagree with the ban, just reading how they've set the ruling up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it's clear as mud
I think you might be giving them too much credit though. Rather than purposefully engineering the rule to be vague and malleable, the incompetent twaaats have probably just made a hash of the definition.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
Looking at the Utd fans comments on here, if correct, I don't see how Cavani could possibly be getting a ban.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that the part where several of us likened it to the Silva incident and expect him to get a one game ban?
Page 12 of 24
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17