it probably wouldn't improve anything. no matter how good a system we devise, once it hits the real world, and the people tasked with running it start thinking they can do what they want, it'll all go to pot. still, it would be nice to be able to tell blatter & co. 'piss off, you're sacked.' exec and judiciary should definitely be separate, no matter what system is used. it should also be possible to appeal against the verdict of the judiciary, not just the punishment.
stjohn. the point i was trying to make about the interfering with play, is even if the player is stationary throughout, he's still interfering. he could be blocking the keepers line of sight. he has the potential to move, so defenders still have to take into account where he is, and be able to cover him if he does move. it is in essence, impossible to be on the pitch and not be interfering with play in some fashion. that said, you're point is just as valid.
We currently have an appeals system with the FA, but it is exclusively for the purposes of appealing against innocence or guilt. This is why the SUarez case would have bee a pointless exercise, given that racism is, under its definition at the moment, not in the intent, but how it is received. De facto, Suarez was guilty of this as soon as he admitted what was said. There is NO allowance for appealing against an unjust sentence, which is bizarre. I don't think there'd have been such an outcry if Suarez had been sentenced to a 4 match ban (in view of the above). With no way to appeal against the sentence, and given the whole way the system was working, an appeal in those circumstances would be doomed to fail, regardless of the merits of the case.
from what i can make out, looking at spanish language sites, it is a commonly used expletive term. and is commonly directed at men, but is not an insult to the recipient themselves, more the female relative of the recipient. concha (lit. 'shell') 1. [f] [15] the vulva, the vagina (widely known and used by both sexes, however a taboo); 2. la concha de la lora [interj] fixed phrase ('the vulva of the (female) parrot') a common swearing interjection; 3. la concha de tu madre [interj] fixed phrase ('your mother's vulva') a common insult, also la concha de tu hermana ('your sister's vulva') or any female relative's vulva; another common form is la concha tuya ('your vulva'). These expressions are also used for men. and you're right, under normal circumstances, we wouldn't really make anything of it. it's just part of the game as it is today. however, whichever way you translate it, it still qualifies as abusive language under the fa guidelines. and what many of us liverpool supporters still find galling is that evra can make so many violations of the rules in ONE game and go unpunished, and suarez can respond to him with 1 comment, which is not necessarily abusive, and get dumped on from all quarters. as for the pfa, fa, eufa, fifa. they all useless incompetent, corrupt institutions. i'd like to see all clubs bypass them completely and form their own governance framework where they can form their own consensus and run things for the equal benefit of all clubs, not the benefit of the people running the governing bodies. You're (deliberately?) missing the point here - why would a Frenchman utter an 'exclaimation' in Spanish? The FA try to make out it's like he caught his finger in the car door or banged his toe getting out of the shower. As I e-mailed Martin Samuel (and got not response) if I, a Scouser of Chinese descent living in Yorkshire, went up to David Bernstein or him and screamed at him in Hebrew "Your sister's c+nt!" would you at least not see it as a calculated insult, almost certainly racist in design, or would you think it was just a reflex 'exclaimation' that I hadn't given much thought too? Here's the point (from someone who's been called a Chink most of my life) what is so special about skin colour, especially black skin? Why is it now the exclusive form of racism? How, ffs, as John Barnes has frequently espoused, is this helping the greater cause of racism to elevate black skin to the one and only form of racism to be considered? This is a case of naked opportunism. St Evra of Your Sister's Pussy, Rio X and Martin Luther Ferguson are just charletons on the make. If you want to make a start on combatting the evils of racism you would do well to remind the above three (especially the lying Evra who told the FA - which they accepted - that he changed his version about what he'd been called because he couldn't bear to use the word nigga then was seen on YouTube calling Chelsea players just that ) that rule 3a doesn't just mention skin colour. infact, someone should remind the FA and their 'independent' panel that too.
donga, that's a good point. i never even thought of questioning that, if evra's claiming it was a reactionary exclamation, it wouldn't be in spanish. i'd just assumed he used spanish as he knows it, and knows it's suarez's native tongue, and that suarez's english is not that good. now i think about it, and we should all have noticed before, if he's using spanish to ensure that suarez understood him, it has to be a premeditated and calculated insult. unfortunately, due to this countries previous colonialism and slave-trade, it now tries to apologize for it by going too far in the opposite direction, especially with government sponsored 'positive discrimination', it's still discrimination, and there's sure as hell nothing positive about that. some of the worst stuff i've seen has been the behaviour of a large number of young indian males in bradford towards caucasians, but we're not allowed to call that racist apparently.
I take your point, but I don't think that winding someone up in their own tongue is racism. I don't think that mentioning your siblings genitals is a racist comment. I get where you're coming from. If, however, Evra had called him a Sudaca - as alleged but not proved - in Spanish, that would be a clear case of racism. Even if it have been witnessed in English - South American - as alleged by Suarez, this would also be grounds for a racism charge. We have to be fair viewing the evidence when interpreting it, else we are in danger of conceding any 'moral' point we have over the FA Panel's handling of the case. Evra cannot be convicted simply on the word of Suarez, any more than Suarez could be on Evra's word alone(and therefore should not have been). Again, to be fair, I don't think the use of language is racism, even when using insults. It is a mention of his sister in Spanish, albeit in disparaging terms. It would be ridiculous to ban languages on the field of play because the English ref doesn't understand it and can't be sure what was said (because that is the way you'll end with it.) Evra is a nasty piece of work who worked the system. In the summing up, the panel and Evra both said that they do not believe that Luis Suarez is a racist (somewhat inconsistent from Patrice there, but hey ho, just another piece of inconsistency ignored because it doesn't help the prosecution). That the media such as the sweating piece of vermin Samuel ignored this important statement is a disgrace to the reporting profession, but not surprising. "X not a racist" won't sell half as many papers as "Scummy Foreigner we always thought a wrong'un is a Filthy Racist!!!!"
"i'd just assumed he used spanish as he knows it, and knows it's suarez's native tongue, and that suarez's english is not that good. now i think about it, and we should all have noticed before, if he's using spanish to ensure that suarez understood him, it has to be a premeditated and calculated insult." I made this point several times on several threads but nobody picked up on it. The fact that he chose the language of his opponent was indeed a calculated insult. It was designed to make sure Suarez knew he was being insulted. Another point I've not seen discussed anywhere is the fact that Evra was afforded great sympathy by the panel for a 'kick' on 'a previously badly injured knee' ??? So 'bad' was it that he remained 'in shock' 5 minutes later. If the panel really watched the video and more importantly - if they came across as EVER having seen ANY football before they had been put together to look at this case - how could they possibly interpret Suarez from behind Evra kicking him in the knee. They must surely also have notice the play-acting of Evra after said 'kick in knee'. As to the other thing being discussed - how did the game that we invented end up being controlled by the French?
St and Johnson's. Both your posts are logical and wise. As I've said on several threads, Suarez has certainly had the rough end of the stick, but the club really didn't manage things very well.
At the start of the season people (rival fans msotly) were saying Kenny's absence from management could mean that he was out of his depth - football's moved on, you can't go back etc. etc. I didn't buy into that but one thing that has become apparent is his lack of measured response when under pressure from the media. He started out quite jokey and it was refreshing to see. Nobody could have foreseen this race row and sometimes I think his response has been one of a supporter rather than one of the manager who has to hold back a little. Maybe he needs to get used to the intereviews again which are far more probing than his last time around. I said the other day the club could do a lot worse than get John Barnes in, in some official capacity, at least temporarily while we are under the spotlight on racism. His views come more from his personal experience than being just 'another LFC apologist'!
While the use of Spanish may be a calculated insult - which I believe it is - this is in no way relevant to the idea that Evra racially insulted Suarez. As I said earlier, while it contravenes the rules of the game, such infringements are generally ignored unless they can't be (a la Rooney down a camera lens). The sympathy of the panel is irrelevant in the scheme of things. We should focus on the problems of the process and its failings, rather than harping on about the demonstrable bias that results from the process. The panel is appointed by the FA as executive and the terms of reference are set by the FA. They frame the charge and the panel have to find evidence to support the charge. They are not charged to find the truth of the matter. Had they done so, then they would have said that they could not determine with any degree of confidence what was actually said. However, in light of Mr Suarez admission at the earliest stage of his use of language, we have found unambiguously that the word "Negro" was used. Mr Evra took offence to the use of the term "Negro", and that while not meaning to offend, Mr Suarez did cause offence. This is contrary to the Rules of the game as set out in (Blah, blah, blah). We sentence Mr Suarez to a two matches for insulting Mr Evra and causing offence, doubled to 4 matches as the offensive term contains reference to race. (It would also have been nice at this point for the panel to recognise Mr Suarez' unfamiliarity with English culture and the significance of "Negro" in the English language, and for his early admission of having used it, thus reducing the penalty to 3 matches). Didn't happen. We need to look at how the panel was set up, how selections are made, how the terms of reference are set, and whether is it appropriate to have a blanket ban on appeals against sentences.
St - what you've said there makes a lot of sense. While the sympathy of the panel 'should' be irrelevent, in actuality it was anything but. The emotive dialogue of the report, in places, is concerning because it leaves the door wide open in future cases for whoever is the best actor, wins. It is my understanding that the panel is selected at the start of the season to be used as and when needed and all clubs endorse the panel before they can start to act. With a QC as part of the panel, effort is made to have something resembling a court scenario. We are told the FA is the prosecutor and the panel are the judge and jury. (Maybe 3 people isn't enough, there must be a reason why real juries are made up of significanlty more than this.) 2 members of the panel are involved in football - ex-players etc. so you can imagine when viewing videos of games as part of the process for making their decisions, it must be like match of the day pundits. I don't know what alternative there could be. Maybe a panel of your peers! Ultimately somebody has to decide, within the rules of the game, was a rule/s broken and what punishment should be dished out for breaking the rules. The person/people deciding must be involved in football so that the interpretaion of any video evidence can have the ruler of heat of the moment actions during game put to it in an 'I now I've been there' kind of way!
Well, above all else they must question whether it's right for the FA to be the prosecutor that selects the judge and jury, and whether it is just and fair to use balance of probabilities as a standard of evidence when an individual is accused and the presumption of innocence is dispensed with. Some (mainly Utd supporters) have come on here spouting that in civil cases balace of probabilities is usually used: fair enough in matrimonial disputes and property cases. But, as I and others keep banging on, in this case one individual stood accused and the other individual was the chief witness of the prosecution. I had to laugh when Luther Blisset and others called for Suarez to be prosecuted through the criminal courts - do they REALLY think this would get past the CPS (possibly, as there's enough right-on brownie points in it) but that a PROPER judge and jury would convict anyone on THAT? I sense a lot of people just want to move on now and let karma run its course. And hell, if the type of cretin who reads the Sun and believes a double-page spread of St Evra emoting his expedient distaste of racism is the only thing we have to worry about, then things aren't THAT bad. But overall, football aside too, I, like the great Digger himself, am pissed off of the whole racism bandwagon being hijacked by one colour and being driven in one direction only. And yes, no matter the verbal gymnastics and sophistry employed here, I do regard the fact that if an intelligent human being responsible for their actions goes to the trouble to insult someone in their language there is a racial element to it - unless, as it would appear, a black person does it to a non-black person, in which case we are saying that individual is not an intelligent person responsible for their actions. Isn't that the worst form of racism?
@donga. Your right about the 'legality' of the FA panels judgement. But unless Suarez goes against the decision and policy of his employers(LFC)he wont take civil action against Evra. If the case had have gone to court instead of before an FA panel Evra's behaviour and the fact he stated he started the argument and hurled the first insult("your sisters pussy" or something similar)would have had a lot of influence in the case along with the evidence being changed to suit the charge multlple times by Evra and the 'prosecution' witnesses basing their evidence on what Evra told them and the type of person they percieve him to be. But theres no way Suarez will take any action against the poison midget while hes still employed by LFC. So its best put to bed mate.
Bottom line is that Evra acted like the **** he is and cried "racist". They should've settled it on the pitch and that would've been that. Media made a big deal out of it and now even the President of Uruguay has been enraged. All because of Evra... the little french..... football player.
It was good to see Diego Lugano and the President defend Suarez. I've seen nothing but negativity in the press. To be honest, I was even surprised that Sky Sports would publish such a story. All we have seen is some anti racism groups or black figures condeming Suarez.
So basically you're condoning racist abuse. Good luck to you. Sepp Blatter would be proud of that statement!
I'm not sure how Suarez abused Evra? Abusing someone because of their skin colour and reference to skin colour are two different things. However, insulting someones sister would be classed as abuse. I suggest you read what Suarez actually said to Evra and tell me if it should be classed as 'abuse'.
Read it, consider it racist abuse, as did the independent panel, as do most people. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion though.
Problem is that there are two versions of the 'truth'. Evra claims that Suarez said "Porque tu eres negro" which means "because you are black". Now if Suarez had said this, then I think you will find that a lot of Liverpool fans would not condone this and the club would have punished Suarez internally and would never have worn the t shirts and handled the situation the way they did. Now Suarez claims he said "Por que, negro?" which means "Why?, black?" which is a common phrase in Latin America. Negro is a term used to address black people and people with black hair in a non-offensive way. Linguistic experts say that the phrase that was claimed by Evra is not grammatically correct nor would it ever be used. This is why most LFC fans will believe Suarez's version as the experts agree that it is a more commonly used phrase. It's easy for Evra to think he's been abused because both phrases are very similar. In addition, no one else heard the conversation despite taking place in a crowded goal mouth. To administer such a hard punishment when there is a lack of evidence is not fair. Problem is, the media have only discussed Evra's version which is why everyone is against Suarez. I believe if there was more unbiased reporting, then neutral supporters would understand why LFC felt strongly about this.
The independent panel discussed the incident with experts and found Suarez guilty. I think that's why most people think Suarez was guilty and lying.
