Football Banter

(09-01-2012 20:19 )Charlemagne Wrote:  Therefore if Nani jumped out of the way it can't have been a foul as Kompany wouldn't have made any contact with him.

No, wrong again I'm afraid. Jumping at an opponent is an offence whether contact is made or not. As soon as both of Kompany's feet were off the ground he had jumped at an opponent and was guilty of a foul.

Thierry henry scores for arsenal!! never thought i'd say that again!!!!

(09-01-2012 22:21 )terence Wrote:  Thierry henry scores for arsenal!! never thought i'd say that again!!!!

Great finish, guys still got it

(09-01-2012 21:56 )iamthatjack Wrote:  No, it also reported that Suarez said that 'negro' is a term used in South America, therefore he admitted to using it. This means he aimed a word towards Evra that had a racial connotation. He admitted to using the word.

He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay.

In this sense, Suarez said, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just black haired). What Suarez is saying is he basically said “what’s the matter with you mate” but these words translated into English are “why, Black” the FA then had a decision of either believing Evra or Suarez.

The FA accepted that the word ‘negro’ can be used as a slang word in south America, in the same context that some people use the word ‘brother’ in our country, but the FA decided that Suarez did not use the word ‘negro’ in the context that he described. The FA said friendly terms cannot be used in arguments? I can’t believe for one minute that they don’t think people say “what’s up with you mate” when arguing. I think I always use the term ‘mate’ when arguing because it kind of defuses the argument so to speak, I’ve said plenty of times, especially during a football match “oh F**k off mate” …who hasn’t?

The problem with using the word ‘negro’ in this country is that it can be used as an offensive word, this is why Suarez was always getting a ban for this BUT for the FA to believe every word that Evra said and completely disregard Suarez claim that Evra said to him "Don't touch me, South American" without a shred of evidence for or against either claim is absurd. There are so many question marks over this whole case that’s its shocking that top paid Journalists have chosen not to pick it apart and just believe the FA.

Answers Please:


1. Why did the FA let Evra see video footage before he gave them his final statement but refused Suarez request to see it?

2. Was David Gill involved in this case what so ever, I find it hard to believe he wasn’t.

3. Why did the Commission accept the request of the FA to reject parts of Hernandez witness statement, opinion or not surely a fellow South American can talk about his own cultures.

4. How did the FA find Evra credible and constant when he changed his accusations and the amounts of time he claimed to be called these words on a number of different occasions?

5. How did the FA find that calling someone by the country of origin in an angry manor ‘not offensive’ when they have banned fans for aggressively calling a player “a French t**t” in the past.

6. Why the FA expected Suarez to remember word for word a conversation he had with Evra a month previous.

(09-01-2012 17:53 )iamthatjack Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 01:07 )mitchell Wrote:  Behave yourself, your as bad as the kid in question. seriously.

Are you calling me a racist because I think you should disapprove of Suarez's racism?

No but you seem to want to play it out for aslong as you can.

I don't think I've made a post on the Suarez incident since the report came out. Yes what he said was wrong but he in some way partly used it within the context of his own society which is still wrong in England & he's been delt with albeit I feel the 8 game ban is too much given most bans are a number of games with the rest suspended for a period of time but the FA have used this as a fuck you to Fifa which is very harsh on us, given we were told in no uncertain terms not to appeal & given the Rooney situation this is very cheeky of an national association.

Yes Luis Suarez was in the wrong but lets face it he hasn't killed anyone whilst drink driving, he hasn't sexually assulted a female or had sex with an underage girl!!!

(09-01-2012 20:19 )Charlemagne Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 19:23 )cosmonaut Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 16:00 )Trickster Wrote:  Oh and Vinnie Kompanys red card was shocking.....

Know way was that even a Yellow card took all the ball it was a derby FFS!

You've made the same mistake as Charlemagne, who also thought that Kompany won the tackle. In fact Kompany was only able to win the ball because Nani saw a 2 footed lunge coming his way and sensibly jumped out of the way, therefore leaving the ball uncontested. Even if there had been no red card, it would still have been a free kick to Man Utd, so in no way did Kompany win the ball in the tackle as you and Charlemagne have stated.

Therefore if Nani jumped out of the way it can't have been a foul as Kompany wouldn't have made any contact with him.

It was a leg breaker. Kompany would have snapped the guy in half had he not of jumped. Contact shouldn't have to be made for the action to be approved.
The fact he lunged in 2 footed in those conditions in my opinion is inexcusable.

(09-01-2012 22:30 )groundnpound Wrote:  3. Why did the Commission accept the request of the FA to reject parts of Hernandez witness statement, opinion or not surely a fellow South American can talk about his own cultures.

http://www.chivascampeon.com/noticia/2009/

"Me gustó mucho el gol del Negrito" ~ Javier Hernandez

Translation. I really liked the goal of the black guy

Some French speaking countries also use the word noir (Black) in the same sense as they do in South America, to describe someone brown skinned or with black hair.

Worldie.

In fact Kompany was only able to win the ball because Nani saw a 2 footed lunge coming his way and sensibly jumped out of the way, therefore leaving the ball uncontested. Even if there had been no red card, it would still have been a free kick to Man Utd, so in no way did Kompany win the ball in the tackle as you and Charlemagne have stated.

If you're calling that a two footed lunge then by that warped lodgic 3/4 of all clean and fair slide tackles are red card worthy "lunges". Kompany clearly got to the ball at a right angle to Nani's run making contact with the ball with his left shin. No nani was in no harm what so ever. The ref' is indeed a wanker.