We eat and drink while tomorrow they die - The Other Teams Thread [R]

kanonier · Dec 31, 2011

We were in need of a new Other Teams thread. Carry on.

antifan · Dec 31, 2011

I found this amusing:

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/blogs/mirror-football-blog/Christmas-football-gift-guide-The-worst-gifts-from-Premier-League-club-shops-picture-special-article844899.html

thebigman · Dec 31, 2011

Clubs just stick their logo on tat and sell it at crazy prices

lamb · Dec 31, 2011

the swiss fa agreed to sanctions against sion, meaning celtic are back into the europa league and man utd remain out of the cl.

Darth Norteño · Dec 31, 2011

Great title; I was struggling for one, but none was forthcoming. Rovers are up 1-0 on ManUre; I caught the replay of the penalty incident, and I wonder if Mike Dean forgot that Rovers were attacking that end and not the Mancs.

generals soccer · Dec 31, 2011

Blackburn wins at Old Trafford 3-2. Good start to the day.

charlie15 · Dec 31, 2011

Nice Xmas gifts from Blackburn this week. A tie at Liverpool and a win @ MU.
They spoiled SAF Bday today.

PS. Blackburn reserve keeper Bunn has been sensational at Anfield and Old Trafford. I like N'Zonzi too. He would not be out of place at Arsenal.

Jamooky · Dec 31, 2011

Happy Birthday, Fergie!

kanonier · Dec 31, 2011

antifan said: ↑

I found this amusing:

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/blogs/mirror-football-blog/Christmas-football-gift-guide-The-worst-gifts-from-Premier-League-club-shops-picture-special-article844899.html
Click to expand...

I actually kind of like the van Persie action figure.

thebigman · Dec 31, 2011

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wwREHz7k5s"]Shame On a Negrito - YouTube[/ame]

robbed form the utd board

hillarious lol

kanonier · Dec 31, 2011

What a luxury it is for Man United to have Berbatov as mostly a bench/rotation player. Guy gets a run and scores 6 goals in 3/5 goals in 2 games.

88AgentS · Dec 31, 2011

Villa up on Chelsea right now, 2-1.

generals soccer · Dec 31, 2011

Chelsea and United lose, Spurs draw. Great day.

DaPrince84 · Dec 31, 2011

generals soccer said: ↑

Chelsea and United lose, Spurs draw. Great day.
Click to expand...

Dooglas · Dec 31, 2011

chelsea is going downhill pretty quick. unless avb jumps in the january window im seeing liverpool and spurs ahead of them at the end of the season.

i think the blackburn result was a blip for manU, we will see them surge in the new year.

expecting spurs, arsenal, and chelsea to be players in the january window.

chelsea have:
wolves
sunderland
norwich
swansea
man u

spurs:
west brom
everton
wolves
man city

arsenal
fulham
swansea
man u
bolton

liverpool
man city
stoke
bolton
wolves

man u
newcastle
bolton
arsenal
stoke

the beginning of the year looks really manageable for the top of the table. realistically barring injury every team should get 9 points from 4, while half of the teams will take either 10 or 12. so, we could see the top four shift around quite a bit in the first five games of the year.

should be interesting.

DaPrince84 · Dec 31, 2011

The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he just called me a f**king black".
Click to expand...

Page 97 onwards is the actual verdict (388)

Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows:
(1) In response to Mr Evra's question "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in golpe" ("f**king hell, why did you kick me"), Mr Suarez said "Porque tu eres
negro" ("Because you are black").
(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada" ("say it to me again, I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "No hablo con los negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada" ("okay, now I think I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
(4) When the referee blew his whistle to stop the corner being taken, Mr Suarez used the word "negro" to Mr Evra.
(5) After the referee had spoken to the players for a second time, and Mr Evra had said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, Mr Suarez said "Por que, negro?". (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. (391)

Taking each of these comments in turn, and referring to the English translation only in this paragraph (the full Spanish comment being set out in paragraph 388 above):
(1) Mr Suarez used insulting words in telling Mr Evra that he kicked him because he was black. We do not believe this requires any elaboration. The Spanish language experts, whose evidence was accepted by Mr Suarez, said that this comment 99 would be interpreted in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially offensive.
(2) Mr Suarez used insulting words in telling Mr Evra that he did not speak to
blacks. Again, this requires no elaboration. The Spanish language experts said
effectively the same about this comment as they did about the previous
comment.
(3) Mr Suarez used insulting words in saying to Mr Evra "okay, blackie, blackie,
blackie". Here, Mr Suarez was using the word "negro" as part of their argument
in which he was trying to wind up Mr Evra. The Spanish language experts said
that in the context of the previous usages of "negro" and "negros", this usage
would retain its provocative and offensive connotations, even though, in a
different context, the phrase "Dale, negro" could easily be inoffensive in
Uruguay.
(4) Mr Suarez used insulting words when he used the word "negro" when speaking to Mr Evra just before they were spoken to by the referee for the first time. We do not know what Mr Suarez said to which he attached the word "negro". However, given that it was said as part of the continuing confrontation and argument between the two players, and following the three previous comments when the word was used in an insulting way, we find that it was also insulting on this fourth occasion. For a Uruguayan to address a black opponent who understands Spanish as "negro" in a football match in England, in the context in which the word was used, is insulting.
(5) Mr Suarez used insulting words when he said to Mr Evra "Why, black?" after the referee had spoken to them for the second time and Mr Evra had said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him. Again, given that this was said as part of the continuing confrontation and argument between the two players, it followed the four previous comments using the word “negro” and, furthermore, given that Mr Evra had made clear that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, in all the circumstances the use of the word was insulting on this occasion also. 100 (392)

In total, Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times in the penalty area. On each occasion, the words were insulting. On each occasion, Mr Suarez breached Rule E3(1). Accordingly, the Charge is proved. (393)

Having found the Charge proved in that Mr Suarez's use of the word "negro" or "negros" was insulting, we did not find it necessary to consider whether they were also abusive. (394)

We make clear that the Charge was not proved in respect of Mr Suarez pinching Mr Evra's skin. Whilst we considered that action to be reprehensible, we were not persuaded that it amounted to abusive or insulting behaviour within the meaning of those words in Rule E3(1). Accordingly, no issue arose as to whether any breach of Rule E3(1) by pinching included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race. In the event, this decision made no difference to our finding that the Charge was proved. It might conceivably have made a difference to penalty had we found a breach of Rule E3(1) by pinching and that this included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race. However, that situation did not arise.
Click to expand...

mmm hmm!

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Discipli...Written Reasons of Regulatory Commission.ashx

impalemeplz · Dec 31, 2011

wow strachan is laying into terry for a luiz ********up. lol.

lamb · Dec 31, 2011

DaPrince84 said: ↑

mmm hmm!

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Discipli...Written Reasons of Regulatory Commission.ashx
Click to expand...

i got to page 68 and, to be brutally honest, it's as clearcut as mud.
he "might" have meant this, he "might" have meant that. meh.
it "might" be an insult, it "might" not be an insult. meh.
really it seems more about how it is interpreted by both sides, and that seems to have been guessed at by the fa, which, to be honest, isn't particularly "proven". did suarez mean it insultingly or not? only he knows for sure, but the fa have found him guilty not on "proof" but on "probability".
on an admittedly unfinished read of the statement, the fa have judged the pinching gesture (after evra has said he will hit suarez) as not intended to calm evra down, and thus all the exchange as able to be interpreted as confrontational (for want of a better way of interpreting it).

kanonier · Dec 31, 2011

lamb said: ↑

i got to page 68 and, to be brutally honest, it's as clearcut as mud.
he "might" have meant this, he "might" have meant that. meh.
it "might" be an insult, it "might" not be an insult. meh.
really it seems more about how it is interpreted by both sides, and that seems to have been guessed at by the fa, which, to be honest, isn't particularly "proven". did suarez mean it insultingly or not? only he knows for sure.
Click to expand...

I think the section Prince posted deals with that, though -- it talks about how it's not their job to interpret the meaning, but to look more objectively at what he said. Which, objectively, sounds pretty terrible. Even if you say he was just "kidding around," that's not acceptable.

Seems like the FA has done well here. I was skeptical at first but now that the case is laid out it seems that they've done right.

Makes me curious what will happen with Terry.

DaPrince84 · Dec 31, 2011

kanonier said: ↑

I think the section Prince posted deals with that, though -- it talks about how it's not their job to interpret the meaning, but to look more objectively at what he said. Which, objectively, sounds pretty terrible. Even if you say he was just "kidding around," that's not acceptable.

Seems like the FA has done well here. I was skeptical at first but now that the case is laid out it seems that they've done right.

Makes me curious what will happen with Terry.
Click to expand...

not only that, but Suarez's inconsistency, and Liverpool's inconsistency was a big reason for hte punishment.

they even hired interpreters to get a clear account.

lamb · Dec 31, 2011

DaPrince84 said: ↑

they even hired interpreters to get a clear account.
Click to expand...

well, since the whole thing is about interpretation then you'd like to have thought they'd have done that! it would be just a tad incompetent if they hadn't.

antiwhinger · Dec 31, 2011

kanonier said: ↑

I think the section Prince posted deals with that, though -- it talks about how it's not their job to interpret the meaning, but to look more objectively at what he said. Which, objectively, sounds pretty terrible. Even if you say he was just "kidding around," that's not acceptable.

Seems like the FA has done well here. I was skeptical at first but now that the case is laid out it seems that they've done right.

Makes me curious what will happen with Terry.
Click to expand...

Eight games seems to be a warning, because stuff like that deserves a half season long ban -- the NFL equivalent of a 8 game ban. I can't believe the FA would allow that kind of behaviour (if it did in fact happen) to persist in the most watched, most profitable and biggest golden goose of a league in the world.

shame on you saurez, and shame on you liverpool.

kanonier · Dec 31, 2011

antiwhinger said: ↑

Eight games seems to be a warning, because stuff like that deserves a half season long ban -- the NFL equivalent of a 8 game ban. I can't believe the FA would allow that kind of behaviour (if it did in fact happen) to persist in the most watched, most profitable and biggest golden goose of a league in the world.

shame on you saurez, and shame on you liverpool.
Click to expand...

Yikes: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1875726

I'm hoping at least one Liverpool poster will post something good in that thread.

DaPrince84 · Dec 31, 2011

reading that report, Suarez should have gotten more than 8 matches. I hope Liverpool appeals this.

lamb · Dec 31, 2011

the thing is, and i think this is what got suarez banned more than anything, despite his lack of understanding of how certain words are interpreted in translation or mistranslation, and maybe not meaning to insult (who knows for sure?), evra clearly did feel insulted (despite his own misinterpretations that made it worse), so any ambiguity left suarez open to punishment, albeit one made on probability rather than proven fact. saying that, that same ambiguity should also mean the punishment can't be as harsh as a proven offence would be.