• Liverpool Message Board

  • OldBill OldBill Dec 31, 2011 20:31 Flag

    FA Report

    I've only read 50 pages so far but it looks to me like a lot of he said / she said wrapped up in a lot of legalese (almost). I think this could drag on for quite a while.
    It's still not proven and there are a few anomolies in there.
    Whether the term 'n1ggers' or 'negro' were used?
    Was it 5 or 7 or 10 times? (exaggeration is another word for lying and not knowing is not conclusive evidence)
    No-one apparently backs up what was said - they are just taking it on say-so.
    Why aren't there more witnesses than the 2 players involved?
    Why did Marriner hear nothing - when he was focussed on the 2 of them jostling in the penalty box?
    Why did he rip up Dowd's notes if he did not think this was a serious issue

    I'm really disappointed this has got this far between 2 great clubs & the inference (on BBC teletext) that Suarez has tarnished the English game is a statement too far - the FA has done that itself.

    The even bigger disappointment is that this is/was a football game. Not any more.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I see you missed the part about video evidence and also the part where Suarez admitted he pinched Evra, which laughably he tried to say was to diffuse the situation. Winding up players by pinching them is something that only the lowest of the low do and not something that would have gone down well with the Liverpool legends of the past.

    • Ive read roughly 2/3 pages and gave up, a lot of bibble babble that the FA are coming up with, he said/she said nonsence deemed to be the gospell truth......

      Rubbish

      United players words are being taken over a Liverpool players simple as that......

      Garbage.

      YNWA Luis Suarez.

    • Seems to me we've only one option..

      Thats sell Suarez in the January window..

      Whomever is willing to take him?

    • So read the whole thing. It basically comes down to Suarez's evidence being not credible in a variety of ways, and Evra's complaints being credible and, at least, partially confirmed by the statements of Suarez, and Comolli.

      To me, the FA report is detailed, thorough, extremely well argued and convincing. I cannot see that Suarez has any chance of a successful appeal other than on the size of the penalty.

      It also nails a number of inaccurate allegations made on this forum about Evra. In particular the claim, lent on heavily by a number of you, that Evra didn't make any complaint of racial abuse during the game.

      I hope Liverpool fans take the FA report in a better spirit than united fans took the FA report into the "battle of the bridge". Their response of denial and abuse of the FA showed they had no interest in dealing with it in anything other than a completely partisan and self-interested way, to the point of arguing that black was white.


      Robert

      • 1 Reply to Robert M
      • Hey Robert

        Ignore my question on the other forum - you've answered it here.

        Could you elaborate on "It basically comes down to Suarez's evidence being not credible in a variety of ways".

        The headline example I see reported (on the very reliable Yahoo blog!) is

        "For example Mr Suarez said he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an attempt to defuse the situation. He also said his use of the word 'negro' to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence,"

        Were there others?

    • :-)

      Yep - particularly interested in the "two weeks for abuse". Consistency problems for anyone who can be seen mouthing "f*ck off" to another player/official then? Can't see it myself.

    • Sorry, I have a tendency to write weeks when I mean matches, and I have you quoting it now.

      I was surprised by it because I don't recall it ever happening, except that was what Rooney got for mouthing off at the camera last season. But the report talks about players who are red carded for abusive language or behaviour, neither of which apply to Rooney or Suarez. Both came from complaints after the event.

      So, yes, it's interesting that referees can give a red card/two match penalty for abuse but never use it.


      Robert

    • Oh dear. Still repeating this rubbish? You don't want to believe everything you read on the Liverpool website.


      Robert

    • What baffles me and still does. Is that verbal abuse is considered more serious than violent abuse..

      When a player punches or stamps or kicks another player,they don't get as a lengrthy ban as Saurez will get, as he only used words.. Yet violent physical abuse could result in the end of a players career..does that get the same length of ban.

      Very unlikely..
      The inconsstiency lies with the F'A's own punishments..

      Whatever happened to "sticks & stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"?

    • The standard FA penalty for verbal abuse is a two match ban. This is almost never given to players as far as I can see. You often see players swearing at each other or at the ref and no action taken. So in that sense the FA takes it less seriously than violent play.

      The only two cases I can think of when this two match ban has been given are Rooney last season and Suarez now. Both came from complaints after the match.

      Suarez was given two matches for abuse. This was doubled for it having the racial element and doubled again for it being repeated in the match. That's how they got to eight matches.


      Robert

    • In fact so much so that it is quite suprising that anyone knows anything about anything anymore.............but the FA are absolutely convinced that Evra's statements are spot on but Suarez's are not acceptable to wit £40000 and 8 games.....it beggers belief!

    • View More Messages