Corky Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 Well it's not just football cricket also suffers from similar abuse but as that is a 'gentleman's game' it gets largely ignored and sometimes even 'praised'. I'd be surprised if it doesn't also happen in rugby in between the eye gouging type stuff. It's endemic everywhere it's seen as ok and funny to call someone a **** or similar for even the slightest reason, I just assume it's the modern culture and eventuly we'll move onto some other 'norm' of behaviour. The difference with cricket is that confrontation is rarer and the cameras are more likely to not show a close-up and possibly turn the stump microphones down, so it's not as big an issue in cricket compared to football. All the cameras at football do not help the situation, I'm not saying we should brush it under the carpet but it's maginified in football in particular.
Captain... Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 Well it's not just football cricket also suffers from similar abuse but as that is a 'gentleman's game' it gets largely ignored and sometimes even 'praised'. I'd be surprised if it doesn't also happen in rugby in between the eye gouging type stuff. It's endemic everywhere it's seen as ok and funny to call someone a **** or similar for even the slightest reason, I just assume it's the modern culture and eventuly we'll move onto some other 'norm' of behaviour. The difference between cricket is it is gamesmanship and not just abuse, it is more psychological warfare to try and break the batsmen's concentration, footballers just shout at each other and the ref. Rugby is more physical aggression and you are more likely to see people throw a punch, but then they get punished for it along with any back chat to the ref. Likewise in cricket any dissent towards the umpires is punished. There is a clear line and people know where it is and know the consequences of crossing it. In football the refs seem to allow personal abuse towards themselves and other players up to a point, and that line seems to be Steve Howard screaming in the linesman face, but telling them to fvck off, and such like is ok.
Guest MattP Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 The difference between cricket is it is gamesmanship and not just abuse, it is more psychological warfare to try and break the batsmen's concentration, footballers just shout at each other and the ref. Rugby is more physical aggression and you are more likely to see people throw a punch, but then they get punished for it along with any back chat to the ref. Likewise in cricket any dissent towards the umpires is punished. There is a clear line and people know where it is and know the consequences of crossing it. In football the refs seem to allow personal abuse towards themselves and other players up to a point, and that line seems to be Steve Howard screaming in the linesman face, but telling them to fvck off, and such like is ok. Correct. Also what happens on the pitch in Cricket stays on it, we all know it football that's not the case.
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 Guilty. 4 match ban. £220,000 fine Can see this one ending up in another courtroom.
bmt Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 Guilty. 4 match ban. £220,000 fine Why only 4 games, out of interest? Any rationale behind the lack of parity with Suarez (twat).
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 Why only 4 games, out of interest? Any rationale behind the lack of parity with Suarez (twat). Suarez was guilty and Terry wasn't?
Super_horns Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 Why only 4 games, out of interest? Any rationale behind the lack of parity with Suarez (twat). BBC say Suarez's offending comment was repeated more than once...
Filbert_Ross Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 Why only 4 games, out of interest? Any rationale behind the lack of parity with Suarez (twat). i heard it was because Suarez used racist language numerous times during the game and Terry just the once.
foxesfan1989 Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 Very pleased to hear that these clear racially motivated comments have been punished in some way/form. The video is clear for everyone to see and it would have been a joke if he had been cleared by the FA. I realise in a court of law it is extremely difficult to find him guilty as no-one heard it at the time.
foxesfan1989 Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 4 games is a joke though, should be twice that. You get 3 matches for a bad challenge. This is not even on the same level. If he is guilty, punish him properly.
Corky Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 Very pleased to hear that these clear racially motivated comments have been punished in some way/form. The video is clear for everyone to see and it would have been a joke if he had been cleared by the FA. I realise in a court of law it is extremely difficult to find him guilty as no-one heard it at the time. In court it had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Fa work on balance of probabilities which is a lower percentage of doubt.
Ashley Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 The FA are simply a joke. Terry gets found not guilty in a court of law but The FA ban him plus a fine?
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 The FA are simply a joke. Terry gets found not guilty in a court of law but The FA ban him plus a fine? Pretty much how I feel. The FA can do what they want with little evidence and just dish out whatever they think is fair.
breadandcheese Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 The FA are simply a joke. Terry gets found not guilty in a court of law but The FA ban him plus a fine? The FA are a joke, but not for finding Terry guilty. As Corky said above, the court case had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Terry was guilty. It was therefore highly unlikely to find Terry guilty, although it is interesting that the judge at the trial when summing up, said that although Terry's account of events was possible, it was highly unlikely. So in a case where the burden of proof is that much lower, and Terry's defence is highly unlikely (according to the judge of the criminal case), it is understandable why the verdict today has been recorded.
foxesfan1989 Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 In court it had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Fa work on balance of probabilities which is a lower percentage of doubt. In a court of law, if there is ANY doubt then you cannot convict. No-one heard it at the time so there is bound to be some doubt. For me, the video says it all, and the way the FA operate compared to a court of law is better for getting a verdict on matters like these. I completely agree with their guilty verdict, just look at the video, I cannot see how anyone would think anything else after seeing it.
Jordan Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 There's also the matter of "bringing the sport into disrepute," which is not a crime but something the FA considers when making disciplinary decisions. This decision seems fair if we base it on precedent, but I wonder what the PFA thinks about it.
davieG Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 In a court of law, if there is ANY doubt then you cannot convict. No-one heard it at the time so there is bound to be some doubt. For me, the video says it all, and the way the FA operate compared to a court of law is better for getting a verdict on matters like these. I completely agree with their guilty verdict, just look at the video, I cannot see how anyone would think anything else after seeing it. There's also the matter of "bringing the sport into disrepute," which is not a crime but something the FA considers when making disciplinary decisions. This decision seems fair if we base it on precedent, but I wonder what the PFA thinks about it. I don't know if he's guilty or not but the FA way does means there's a greater chance of a miscarriage of justice. If he's innocent then the disrepute charge should be levelled at the accusers.
foxesfan1989 Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 Considering Anton never accused Terry of anything, the words used here make no sense in any other context than abuse towards Ferdinand. Shocked anyone can get anything else from the video. I think some people don't want it to be true (England captain and all) therefore just ignore what is really there. But hey ho, thats my opinion any way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfoaoQImtaI
Kitchandro Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 The only people who would say he's not guilty are surely all Chelsea fans. Only a group of fans that devoid of any class whatsoever would defend this fvck.
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 Considering Anton never accused Terry of anything, the words used here make no sense in any other context than abuse towards Ferdinand. Shocked anyone can get anything else from the video. I think some people don't want it to be true (England captain and all) therefore just ignore what is really there. But hey ho, thats my opinion any way. Thought it was said in court that all parties agreed Anton had said "What did you call me?" Hence the doubt on the intent from the video that was the reeason he was found nout guilty.
AdamN Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 So basically, unlike a court of law, the FA don't have to prove you're guilty to punish you? How is that fair, exactly?
foxesfan1989 Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 Thought it was said in court that all parties agreed Anton had said "What did you call me?" Hence the doubt on the intent from the video that was the reeason he was found nout guilty. Anton never used the words black ****. He never thought Terry was being racist towards him. So either Terry plucked those words from the air and somehow thought he heard the words "black ****" when they were never said. Or the wife porking idiot with no morals also says racist words when angry. I believe the latter for certain.
purpleronnie Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 So basically, unlike a court of law, the FA don't have to prove you're guilty to punish you? How is that fair, exactly? Because the FA aren't a court of law.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.