Liverpool F.c.

[carmine]

On the basis of poor form or not compatable?

on the basis of them playing in exactly the same position and getting in each other's way.

So both totally unable to be adapted then?

[StevieH]

On the basis of poor form or not compatable?

on the basis of them playing in exactly the same position and getting in each other's way.

So both totally unable to be adapted then?

i think so yeah. torres at liverpool in a 4-2-3-1 with gerrard behind him was devastating. when spain attempted to play torres up front in a two with david villa, it just didn't work.

adebayor's another who plays best as a point man with speedy merchants wide of him and van der vaart in behind him too i think.

[Devil]

Seems we could get news on the Evra Suarez case very soon.

This was a piece in the Telegraph yesterday - never heard about this bit before - Evra accusing the Ref Marriner of also being racists for giving a yellow card ?

Despite Marriner's intervention, Evra remained furious. When he caught Kuyt two minutes later, Evra responded to Marriner's caution by allegedly claiming: "You're only booking me because I'm black.''

*******************************

http://www.telegraph....-of-cases.html

By Henry Winter, Football Correspondent11:00PM GMT 14 Dec 2011

In a North-Western hotel suite off the M6, three wise men are sitting in judgment on Luis Suárez, attempting to unravel one of the most complicated disciplinary cases ever dealt with by the Football Association.

They must rule on linguistic issues, cultural differences, body language while ensuring that the subtleties of the story are not lost amid FA politicking.

The charge facing Suárez is that he "used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" towards Manchester United's Patrice Evra at Anfield on Oct 15. It is "alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra", the FA adds.

Evra, who is adamant he was racially abused 10 times, has the backing of his manager Sir Alex Ferguson and his club.

Suárez, who will admit using the word "negro" once, will argue that it is a descriptive expression, and not deemed offensive in his native Uruguay, and that it is similar to Dirk Kuyt getting called "blondie" by the South American players at Anfield.

Suárez categorically denies the racism charges and enjoys the total support of his manager, Kenny Dalglish, and Liverpool's owners, John W Henry and Tom Werner.

The Americans will submit testimony supporting their player while Dalglish will attend the hearing in person.

Liverpool are also expected to use evidence from a linguistic expert.In defending Suárez, Liverpool are expected to mention the incident between Evra and Chelsea's groundstaff in 2008 which culminated in an FA hearing which concluded that "we find Mr Evra's account exaggerated and unreliable".

This is a case of deep detail between two well-known footballers and a broad picture of a governing body engaged in a long-running feud with Fifa president Sepp Blatter. The three men on the panel must guard against letting the FA's desire to be seen to be strong on racism, so highlighting one of Blatter's many weak points, clouding their judgment. Reputations are at stake.

The experienced three-man panel, which gathered on Wednesday afternoon, is chaired by Paul Goulding QC, who comes from the same Blackstones chambers as Adam Lewis, the barrister employed by the FA in Wayne Rooney's successful Uefa appeal last week.

Goulding, a qualified FA coach, appeared for Jean Tigana in his successful claim following his sacking as Fulham manager and has advised Premier League clubs and players in the past.

Also involved is Brian Jones, the chairman of Sheffield and Hallamshire FA who wrote to all his county members on June 20, stressing the need to fight discrimination. The third member is Denis Smith, well respected within the game following his time as a defender at Stoke City and managing clubs such as Sunderland and Oxford United.

Two representatives from the FA secretariat are present but Goulding, Jones and Smith will rule on Suárez, possibly on Friday.

The allegations centre around the second half of the 1-1 draw at Anfield. Events started in the 57th minute when Suárez fouled Evra, tempers really flaring at an ensuing Liverpool corner. Amid some pushing and shoving, Evra demanded to know from Suárez why he had kicked him. Suárez replied that things happen in games and to move on.

It is here that Evra claims Suárez first became racially abusive; the Frenchman was subsequently quoted on the French station Canal Plus, saying that "there are cameras, you can see him [suárez] say a certain word to me at least 10 times''. Suárez categorically denies using that word, negro, in the goalmouth.

Watching events from the press box, it was pretty clear that Evra was incensed yet the players around seemed unaware of any dispute. The testimony of those closest, United's David de Gea and Liverpool's Dirk Kuyt, will play a part.

There is an expectancy that it will be confirmed to the panel that nothing offensive was heard in the goalmouth.

Shortly after the corner, referee Andre Marriner called the pair together for a lecture. Suárez apologised and attempted to pat the United full-back on the head. "Don't touch me, you South American,'' Evra is alleged to have said. To which, the Uruguayan replied: "Porque, Negro?''

Suárez's defence rests on the argument that such expressions are commonplace in South America. It is considered offensive, according to Suárez's defence, only when used with a pejorative adjective or when the tone is aggressive. Footage of Suárez's body language will be scrutinised by the panel.

This will inevitably form part of Liverpool's case, that when Suárez did use the word "negro" he was not in aggressive mood, more apologetic towards Evra.

Yet Suárez must prove he was unaware of the sensitivity towards the word "negro" in England. The former Ajax player will also have to explain why, having lived for three years in Holland, he had still to grasp northern European intolerance to such a word.

Despite Marriner's intervention, Evra remained furious. When he caught Kuyt two minutes later, Evra responded to Marriner's caution by allegedly claiming: "You're only booking me because I'm black.''

Suárez is bemused by the case. "I called him something his team-mates at Manchester call him, and even they were surprised by his reaction,'' Suárez claimed in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

Much will depend on whether Liverpool can convince the panel that Suárez does not have racist tendencies.

They are expected to point out that Suárez made a video in South African townships during the 2010 World Cup called "From the Streets to the Fields". He hails football's "tremendous power of joining people, without any skin, religion and social discrimination".

Liverpool's work in combating racism is sure to be mentioned. As is their owners'. Henry has been instrumental in celebrating the life of Jackie Robinson, the legendary black baseballer, at the Boston Red Sox which he owns.

In focusing on increasing diversity at Fenway Park and funding school scholarships for those from disadvantaged parts of Boston, Henry told National Public Radio in October that "we have to make a statement not just in baseball but in our community that diversity is an issue that hasn't been fully addressed in the past and certainly has to be fully addressed.

"I think it's important what your actions are. That will really define the franchise going forward''.

Liverpool's reputation would be damaged if Suáarez were found guilty of such a heinous offence.

That is why the panel must stay clear-eyed, ignoring FA tensions with Blatter over racism. Goulding, Jones and Smith must focus on one man's word against another, and whether to accept cultural differences.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Devil

[carmine]

Evra's already accused someone of racism but the charges were thrown out i believe. Can't wait for the same to happen again. Horrible little sh*t he is.

[Penkoprod]

I see Evra has resorted to playing the race card, to explain away his booking !!!!!

[Abrak]

I see Evra has resorted to playing the race card, to explain away his booking !!!!!

allegedly!!

[carmine]

I see Evra has resorted to playing the race card, to explain away his booking !!!!!

I'd say so yes.

[StevieH]

Evra's already accused someone of racism but the charges were thrown out i believe. Can't wait for the same to happen again. Horrible little sh*t he is.

done it a couple of times, last go round with the chelsea steward at stamford bridge. think he's a nasty little cun_t to be honest. soundbite from though.

i don't know where henry winter has got this "You're only booking me because I'm black.'' and i'm amazed if it happened that it's not been leaked before now.

[rixalex]

Evra's already accused someone of racism but the charges were thrown out i believe. Can't wait for the same to happen again. Horrible little sh*t he is.

So you are either fully convinced that Suarez could not have possibly said the things Evra alleges, or you don't know, but are happy enough for someone to be racially abused if it is someone you think deserves it?

[carmine]

Evra's already accused someone of racism but the charges were thrown out i believe. Can't wait for the same to happen again. Horrible little sh*t he is.

So you are either fully convinced that Suarez could not have possibly said the things Evra alleges, or you don't know, but are happy enough for someone to be racially abused if it is someone you think deserves it?

Evra's proven to be the little boy who cried wolf. Make him prove his "latest" accusation and if he cannot i trust he will be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Have i said he deserves to be racially abused? No. But i find it contemptable that he can make such allegations with so little seeming "proof"

Personally i think he likes to use the race card unless i hear ANY PROOF to make me think otherwise. I also reckon the groundsmen at Chelsea should have brought charges on him for the lies he spilt back then. Pulling the race card out is as bad as being a racist in my book. We've moved off topic but as i said, if he can't prove his accusations he deserves to be dealt with very harshly.

Edited December 15, 2011 by carmine

[rixalex]

Evra's already accused someone of racism but the charges were thrown out i believe. Can't wait for the same to happen again. Horrible little sh*t he is.

So you are either fully convinced that Suarez could not have possibly said the things Evra alleges, or you don't know, but are happy enough for someone to be racially abused if it is someone you think deserves it?

Evra's proven to be the little boy who cried wolf. Make him prove his "latest" accusation and if he cannot i trust he will be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Have i said he deserves to be racially abused? No. But i find it contemptable that he can make such allegations with so little seeming "proof"

Personally i think he likes to use the race card unless i hear ANY PROOF to make me think otherwise. I also reckon the groundsmen at Chelsea should have brought charges on him for the lies he spilt back then. Pulling the race card out is as bad as being a racist in my book. We've moved off topic but as i said, if he can't prove his accusations he deserves to be dealt with very harshly.

I agree that if his allegations are proven baseless, he should be dealt with accordingly, but on the other hand, if they are proven founded, Suarez should be dealt with. At this stage, i have no idea who is in the wrong. As easily as one can cite previous that Evra has for crying wolf, one can cite previous Suarez has - not admittedly for racial abuse (at least not that i know of) - but certainly for losing control of his emotions. So quite how one can be so sure of where the guilt lies - sure enough for you to declare that you "can't wait for the charges to be thrown out" - i really don't understand.

Or maybe i do. You don't like Evra so that is enough for you to know with certainty who is in the wrong.

[MrRed]

Just a reminder here.... Evra has not been charged with anything,Suarez is the one in dock,wasn't to long ago that a few Lfc fans said if it is proved he said something racist then he should be banned.

He has admitted he used the word negro!

Suarez has proved game in game out he is a WUM AND plays to the referee for everything,sorry you mickeys but you are doomed without him and that is why you are putting so much effort and PR into it

Lets hope he gets the book thrown at him always said he was trouble when you signed him up!

[StevieH]

I agree that if his allegations are proven baseless, he should be dealt with accordingly, but on the other hand, if they are proven founded, Suarez should be dealt with. At this stage, i have no idea who is in the wrong. As easily as one can cite previous that Evra has for crying wolf, one can cite previous Suarez has - not admittedly for racial abuse (at least not that i know of) - but certainly for losing control of his emotions. So quite how one can be so sure of where the guilt lies - sure enough for you to declare that you "can't wait for the charges to be thrown out" - i really don't understand.

Or maybe i do. You don't like Evra so that is enough for you to know with certainty who is in the wrong.

i just don't buy it rix. at worst i think it's going to be a case of suarez using a word which has a completely different meaning in south america.

if evra was so incensed and if suarez had called him the 'n' word ten times during the match as evra claims then evra would have gone berserk to the referee during the match. he wouldn't have waited until he was in front of a french tv camera to bring it up. he'd have wanted suarez sending off there and then and / or he would also have decked him.

[rixalex]

But i find it contemptable that he can make such allegations with so little seeming "proof"

Oh, and one more thing, how is it you are privy to the evidence that has been given, to know that he has so little proof? Has the hearing been made public?

On the one hand, you seem to be urging "innocent until proven guilty", and on the other, you seem to be urging "string him up, never liked him anyway".

[rixalex]

if evra was so incensed and if suarez had called him the 'n' word ten times during the match as evra claims then evra would have gone berserk to the referee during the match. he wouldn't have waited until he was in front of a french tv camera to bring it up. he'd have wanted suarez sending off there and then and / or he would also have decked him.

Possibly. Or possibly whilst the game was being played, he was trying to ignore it - as i'm sure his manager would have told him to - and was trying get the sweetest possible revenge that was available to him at that time - winning of the game. It's not after all as if you can just stop playing the game to lodge a formal complaint and air your grievance.

[rixalex]

i just don't buy it rix. at worst i think it's going to be a case of suarez using a word which has a completely different meaning in south america.

LOL. Whatever next?

You know that time when i called you a c_nt? Yeah well, i'm sorry about that and I'm sorry you took it the wrong way, but back where i come from it means "my good fellow". No, it really does!

[StevieH]

Possibly. Or possibly whilst the game was being played, he was trying to ignore it - as i'm sure his manager would have told him to - and was trying get the sweetest possible revenge that was available to him at that time - winning of the game. It's not after all as if you can just stop playing the game to lodge a formal complaint and air your grievance.

same match where evra played injured for a bit then got up kissing his badge in front of the liverpool fans to incite them? yeah good ignoring that. players universally go berserk when there is racial abuse dished out on a pitch, they don't calmly store it up for later when they can get in front of a canal+ camera.

LOL. Whatever next?

You know that time when i called you a c_nt? Yeah well, i'm sorry about that and I'm sorry you took it the wrong way, but back where i come from it means "my good fellow". No, it really does!

you've not been following this that closely then? the word in question all the way down the line has been 'negrito' and its meaning in south america or amongst hispanic races. can mean anything from dude to mate to sweetheart apparently.

[Abrak]

Actually it is peculiarly english to take such a 'black and white' of racism. By definition under US Law a 'crime' must consist of two parts a 'criminal act' and 'criminal intent'. That is the Law.

If you look at racism it tends to be different. By that I mean I know there is racism in football because there are so few black coaches and managers. That is why the 'Rooney rule' has widespread support. People are not intentionally racist but racism occurs so you have 'affirmative action' to prevent it.

Where this is getting totally out of control is this. Racism is one of the greyist crimes there are -varying from something you do without your knowledge to very vile intent. Therefore the policy of 'zero tolerance' that is a 'mantra' makes no sense on the basis that a punishment should fit the crime.

And actually I dont think it is the role of the FA to debate the 'cultural nuances' of the word 'negro'. Football is a sport where the referees decision is usually final 'right' or 'wrong'. That consistency in decisions is not a prerequisite. It is not a Law Court but it is supposed to act in a timely manner.

What is silly is two fold. To the extent that Suarez has admitted to using the word 'negro', if we assume that it wasnt in a particularly malicious manner even if it is unacceptable, it probably isnt a big crime. And secondly do we need for this to take two months in which both sides 'Evra' and 'Suarez' are vilified.

Personally I see a massive mountain and an incredibly small molehill.

[rixalex]

same match where evra played injured for a bit then got up kissing his badge in front of the liverpool fans to incite them? yeah good ignoring that. players universally go berserk when there is racial abuse dished out on a pitch, they don't calmly store it up for later when they can get in front of a canal+ camera.

OK, if you say so, although i'd be interested to know what happens in such cases when what has been said, has been said outside of the ref's earshot. Seems to me, there would be nothing the ref could do whatsoever - certainly not at that moment in time.

you've not been following this that closely then? the word in question all the way down the line has been 'negrito' and its meaning in south america or amongst hispanic races. can mean anything from dude to mate to sweetheart apparently.

Wasn't saying that that was the word Suarez used. Making a joke about a handy way of getting away with calling someone something not nice. Never mind.

[Devil]

1323938157[/url]' post='4913957']

Just a reminder here.... Evra has not been charged with anything,Suarez is the one in dock,wasn't to long ago that a few Lfc fans said if it is proved he said something racist then he should be banned.

He has admitted he used the word negro!

Suarez has proved game in game out he is a WUM AND plays to the referee for everything,sorry you mickeys but you are doomed without him and that is why you are putting so much effort and PR into it

Lets hope he gets the book thrown at him always said he was trouble when you signed him up!

Often thought about the name to describe Westerners in Thailand by Thais - Farang... Most cases you hear it, means absolutely no harm at all infact I think most Thais just know it means someone who is white and not Asian. There are times when it is used to be demeaning to the person

[rixalex]

Often thought about the name to describe Westerners in Thailand by Thais - Farang... Most cases you hear it, means absolutely no harm at all infact I think most Thais just know it means someone who is white and not Asian. There are times when it is used to be demeaning to the person

It's hard to imagine Suarez saying what he said (or is alleged to) for any other purpose than to demean, wouldn't you say?

[rixalex]

Lets hope he gets the book thrown at him always said he was trouble when you signed him up!

In fairness to him, and in fairness to Liverpool for signing him, the trouble he has caused has been much greater in terms of other teams and their efforts to defend against him, than the trouble he has caused for his own team. It is early days though....

[Devil]

1323943431[/url]' post='4914160']

1323942461[/url]' post='4914120']

Often thought about the name to describe Westerners in Thailand by Thais - Farang... Most cases you hear it, means absolutely no harm at all infact I think most Thais just know it means someone who is white and not Asian. There are times when it is used to be demeaning to the person

It's hard to imagine Suarez saying what he said (or is alleged to) for any other purpose than to demean, wouldn't you say?

Thats a bit of a guess isnt it Rix?

You could look at the way when the Ref brought them together Suarez made a nice gesture of patting Evra on the back or head ( sporting handshake for example) only for Evra to just shrug him off and make it known as such.

Can't help feel the way Suarez ran rings around him the whole game made the sensitive type of person Evra is, to react the way he did to the Ref, fans and other Liverpool players - just my opinion of course

Edited December 15, 2011 by Devil

[Abrak]

Often thought about the name to describe Westerners in Thailand by Thais - Farang... Most cases you hear it, means absolutely no harm at all infact I think most Thais just know it means someone who is white and not Asian. There are times when it is used to be demeaning to the person

It's hard to imagine Suarez saying what he said (or is alleged to) for any other purpose than to demean, wouldn't you say?

I would agree a bit like when (or if) Evra referred to Suarez as 'you south american'. The fact is that Thais often use 'farang' in a derogatory manner. 'Khon farang khinniaow maak' and farang is derogatory. But 'Khon farang naaaa laaak' is meant as a compliment. At the end of the day if you can use the word both ways how insulting is it?

[rixalex]

Often thought about the name to describe Westerners in Thailand by Thais - Farang... Most cases you hear it, means absolutely no harm at all infact I think most Thais just know it means someone who is white and not Asian. There are times when it is used to be demeaning to the person

It's hard to imagine Suarez saying what he said (or is alleged to) for any other purpose than to demean, wouldn't you say?

I would agree a bit like when (or if) Evra referred to Suarez as 'you south american'. The fact is that Thais often use 'farang' in a derogatory manner. 'Khon farang khinniaow maak' and farang is derogatory. But 'Khon farang naaaa laaak' is meant as a compliment. At the end of the day if you can use the word both ways how insulting is it?

It is all, i agree, a bit of a grey area. I think though you have to look at the origin and history of the word in question - whatever that word might be - and then on top of that, consider the context in which it was said.

[rixalex]

Thats a bit of a guess isnt it Rix?

You could look at the way when the Ref brought them together Suarez made a nice gesture of patting Evra on the back or head ( sporting handshake for example) only for Evra to just shrug him off and make it known as such.

Can't help feel the way Suarez ran rings around him the whole game made the sensitive type of person Evra is, to react the way he did to the Ref, fans and other Liverpool players - just my opinion of course

I think we are all guessing here, and will continue to be guessing, until the details of the hearing become public.

My point all along has been, don't hang anyone until we know exactly what actually happened. Some people in my opinion have been all to eager to make judgements simply based on who they like or who they don't like.

[StevieH]

Often thought about the name to describe Westerners in Thailand by Thais - Farang... Most cases you hear it, means absolutely no harm at all infact I think most Thais just know it means someone who is white and not Asian. There are times when it is used to be demeaning to the person

It's hard to imagine Suarez saying what he said (or is alleged to) for any other purpose than to demean, wouldn't you say?

demean, wind up, patronise yeah perhaps - racially abuse? i don't think so.

it's total speculation on all of our parts but if he'd genuinely said something outright racist it was evra's job as united captain to report it to the ref during the match so it went in the referee's report to the league. he would know that.

guess we'll find out tomorrow but i'm really expecting it to be a case of mistaken context and misuse of a non-english word than genuine racial abuse. still expect suarez to get a ban though 'cos the league's got it in for him any which way.

[Abrak]

It is all, i agree, a bit of a grey area. I think though you have to look at the origin and history of the word in question - whatever that word might be - and then on top of that, consider the context in which it was said.

Yes but then your argument gets very sticky if you are supposed to look into the 'origin and history' of the word in English shouldnt you also look at the 'origin and history' of the word in Latin America especially as they are pronounced differently. So what you are really saying is that it comes down to a large degree to cultural nuances.

But I agree it is all a bit of a grey area. I dont happen to see (based on what has come out) that Suarez is a racist but he could well be a bit of a wind up merchant. I can see what he has apparently said is inappropriate. I actually feel a bit sorry for Evra who is being castigated for making something out of nothing in some respects.

What I hate about this whole process is that the right place to discuss whether the use of the word 'Negro' is racial abuse is in a Law Court not at the FA. Football doesnt actually care if you were not offside when you they said you were. It doesnt care that if the ref had previously said that the opposition were not offside when they were, it was not consistent to call the opposition offside. That a foul is a foul if the ref says it is rather than whether he intended to foul. So right or wrong is not part of their vocabulary, consistency is not required, we are not in a Law court so while the only point of debating such a subject is to determine the legal precedent why bother if the FA does not think that a precedent is in any way relevant.

[StevieH]

What I hate about this whole process is that the right place to discuss whether the use of the word 'Negro' is racial abuse is in a Law Court not at the FA.

absolutely spot on this. the three-man panel is made of football administrators not remotely qualified to judge on this sort of subject.

[Abrak]

What I hate about this whole process is that the right place to discuss whether the use of the word 'Negro' is racial abuse is in a Law Court not at the FA.

absolutely spot on this. the three-man panel is made of football administrators not remotely qualified to judge on this sort of subject.

Actually my point is slightly deeper than that.

Football is a sport. You have to accept decisions right or wrong, consistent or inconsistent. That is because those decisions are made in a timely manner for the sake of the sport. If Suarez had received a one match ban for inappropriate comments within a week of the game, while some people would be pissed off it would have been long forgotten. And given that Evra will be sanctioned for reacting to racial abuse from the opposition supporters, it cant be the end of the day if another player calls him 'negro'.

So what I cannot stand is the high moral stance that the sport takes when what is right and wrong is not fundamental to the sport in the first place. So this whole issue should should boil down to its the referees decision and just get on and make it. Dont add gravitas to a decision (the FA has given Liverpool more time to defend accusations, the FA has brought in a linguistic expert) in a sport that everyone accepts that even if decisions are blatantly wrong they have to be accepted because they are a matter of one individuals opinion.

In any case the difference between the Law and the FA is clearly shown in what constitutes a 'deliberate handball'. Under Law 'deliberate handball' means that you intended to put hand to ball. Under the 'FA' it means that the placement of your hands was not 'unintentional'.