Deuce Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Still doesn't sit right with me that football associations (FA, FIFA, NCAA, or otherwise) consider themselves the arbiters of moral justice in the face of differing opinions from a court of law. The judgments of a judiciary should always supersede those of a sporting organization, the FA's 'lower burden of proof' be damned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Still doesn't sit right with me that football associations (FA, FIFA, NCAA, or otherwise) consider themselves the arbiters of moral justice in the face of differing opinions from a court of law. The judgments of a judiciary should always supersede those of a sporting organization, the FA's 'lower burden of proof' be damned. Disagree personally. In the battle between "beyond all reasonable doubt" and "on the balance of probabilities", I'd lean towards the latter. Weasels can't escape punishment. In the words of Dwight Schrute "[it's] better a thousand innocent men get locked up, than one guilty man roam free" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagten Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Still doesn't sit right with me that football associations (FA, FIFA, NCAA, or otherwise) consider themselves the arbiters of moral justice in the face of differing opinions from a court of law. The judgments of a judiciary should always supersede those of a sporting organization, the FA's 'lower burden of proof' be damned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Still doesn't sit right with me that football associations (FA, FIFA, NCAA, or otherwise) consider themselves the arbiters of moral justice in the face of differing opinions from a court of law. The judgments of a judiciary should always supersede those of a sporting organization, the FA's 'lower burden of proof' be damned. Aye very strange Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Still doesn't sit right with me that football associations (FA, FIFA, NCAA, or otherwise) consider themselves the arbiters of moral justice in the face of differing opinions from a court of law. The judgments of a judiciary should always supersede those of a sporting organization, the FA's 'lower burden of proof' be damned. It's not the job of the judiciary to uphold standards of sportsmanship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Still doesn't sit right with me that football associations (FA, FIFA, NCAA, or otherwise) consider themselves the arbiters of moral justice in the face of differing opinions from a court of law. The judgments of a judiciary should always supersede those of a sporting organization, the FA's 'lower burden of proof' be damned. It's not the job of the judiciary to uphold standards of sportsmanship. Agreed, but that's not the issue at hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 It is when you suggest that the FA should follow the decision of the courts. Having not committed a crime doesn't necessarily provide that a footballer's conduct is acceptable under the laws of the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Aye, Terry ONLY got off because of reasonable doubt. The judge said Terry's version of events seem unlikely but it was not enough to say he was guilty in a court of law. I could get away with a lot more and be found not guilty in a court of law, than I could at my place of work. If another colleague accuses me of calling him a racial remark and it is recorded, most likely i'll be fired, at best handed some kind of disciplinary. In a court of law I could probably get away with "I didn't mean it like that, I have loads of black friends anyway." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Still doesn't sit right with me that football associations (FA, FIFA, NCAA, or otherwise) consider themselves the arbiters of moral justice in the face of differing opinions from a court of law. The judgments of a judiciary should always supersede those of a sporting organization, the FA's 'lower burden of proof' be damned. It's not the job of the judiciary to uphold standards of sportsmanship. Agreed, but that's not the issue at hand. Yes, it is. Courts of law have a very high standard of proof; higher than civil courts (which is the same as the FA's) and other bodies. Terry is guilty by the FA's standard. Not punishing him would have been the wrong decision. Arguing for letting him off on account of double jeopardy is like arguing that you shouldn't be admitted to Bradford University because you failed the Oxbridge entrance exam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Still doesn't sit right with me that football associations (FA, FIFA, NCAA, or otherwise) consider themselves the arbiters of moral justice in the face of differing opinions from a court of law. The judgments of a judiciary should always supersede those of a sporting organization, the FA's 'lower burden of proof' be damned. It's not the job of the judiciary to uphold standards of sportsmanship. Agreed, but that's not the issue at hand. Yes, it is. Courts of law have a very high standard of proof; higher than civil courts (which is the same as the FA's) and other bodies. Terry is guilty by the FA's standard. Not punishing him would have been the wrong decision. Arguing for letting him off on account of double jeopardy is like arguing that you shouldn't be admitted to Bradford University because you failed the Oxbridge entrance exam. What he's being accused of is quite clearly a criminal offense, outside the realm of the game, under British law, first and foremost. The court found no reason to find him guilty of such an offense. The FA should have primacy on decisions that don't require a court of law. When an offense is committed that requires a criminal charge, the FA should respect the decision of that court. Had the court found him guilty, I'm all for the FA doling out a fine and suspension. This is basically the FA trying to assert some kind of power in a pissing match with the courts. It's no open secret how powerful the FA fancies itself. Replace the FA with your boss. Had you been accused of some crime and a court of law found you not guilty, you wouldn't think it very fair to still be suspended from work by your boss, right? That does not equate to an argument for double jeopardy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Replace the FA with your boss. Had you been accused of some crime and a court of law found you not guilty, you wouldn't think it very fair to still be suspended from work by your boss, right? That does not equate to an argument for double jeopardy. Let's say it was you who was elbowed by Ben Thatcher at what's now the Etihad a few years back. The CPS didn't even bother taking that one to court. I suppose you'd accept the FA not imposing an extended suspension, either? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Replace the FA with your boss. Had you been accused of some crime and a court of law found you not guilty, you wouldn't think it very fair to still be suspended from work by your boss, right? That does not equate to an argument for double jeopardy. Let's say it was you who was elbowed by Ben Thatcher at what's now the Etihad a few years back. The CPS didn't even bother taking that one to court. I suppose you'd accept the FA not imposing an extended suspension, either? The FA is the highest arbiter in any on-field offense, unless the case is referred to a court of law. Simple as that. Or at least that's how it should be. That doesn't mean cases not referred to a higher court of law shouldn't have been. Very good case that the Thatcher elbow on Mendes was outside the realm of the game. But the GMP decided not to pursue it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Still doesn't sit right with me that football associations (FA, FIFA, NCAA, or otherwise) consider themselves the arbiters of moral justice in the face of differing opinions from a court of law. The judgments of a judiciary should always supersede those of a sporting organization, the FA's 'lower burden of proof' be damned. It's not the job of the judiciary to uphold standards of sportsmanship. Agreed, but that's not the issue at hand. Yes, it is. Courts of law have a very high standard of proof; higher than civil courts (which is the same as the FA's) and other bodies. Terry is guilty by the FA's standard. Not punishing him would have been the wrong decision. Arguing for letting him off on account of double jeopardy is like arguing that you shouldn't be admitted to Bradford University because you failed the Oxbridge entrance exam. What he's being accused of is quite clearly a criminal offense, outside the realm of the game, under British law, first and foremost. The court found no reason to find him guilty of such an offense. The FA should have primacy on decisions that don't require a court of law. When an offense is committed that requires a criminal charge, the FA should respect the decision of that court. Had the court found him guilty, I'm all for the FA doling out a fine and suspension. This is basically the FA trying to assert some kind of power in a pissing match with the courts. It's no open secret how powerful the FA fancies itself. Replace the FA with your boss. Had you been accused of some crime and a court of law found you not guilty, you wouldn't think it very fair to still be suspended from work by your boss, right? That does not equate to an argument for double jeopardy. Not true. The court didn't find "no reason" to find him guilty, they found insufficient evidence to find him guilty by their high standard of proof. Going with your boss analogy, what if you'd punched a coworker in the face in front of your drunk boss, but the court found you not guilty of assault, as your boss was not a sufficiently credible witness because he gave inconsistent evidence due to being drunk (and/or was a vainglorious, grandstanding prick on the witness stand). That doesn't mean your boss still can't discipline you. There's no denying Terry said what he was accused of. His defence revolved around placing it in a context that muddied the waters sufficiently to make a guilty verdict "beyond all reasonable doubt" untenable. That is a fair way from the "on the balance of probabilities" standard used by civil courts and the FA. If you don't like the system, fair enough, but the FA's guilty verdict was not only in line with their own rules but also the laws of the land (if Ferdinand had a basis to sue Terry in civil court and did, he would win). You have the whole thing arse about tit. If the FA had charged Terry first and found him not guilty, there would be no basis whatsoever for criminal charges. The reverse is simply not true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
womblemaster Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 this the new national academy thingy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 England's senior team play San Marino at Wembley on Friday 12 October and face Poland in Warsaw on Tuesday 16 October. Goalkeepers: Fraser Forster (Celtic), Joe Hart (Manchester City), John Ruddy (Norwich) Defenders: Leighton Baines (Everton), Gary Cahill (Chelsea), Ashley Cole (Chelsea), Kieran Gibbs (Arsenal), Phil Jagielka (Everton), Glen Johnson (Liverpool), Joleon Lescott (Manchester City), Ryan Shawcross (Stoke), Kyle Walker (Tottenham) Midfielders: Michael Carrick (Manchester United), Tom Cleverley (Manchester United), Steven Gerrard (Liverpool), Adam Johnson (Sunderland), Aaron Lennon (Tottenham), Frank Lampard (Chelsea), James Milner (Manchester City), Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (Arsenal), Theo Walcott (Arsenal) Forwards: Andy Carroll (West Ham), Jermain Defoe (Tottenham), Wayne Rooney (Manchester United), Danny Welbeck (Manchester United) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 This Hodgson/Ferdinand thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 It's so sad that some players can just walk back in the squad unopposed. Carroll and Rooney have barely played and Welbeck shouldn't even be in there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Get in Fraser. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Sold a future England keeper for pennies Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Sold a future England keeper for pennies I'd be a lot more comfortable with Forster playing rather than Timber. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Had no choice. Timothy is better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 ah knaa. But he's now instantly worth £15m in the English market. Maybe we have sell on clauses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Sold a future England keeper for pennies I'd be a lot more comfortable with Forster playing rather than Timber. To be fair, Forster showed a lot of early promise but he's every bit as deserving of that nickname as Harper is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 ah knaa. But he's now instantly worth £15m in the English market. Maybe we have sell on clauses. 150% http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24133683.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Our much-maligned academy churning out England internationals Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts