Like I clearly stated. This isnt a bun fight about the verdict, but the future ramifications of the verdict
------------------------------
I think then that it's only fair for you to discourage posters from talking about Evra. After all, if you don't want this thread to descend into a discussion about a player that has been found guilty (subject to appeal), then neither should it be about another player who hasn't yet even been charged.
comment by TalksRubbish (U3303)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yes, but they are two separate charges.
------------
Yeh but they don't go around charging everyone with the first part do they? On this case they have had to in order to be able to bring the second charge. If there was no potentially racial word used then Suarez wouldn't have been charged with anything.
Liverpool fans have no need to panic. Terry will be charged and get an equal, if not longer ban. You dont have to be a lip reader to know what that disgrace to the game said.
Good riddance to him from our national team!
Yeh but they don't go around charging everyone with the first part do they? On this case they have had to in order to be able to bring the second charge. If there was no potentially racial word used then Suarez wouldn't have been charged with anything.
-------------------------------------
but then doesn't this make the fa to be hypocrites? there are plenty of occasions where threatening, insulting, abusive language is used on a football pitch thus breaking the fa rule and should require them to take action, but they will only take that action if it triggers a specific element of part 2 of the rule?
Elvis (U7425)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by TalksRubbish (U3303)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yes, but they are two separate charges.
------------
Yeh but they don't go around charging everyone with the first part do they?
------------
Thats exactly my point. Now they have set the president. Regardless of whether or not it was evoke the second charge, they still charged him with the first part and considered it at the hearing. They have now marked the goalposts and could see clubs reporting any form of abusive behaviour.
In my opinion, no precedent has been set, simply because it was already in place:
"A participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."
so should we expect a ban for the likes of rooney every time he uses threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words because you don't have to be much of a lipreader to know he does that a lot.
you can bet the fa will be swamped with complaints against opposition players from now on. it doesn't have to trigger part 2 to result in a ban. part 2 only makes the ban longer.
"so should we expect a ban for the likes of rooney every time he uses threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words"
Singling out Rooney only serves to highlight the fact that last year he did receive a ban "for the use of offensive, insulting and/or abusive language". Did that set a precedent?
"you can bet the fa will be swamped with complaints against opposition players from now on."
There are several examples of players being charged with this in the past. None of those have resulted in the FA being swamped with complaints against opposition players.
it's interesting that you bring up the fact that rooney has been banned for swearing directly into the camera. for that he got a 2 game ban.
the rule in question states that if the language is racial/ethnic/homophobic etc then the ban will be doubled on the first offence. so why has suarez been given an 8 match ban rather than 4 as the fa's own rules would suggest?
i'm off for some sleep now but i will leave with this point.
it shows how much of a farce todays ruling actually is when the fa has been shown it cannot even show consistency in the application of its own rules, either overly lenient for an english player or overly harsh for a foreign player... isn't that racist?
i've had a feeling this would happen from the very start, not for what actually took place but because the fa are desperate to score political points and want to be seen as cracking down on racism and going against their own rules and regulations to do so.
suarez was always going to be found guilty and there is little chance of winning an appeal as the appeal board is still made up from people from various fa committes.
this is the same fa which is criticised by fans up and down the country when they act in a ridiculous manner when it involves their own club. everybody knows they need to be replaced with a professional body and they are holding back grass roots football in this country. but only because its a rival player as a victim on their ineptitude they are suddently the best thing since <insert favourite thing here>.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Suarez Saga
Page 3 of 3
posted on 20/12/11
Like I clearly stated. This isnt a bun fight about the verdict, but the future ramifications of the verdict
------------------------------
I think then that it's only fair for you to discourage posters from talking about Evra. After all, if you don't want this thread to descend into a discussion about a player that has been found guilty (subject to appeal), then neither should it be about another player who hasn't yet even been charged.
posted on 20/12/11
comment by TalksRubbish (U3303)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yes, but they are two separate charges.
------------
Yeh but they don't go around charging everyone with the first part do they? On this case they have had to in order to be able to bring the second charge. If there was no potentially racial word used then Suarez wouldn't have been charged with anything.
posted on 20/12/11
Liverpool fans have no need to panic. Terry will be charged and get an equal, if not longer ban. You dont have to be a lip reader to know what that disgrace to the game said.
Good riddance to him from our national team!
posted on 20/12/11
Yeh but they don't go around charging everyone with the first part do they? On this case they have had to in order to be able to bring the second charge. If there was no potentially racial word used then Suarez wouldn't have been charged with anything.
-------------------------------------
but then doesn't this make the fa to be hypocrites? there are plenty of occasions where threatening, insulting, abusive language is used on a football pitch thus breaking the fa rule and should require them to take action, but they will only take that action if it triggers a specific element of part 2 of the rule?
posted on 21/12/11
Elvis (U7425)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by TalksRubbish (U3303)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yes, but they are two separate charges.
------------
Yeh but they don't go around charging everyone with the first part do they?
------------
Thats exactly my point. Now they have set the president. Regardless of whether or not it was evoke the second charge, they still charged him with the first part and considered it at the hearing. They have now marked the goalposts and could see clubs reporting any form of abusive behaviour.
posted on 21/12/11
In my opinion, no precedent has been set, simply because it was already in place:
"A participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."
posted on 21/12/11
so should we expect a ban for the likes of rooney every time he uses threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words because you don't have to be much of a lipreader to know he does that a lot.
you can bet the fa will be swamped with complaints against opposition players from now on. it doesn't have to trigger part 2 to result in a ban. part 2 only makes the ban longer.
posted on 21/12/11
"so should we expect a ban for the likes of rooney every time he uses threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words"
Singling out Rooney only serves to highlight the fact that last year he did receive a ban "for the use of offensive, insulting and/or abusive language". Did that set a precedent?
"you can bet the fa will be swamped with complaints against opposition players from now on."
There are several examples of players being charged with this in the past. None of those have resulted in the FA being swamped with complaints against opposition players.
posted on 21/12/11
it's interesting that you bring up the fact that rooney has been banned for swearing directly into the camera. for that he got a 2 game ban.
the rule in question states that if the language is racial/ethnic/homophobic etc then the ban will be doubled on the first offence. so why has suarez been given an 8 match ban rather than 4 as the fa's own rules would suggest?
posted on 21/12/11
That's a good question.
posted on 21/12/11
i'm off for some sleep now but i will leave with this point.
it shows how much of a farce todays ruling actually is when the fa has been shown it cannot even show consistency in the application of its own rules, either overly lenient for an english player or overly harsh for a foreign player... isn't that racist?
i've had a feeling this would happen from the very start, not for what actually took place but because the fa are desperate to score political points and want to be seen as cracking down on racism and going against their own rules and regulations to do so.
suarez was always going to be found guilty and there is little chance of winning an appeal as the appeal board is still made up from people from various fa committes.
this is the same fa which is criticised by fans up and down the country when they act in a ridiculous manner when it involves their own club. everybody knows they need to be replaced with a professional body and they are holding back grass roots football in this country. but only because its a rival player as a victim on their ineptitude they are suddently the best thing since <insert favourite thing here>.
Page 3 of 3