QUOTE(kuaLe_AGX @ Nov 18 2011, 08:26 AM)
/notafact
This post has been edited by SGSuser: Nov 18 2011, 10:28 AM
Discussion FA 'kickstart' Campaign against Racism?, Has it the Will to stamp out Racism?
|
|
Nov 18 2011, 10:26 AM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 28 2011, 01:14 AM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
interesting article by Tony Evans in The Times
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « |
|
|
Dec 28 2011, 02:41 PM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
QUOTE(Angel of Deth @ Dec 28 2011, 09:34 AM) Interesting to him because the article lean toward Evra side. That's all that i can think of. Because nothing new in that article, it just recycled the same thing that other journalist has pointed out since a week ago. not entirely same, just having similarities |
|
|
Dec 29 2011, 12:49 AM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
QUOTE(Red11DEvils @ Dec 29 2011, 12:43 AM) I can't understand this.. Why show middle finger banned one match but swearing banned 3 matches? one do purposely in front of camera while the other one want curi2 buat gesture but still caught bah Aren't both also indecent act? How the FA weigh which one is more indecent than the other? FA should standardize it like straight red n double yellow suspension.. keyword : camera This post has been edited by SGSuser: Dec 29 2011, 12:53 AM |
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 01:15 AM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
|
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 02:15 AM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
QUOTE 389. We remind ourselves that the test for a breach of Rule E3(1) is an objective test. That means that it is for us to form our own view as to whether Mr Suarez's words or behaviour were abusive or insulting. It is not necessary for the FA to prove that Mr Suarez intended his words or behaviour to be abusive or insulting. We are concerned with whether the words or behaviour were abusive or insulting when used in a football match played in England under the FA Rules. Mr McCormick accepted that we should apply standards that we consider should be applicable to games played under the jurisdiction of the FA. We are not deciding whether the words or behaviour would have been abusive or insulting if used in a match in Uruguay. Nevertheless, we have taken account of the fact that the words were said in Spanish by a Uruguayan player to a French player who speaks Spanish. We have also had regard to the Spanish language expert evidence about how particular uses of "negro" and comments using "negro" would or might be understood in Uruguay. However, ultimately our task is to decide whether in our view the words or behaviour were abusive or insulting in the circumstances in which they took place in this match played in England under the FA Rules. 390. Mr Suarez used the word "negro" in his comments to Mr Evra because Mr Evra's skin colour is black. In our judgment, Mr Suarez's words were insulting when he used the word "negro" in each of the comments to Mr Evra which we have identified in paragraph 388 above. QUOTE Discussion and conclusions on penalty 426. We approached the issue of penalty in the following way. The entry point 427. In accordance with Rule E3(2), we considered the imposition of an increased sanction. Rule E3(2) directs us to take into account as an entry point, this being Mr Suarez's first offence, a sanction that is double that which the Commission would have applied had that aggravating factor of colour not been present. 428. In considering what sanction the Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor of colour not been present, we note Paragraph 8(d) of the Disciplinary Procedures which provides for an automatic two-match suspension if a player is sent off for insulting language. Thus, a player who used insulting language, which did not include any reference to ethnic origin, colour or race, would receive an automatic two-match suspension. 107 429. Rule E3(2) then directs us to consider, as an entry point, a sanction that is double the automatic two match suspension for insulting behaviour on account of the presence of the aggravating factor of a reference to colour. Doubling the automatic two-match suspension would result in a four-match suspension. We decided that an entry point of a four-match suspension was appropriate in this case in line with the guidance in Rule E3(2). 430. We then considered the factors that supported a greater penalty than the entry point of a four-match suspension ("aggravating factors"). 431. The first aggravating factor was the number of times Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros". The entry point of a four-match suspension could apply in a case where the alleged offender had used insulting words including a reference to colour once only during a match. We have found that Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times in his exchanges with Mr Evra. It happened, also, in a number of phases. First, there were the exchanges in the goalmouth. Secondly, there was the exchange just before the referee spoke to the players. Thirdly, there was the exchange just after the referee had spoken to the players. Whilst we recognised that the exchanges occurred over only a twominute spell in the second half of the match, there were multiple uses of the insulting words by Mr Suarez. 432. The second aggravating factor was what Mr Suarez said when using the insulting words. He did not simply use the word "negro" to address Mr Evra. He did that, but he also said that he had kicked Mr Evra because he was black, and that he did not talk to blacks. Even if Mr Suarez said these things in the heat of the moment without really meaning them, nevertheless this was more than just calling Mr Evra "negro". According to the Spanish language experts, the uses would have been regarded as racially offensive in Uruguay. 433. The third aggravating factor was the context in which Mr Suarez used the insulting words. The context was of an acrimonious exchange, which included Mr Suarez pinching Mr Evra's skin and putting his hand on the back of his head, both of which we found were an attempt by Mr Suarez to wind up Mr Evra. Although we have found that the pinching itself was not insulting behaviour nor did it refer to Mr Evra's colour, such physical 108 contact as part of a confrontation in which the insulting words were used served to aggravate the misconduct. 434. The fourth aggravating factor was the fact that the FA has promoted campaigns to root out all forms of unacceptable behaviour related to a person's ethnic origin, colour or race in football, such as the "Kick It Out" campaign. Mr Suarez knew or ought to have known that his behaviour was contrary to the message of those campaigns and unacceptable. 435. The fifth aggravating factor was that the insulting words were targeted by Mr Suarez at one particular black player, Mr Evra, who Mr Suarez intended should hear the words. It was not a case of a comment or comments directed at no-one in particular. Rather the words were directed at Mr Evra in the context of an argument in which Mr Suarez was attempting to wind up Mr Evra. We accept that Mr Evra was angry and upset during the remainder of the game and at the end of it as a result of Mr Suarez using the insulting words. QUOTE Conclusions on penalty 441. The use by a footballer of insulting words, which include reference to another player's colour, is wholly unacceptable. It is wrong in principle. It is also wrong because footballers, such as Mr Suarez, are looked up to and admired by a great many football fans, especially young fans. If professional footballers use racially insulting language on a football pitch, this is likely to have a corrosive effect on young football fans, some of whom are the professional footballers of the future. It also has a potentially damaging effect on the wider football community and society generally. Every professional footballer should be able to play competitive football in the knowledge that references to the colour of his skin will not be tolerated. The same goes for all levels of football. Those who are victims of misconduct of this nature should know that, if they complain and their complaint is upheld, the FA will impose an appropriate penalty which reflects the gravity of this type of misconduct. 442. There is no tariff set down for penalty in such cases. There is the guidance in Rule E3(2) to which we have referred. Having heard the evidence over several days and made our detailed findings, we have weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors against each other. Having done so, in our judgment an appropriate and proportionate penalty is an eight-match suspension, a fine of £40,000 and a warning as to future conduct. 443. As for the length of the suspension, we concluded that a four-match ban, which was the entry point under Rule E3(2), would be too low and would not reflect the gravity of the misconduct. Mr Suarez's behaviour was far more serious than a single use of the word 110 "negro" to address Mr Evra in a way which would be considered inoffensive in Uruguay. If that was all that Mr Suarez had done, and we had found the Charge proved, the penalty would have been less than we have imposed. 444. Ultimately, this is not a matter of mathematical calculation, but a matter for the exercise of our discretion in the light of all the circumstances. We considered a lower suspension; we considered a greater suspension. We concluded that an eight-match suspension was appropriate and proportionate, reflecting the seriousness of the misconduct, balanced against the mitigation that was urged on us. 445. We also fined Mr Suarez £40,000. In doing so, we took account of the information that was placed before us about his weekly salary. We considered this to be appropriate and proportionate in the light of Mr Suarez's misconduct. 446. We also warned Mr Suarez as to his future conduct. This is customary where misconduct charges are upheld, although we did not impose it simply as a matter of course. We considered it appropriate and proportionate to warn him not to repeat this misconduct. Stay of the eight-match suspension 447. Regulation 8.9 of the Disciplinary Regulations provides that unless the Commission determines otherwise, a penalty shall come into effect immediately at the date of the announcement of the decision. 448. Once we had announced our decision on penalty, Mr McCormick applied for a stay of the eight-match suspension. He pointed out that Mr Suarez has until 14 days after the date of the written reasons for the decision in which to appeal. He would not be in a position properly to decide whether to appeal until he received the Commission's reasons for its decision. However, if Mr Suarez served his suspension immediately, that would be unfair in the event of a successful appeal. 449. We could see the force of this submission. Accordingly, we ordered a stay of the eightmatch suspension pursuant to Regulation 8.11 of the Disciplinary Regulations until 111 (1) the expiry of the 14-day period from receipt of our written reasons in which Mr Suarez has a right of appeal against this decision, if no appeal is lodged during this period, (2) the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision, if an appeal is lodged during the period for appealing, or (3) written notification to the Football Association of any decision by Mr Suarez not to appeal, if served prior to the expiry of the period for appealing. 450. We also deemed Mr McCormick's application for a stay of the suspension pending any appeal following receipt of our reasons to be an application for written reasons pursuant to Regulation 9.3 of the Disciplinary Regulations. In the absence of a request for written reasons from either party, written reasons are not required and are not usually provided to the parties. FA's been kind enough QUOTE Mitigating factors 436. We also considered the mitigating factors. The first mitigating factor was that Mr Suarez had a clean record in relation to charges of this type. 437. The second mitigating factor was that Mr Evra started the confrontation in the goalmouth and Mr Suarez reacted to it. It is important to point out that Mr Evra's conduct in starting the confrontation was in response to being fouled, which involved being kicked on a knee which had caused him trouble in the past. Mr Evra did not touch Mr Suarez and, whilst he used an offensive phrase which Mr Suarez did not hear, Mr Evra did not use any words which referred to Mr Suarez's ethnic origin, colour, race or nationality. Nevertheless, he was the initiator of the confrontation at this moment. 438. The third mitigating factor concerns Mr Suarez's personal situation in terms of his family, friends and those who look up to him, especially in Uruguay. We recognise that his behaviour during the match is likely to become widely known as a result of our decision with the consequent embarrassment and personal difficulty for him. 109 439. The fourth mitigating factor is Mr Suarez's charitable work, especially through the South Africa football project. We recognise that Mr Suarez has made a valuable contribution through that project, although a player who does so should be especially careful not to undermine the principle underlying such a project by his own behaviour on a football pitch. 440. The fifth mitigating factor is that we believe that Mr Suarez has learned a lesson through the experience of these proceedings. He told us that he would not use the word "negro" on a football pitch in England in the future and it would be highly surprising if he did so. » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « This post has been edited by SGSuser: Jan 1 2012, 02:50 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 02:47 PM
Return to original view | Post
#7
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
215. It was accepted by both Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick in closing submissions that this is not simply a case of one person's word against another.
|
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 02:59 PM
Return to original view | Post
#8
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
QUOTE(REDShaun @ Jan 1 2012, 02:53 PM) LOL quoting from a report taken to be sided with one persons account what probably happened? really? LOL. It's not like the report did not state the reasons why the panel believed Evra's account of the incident was more likely. The fact they put that out there already shows they are defending against it. Mr McCormick was Suarez's representative fyi. |
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 03:17 PM
Return to original view | Post
#9
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
lmao...You really think FA could simply put such nonsense in without actual consent from both parties that, which in this case was Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick...rofl
they didn't really judge the case based on a person's word did they? both player's statements were taken, along with teammates and club personnels. All were analysed before reaching a conclusion. Suarez was inconsistent, changed his story, was proven to have lied at least once in his initial statement. Now tell me why FA was more inclined towards accepting Evra's statements. Added on January 1, 2012, 3:19 pm QUOTE(REDShaun @ Jan 1 2012, 03:05 PM) haha whatever mate. there's 3 sides to a story- Suarez's, Evra's, and the truth. if u seek only the truth, and nothing but the absolute truth, then only God knowsThis post has been edited by SGSuser: Jan 1 2012, 03:19 PM |
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 03:39 PM
Return to original view | Post
#10
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
haha go on mate..i gave my reasons based on what i read anyway, and like i said suarez was inconsistent and had actually lied. what if evra lied? then by all means he's a liar..what if he didnt? wouldnt it be injustice if evra gets branded as a liar when all the things he said was the truth? well at least we know suarez did lie, and that's what mattered
innocent? hahaha! fact of the matter is, suarez was never innocent from the moment he admitted using the word "negro". whether he had the worse intention or not, is what's being judged most. so if there's no possible way of proving intent, then there's no point for many of the court cases we know of everyday. everyone can get away easily by saying "I didn't meant that!" |
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 04:04 PM
Return to original view | Post
#11
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
QUOTE(REDShaun @ Jan 1 2012, 03:46 PM) yep well to each his own then. your first statement already reinforce what i mean by a he say/she say situation. no one knows, infact only the 2 of them and as you put it, only God. You choose to believe Suarez did lie, i choose to believe he had a less grasp of the English language. lol...too bad that isnt how this world works..many guilty ppl escaped jail too You believe what you will, it's all in a matter of opinions, just like the report, it's to justify the FA's opinions leading to the verdict. The probably's and apparently's and most likely's will still mar the report. but then again, we choose to believe what we will, even when only the 2 of them and God knows it for sure. and how many innocent people are in jail becos of a baseless intent that could not be proven yet through human judgement a verdict was still made? though i do have to agree with the saying innocent until proven guilty...suarez's was proven guilty already by the FA panel, so i rest my case |
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 04:14 PM
Return to original view | Post
#12
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
what's wrong with me being lawyer or not? lol...
im never fond of fighting for "justice" anyway |
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 04:21 PM
Return to original view | Post
#13
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
though i have to say, this time, justice has been served
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 10:57 PM
Return to original view | Post
#14
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
|
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 11:18 PM
Return to original view | Post
#15
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
tapi suarez tidak terdengar pun
kalau aku berbisik jahat di belakang engkau, takkan aku nak minta maaf sedangkan kau tidak tahu? |
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 11:27 PM
Return to original view | Post
#16
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
dah la...x yah butthurt lagi, complain banyak2 pun takkan kurangkan ban...tahu salah mengaku je lah
|
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 11:32 PM
Return to original view | Post
#17
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
alah...mcm tu semua org di dunia takkan bersalah lah...pandai ko fikir mcm tok, aku pun suka kalau jadi reality, lawak btol
hahahahahahahahahahaha |
|
|
Jan 1 2012, 11:36 PM
Return to original view | Post
#18
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
QUOTE(dlct87 @ Jan 1 2012, 11:33 PM) must master the skill of picking one line out of the 115 page report and make it somethg big, if nt argument cant win la Added on January 1, 2012, 11:38 pmeh dah salah ko ni...rooney mmg ada mengaku...tapi kisah si gerrard dan giggs tu, aku pon x berapa ingat lah hahaha This post has been edited by SGSuser: Jan 1 2012, 11:38 PM |
|
|
Jan 2 2012, 04:34 PM
Return to original view | Post
#19
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
QUOTE(solstice818 @ Jan 2 2012, 03:59 PM) You are right. I dont bother reading it at all. I dont waste my time reading 150 pages rubbish. 2 years ago, they said Evra not credible and now they came out with statement saying Evra is very credible shit. Sorry, I dont buy it. no wonder The only reason I defend Suarez, is not because he came from the other country, or any other reason. The sole reason I defend him is because of the doubtful proceeding carried out. I failed to understand how Evra's evidence alone convicted Suarez. In that case, like Balotelli tweeted, the whole manu squad harassed him, will the FA ban them as well? as for the bolded part, like i've said before, to summarise it, Suarez was inconsistent, changed his story, was proven to have lied at least once in his initial statement and couldn't produce a version of events that matched up with the video evidence. Evra's was consistent and did not conflict with the video evidence. the FA panel did not judge based on a coin toss to see who is more credible than the other..they analysed thoroughly with the help of language experts before coming to a conclusion This post has been edited by SGSuser: Jan 2 2012, 04:37 PM |
|
|
Jan 2 2012, 07:58 PM
Return to original view | Post
#20
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,449 posts Joined: Jul 2010 From: 4.2105° N, 101.9758° E |
so air mood is suppose to prove that balotelli has no twitter account now?
this is getting hilarious |
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: | 0.0270sec
0.63
6 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 22nd December 2025 - 03:26 PM |