Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

The Liverpool Thread

Parky

by Parky
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

wacko

wacko

Posted
Posted

Not yet. No reason to expect there'll be a decision today (they said not before today).

 

I'm watching the RAWK thread, which I presume will be unlocked (too many "any news yet?" posts) and updated as soon as something is known.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mowen

Mowen

Posted
Posted

Hard case to judge, to be honest. It's true that the word he allegedly used isn't a slur in Spanish, but it is still an odd thing to call somebody you're not mates with. I'm aware it's more common in some places in SA.

 

Suárez is a c*** though.

 

I sit next to a Uraguayan at work who's astonished it's an issue in the slightest, the culture and usage of the terminology there is completely different. Had a pretty interesting chat with him but he's a Suarez fanboy and blatantly loves a cheeky bit of racism so it was a bit one sided. There's a Tim Vickery piece on the BBC sport that starts off by giving an extremely good insight into the culture of the words, I've linked below.

 

Unfortunately, despite some good work it's ultimately a shite article because the thrust of the piece is that the FA can set a good example by doing the right thing but doesn't suggest what the right thing is - that's beside the point though.

 

My personal view is that the words may not be offensive in context with his national team mates but if he was repeatedly calling Evra that, as reported, then he was clearly doing it to cause offence. He's not that much of an idiot, he must have known how it was being received.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16262537.stm

 

When Luis Suarez joined Liverpool at the start of the year I wrote that he had the ability to shine in the Premier League but also that his fiery temperament would be put to the test.

 

He has given us more than I bargained for. An instant Anfield sensation, his exploits for Uruguay make Suarez beyond doubt the outstanding player in the world this year in terms of national team football.

 

In England, as expected, he has become the Liverpool player least likely to be popular with opposing fans but he has exceeded his own reputation for controversy with the flare-up with Patrice Evra and the charge of racism.

 

When Suarez pulls on the sky blue shirt of his country he is part of a national team which has an unrivalled record of giving opportunities to afro-descendants. In the face of protests from their opponents, Uruguay picked black players in the first Copa America in 1916.

 

Probably the most revered figure in the history of Uruguayan football is Obdulio Varela, captain of the side that won the World Cup in 1950. His nickname was "El Negro Jefe" - the black boss.

 

Among Suarez's team-mates these days is Maxi Pereira, who is known as "El Mono" - the monkey. It is a nickname which, apparently, is given and accepted with no offence meant or taken. It appears to be used in the same spirit that Alvaro Fernandez is called "El Flaco", which means skinny.

 

These words are not easy - perhaps almost impossible - to translate into a contemporary English context. How do you judge the weight of a word uttered in a foreign language from a different mindset?

 

When Mick Jagger wailed "Hey Negrita" on the Rolling Stones song, his words were surely intended in praise. If it is true that Suarez used a similar word to address Evra, this would not seem to be the case.

 

But how to know when this word ceases to be descriptive and becomes pejorative? And for the FA disciplinary committee, how to avoid kicking the case around like a political football?

 

Suarez has provided them with a problem - but also with an opportunity.

 

Context is crucial, not just in what Suarez may have done, but also in how it is judged. When Sepp Blatter apologised for appearing to suggest racist remarks could be overcome with a handshake, it gave English football another chance to indulge in Fifa-bashing.

 

There must be a temptation to throw the book at Suarez and send a strong anti-racist message to the world.

 

When moral panic is whipped up, coherence tends to fly out of the window. Some of those calling for Blatter's head on the racism issue are the very people who believed that everything was fine with Fifa while Sir Stanley Rous of England was in charge from 1961 to 1974.

 

Rous seriously damaged the development of African football with his defence of Apartheid in South Africa - a stance which looked awful at the time and was disastrous in hindsight.

 

In his campaign to unseat Rous in 1974, Brazilian Joao Havelange made a point of showing physical intimacy with the African delegates. An Englishman, he reasoned, would not do the same.

 

Thankfully England is much-changed since then.

 

English football can be proud of its anti-racism work but it should be remembered that what has happened in our country is a domestic dynamic. Mass immigration starting in the 1950s brought in hundreds of thousands of newcomers with full political rights - and so the discrimination they suffered could only be put down to racism.

 

Football made this sickeningly obvious. The Caribbean descendants who started to make an impact on the pitch from the late 1960s had to put up with all kinds of abuse. Over time a consensus formed around the belief that racist behaviour was unacceptable.

 

This dynamic does not necessarily apply elsewhere. In South America the legacy of centuries of slavery can make attitudes towards race more entrenched - but also more subtle. Elsewhere, to the east of Europe, for example, there has been very little exposure to the kind of multi-cultural existence that has become the norm in Britain.

 

This in no way invalidates the anti-racist position of English football. But it does mean that if the debate is to be won - and that surely must be the objective - then there are dangers in the moralistic holier-than-thou approach that the English can be prone to take.

 

This issue provides a real opportunity for English football to do some good - and also for the Football Association to improve its global profile. Much depends on how it is handled.

 

There is little to be gained in hectoring other nations and individuals with a moral high ground position of, "We're not racist, you are". Instead, there might be room for a position of leadership with a huge dose of humility.

 

"This is the problem of racism that we faced in our game," could be the line to football authorities around the world. "This is what we decided to do about it and, although we are nowhere near perfect, we feel we have made a lot of progress. Some of this may be useful to you".

 

My hope is that any punishment administered to Luis Suarez is guided by this spirit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fugazi

Fugazi

Posted
Posted

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/luis-suarez-20-12-11

 

An Independent Regulatory Commission has today [Tuesday 20 December 2011] found a charge of misconduct against Luis Suarez proven, and have issued a suspension for a period of eight matches as well as fining him £40,000, pending appeal.

 

On 16 November 2011, The Football Association charged Luis Suarez with misconduct contrary to FA Rule E3 in relation to the Liverpool FC versus Manchester United FC fixture on 15 October 2011.

 

A hearing took place from 14-20 December 2011 before an Independent Regulatory Commission of The FA to consider the charge.

 

The Independent Regulatory Commission announced its decision on 20 December 2011, which is as follows:

 

    Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);

    the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);

    Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000;

    the [penalty] is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision.

 

The Independent Regulatory Commission will provide written reasons for its decision in due course setting out:

 

(a)          the findings of fact made by it;

 

(b)          the reasons for its decision finding the charge proved; and

 

©          the reasons for the penalty.

 

Mr Suarez has the right to appeal the decision of the Independent Regulatory Commission to an Appeal Board. An appeal must be lodged within 14 days of the date of the written reasons for the decision.

 

The penalty is suspended until after the outcome of any appeal, or the time for appealing expires, or should Mr Suarez decide not to appeal. The reason for this is to ensure that the penalty does not take effect before any appeal so that Mr Suarez has an effective right of appeal.

 

They'll blatantly appeal though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...