Suarez 1...2...3

[Gamma]

the bill clinton defence i see ...... noted.

[Paul Marin]

the bill clinton defence i see ...... noted.

Gamma, how can this be a "clinton defence" when you as the prosecution has not even made your case? Come betta dan dat.

[Paul Marin]

Suarez a thief?

Sing to "When Johnny Comes Marching Home"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMJTycleWrc

Gyan to take the penalty kick, he shoots....HE SUCKS!
Gyan to take the penalty kick, he shoots....HE SUCKS!
Gyan the Ghana superstar, shot the ball above the bar.
THEN CAME MENSAH, he completely whiffed.

Bruce, you've found yourself a new profession. Very funny when you actually put it to music. Here's a second stanza (can be rapped):

Some a dem want to call Luis a tief
Some a dem want to call Luis a tief
But if Gyan had scored, Uruguay would'a been flo'ored
And the rest would have been hi - is - tory...

===

We should go into business

[Gamma]

man watch one matlock case and him is a village lawyer to rhatid ..... it was a very straightforward question .....

"It depends on how you define alone…" –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony

i asked you if suarez cheat in the world cup and you ask me to define "cheat"? here let me throw you a bone ... can YOU define cheat, please?

[Paul Marin]

man watch one matlock case and him is a village lawyer to rhatid ..... it was a very straightforward question .....

"It depends on how you define alone…" –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony

i asked you if suarez cheat in the world cup and you ask me to define "cheat"? here let me throw you a bone ... can YOU define cheat, please?

Here are the definitions of "cheat" from the dictionary. So by these definitions, my answer to your question "[did] suarez cheat in the world cup?" my answer is "no". That's why I'm asking what you mean by cheat. If you think that by these definitions he did cheat, then explain. We can go from there.

cheat
verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.

verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often followed by on): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.

noun
8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law. the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.

[Gamma]

suarez alone ... 4., 5., and 8. 5 stands tall though and it is self explanatory.

[Paul Marin]

suarez alone ... 4., 5., and 8. 5 stands tall though and it is self explanatory.

"5. to violate rules or regulations" - then by this definition, every player that commits an infraction, whether a handball or a simple foul is a cheat. So why single out Suarez?

[Gamma]

is he the subject of this conversation? if he is he has already been singled out, by you no less.

anyway, some cheat by diving etc etc etc, his cheat, much like maradona's changed the outcome of a very important game and was the genesis for much debate about changing rules .....

his cheat was a very public cheat .... all crimes are crimes but some are more heinous that others. his is second to maradona's only because uruguay did not win the WC

[Paul Marin]

is he the subject of this conversation? if he is he has already been singled out, by you no less.

LOL!!!! You are a lawyer though and through!!! The entire thread is about Suarez and you ask "is he the subject of this conversation?" Too funny. In terms of "singling him out", I am only saying that the definition of cheat that you selected from the list can be applied to any player. You have not made a case for him being any more of a cheater than anyone else. In other words, if merely breaking the rules makes you a cheat then every footballer - living or dead - aged 3 to 300 is a cheat.

some cheat by diving etc etc etc, his cheat, much like maradona's changed the outcome of a very important game and was the genesis for much debate about changing rules...his cheat was a very public cheat .... all crimes are crimes but some are more heinous that others. his is second to maradona's only because uruguay did not win the WC

Suarez made no attempt to deceive or fool anyone. He caught the ball in his hands and started walking to the bench. Diving - that's deceitful; Maradonna's handball - totally deceitful and warrants the moniker of "cheat" as he attempted to deceive.

In football, merely breaking an infraction which is subsequently punished cannot be considered cheating unless the player was trying to deceive. It is deceit and attempts to deceive that make players cheaters. Suarez's handball did not rise to that standard and he got carded.

What really changed the outcome of the game under the rules was Gyan missing the penalty. The rules put control in the hands of the aggrieved, their failure to dispense punishment summarily was their own fault.

I know your lawyer streak doesn't allow you to say I'm right, so I'll do it for you:

Gamma: Okay Paul, you're right. Very logical explanation and I accept it.

Paul: No worries Gamma. Now focus on Chelski tomorrow.

[Peter R]

Even so six still wrong... cudden be much more than 5!

[Gamma]

please ..... spare me!

this is where your fallacy occurs ... cannot be considered cheating unless the player was trying to deceive. the rest is just collateral.

but then suarez is a livepool player so i don't expect any less from your "reasonable" mind!

[Mosiah]

don't!

[Paul Marin]

please ..... spare me!

this is where your fallacy occurs ... cannot be considered cheating unless the player was trying to deceive. the rest is just collateral.

but then suarez is a livepool player so i don't expect any less from your "reasonable" mind!

Gamma - I am not going to let you get away with this. You can't call people tief jus' so. Anyway, first off, the "Liverpool" diversionary tactic won't work. Suarez played for Ajax at the time of the infraction and I had the same opinion then. So kill the slander.

Secondly, my position on deceiving the referee being linked to cheating in football is a well documented and generally accepted perspective. In other words, if deceit is not part of the equation, and breaking the laws are the only criteria, then every player is a cheat. If you have some counter to that, bring it, but bring it, don't just tear down my words, bring substance.

While the above two paragraphs are an immediate response to your last post, throughout this entire thread, the only attempt you've made at putting forth an argument supporting calling the man a cheat is in tying the infraction to its implication to the World Cup. You said:

"some cheat by diving etc., his cheat, much like maradona's changed the outcome of a very important game and was the genesis for much debate about changing rules...his cheat was a very public cheat...all crimes are crimes but some are more heinous [than] others. his is second to maradona's only because uruguay did not win the WC"

So in your mind, had Uruguay won the World Cup, Maradona's [deceitful] cheat would have been second to Suarez's "public cheat"? Or would they have shared top spot? LOL!!!!

To accuse the man of being a "cheat" based on the implications to the tournament is quite stunning. The only thing MORE stunning, had Uruguay won the tournament, would have been to give Suarez's infraction top spot over Maradona's deceitfulness (or even to have given them equal billing).

I'm off to return my stun gun. If anyone attacks me, I'll just show them your arguments!!! That'll sure stop them in their tracks!!!

[Gamma]

it is just that, your perspective ... furthermore your fallacy remains you have not addressed it all, but how can you? it is an incorrect presumption. an intentional handball on the goal line (the man dive like a goalie to rhatid) should be viewed the same as an incidental handball same place?

So in your mind, had Uruguay won the World Cup, Maradona's [deceitful] cheat would have been second to Suarez's "public cheat"? Or would they have shared top spot? LOL!!!!
CORRECT!

While the above two paragraphs are an immediate response to your last post, throughout this entire thread, the only attempt you've made at putting forth an argument supporting calling the man a cheat is in tying the infraction to its implication to the World Cup. I need more than that??!! it was there for the world to see.

if the premise is flawed (cheating only involves deceipt) then the conclusion must be suspect as it is here. is an intentional elbow to the ribs cheating? is player who tackles another player with the intention of causing him serious hurt cheating? who are they trying to deceive? deception is one form of cheating but it is not the only one .....

when you respond, do not expect an answer. this has taken up far too much of my time without proving or resolving anything. it is a matter of opinion, you reason out yours and i mine.

[Paul Marin]

it is just that, your perspective ... furthermore your fallacy remains you have not addressed it all, but how can you? it is an incorrect presumption. an intentional handball on the goal line (the man dive like a goalie to rhatid) should be viewed the same as an incidental handball same place?

Sorry Gamma - but I didn't write the laws. Facts are facts- both of the examples you gave above, whether diving like a goalie or an "incidental" handball are treated by the laws of the game the same way. FACT!! Not opinion. The man operated within those boundaries and was summarily red carded as he knew he would be.

While the above two paragraphs are an immediate response to your last post, throughout this entire thread, the only attempt you've made at putting forth an argument supporting calling the man a cheat is in tying the infraction to its implication to the World Cup. I need more than that??!! it was there for the world to see.

Gamma - in the way the game has been played for over 100 years there has been no difference in the dispensation of adjudication between a Sunday league game and the World Cup, to label the man a cheat because of the stakes involved is patently ridiculous and without foundation.

if the premise is flawed (cheating only involves deceipt) then the conclusion must be suspect as it is here. is an intentional elbow to the ribs cheating? is player who tackles another player with the intention of causing him serious hurt cheating? who are they trying to deceive? deception is one form of cheating but it is not the only one...

Empirical evidence and the unwritten code of conduct in football says they are not "cheating" unless they pretend to not have done anything. I challenge you to find anyone anywhere who has been called a "cheat" for the above infractions where deceit was not involved. They may be called other things, "dirty", "nasty", "thug", "hooligan" etc, but IN FOOTBALL, the overwhelming use of the label "cheat" is DIRECTLY tied to deceit.

this has taken up far too much of my time without proving or resolving anything.

I agree, you have failed to prove that the man is a "cheat" (as commonly understood in football)...and seeing that you are the one bringing the accusation, the burden of proof is on you.

it is a matter of opinion, you reason out yours and i mine.

Sorry - but opinion is reserved for matters of far greater subjectivity. There is enough objective and empirical data to render a definitive judgement on Suarez's infraction to transcend opinion.

Find me an article, white paper, study etc. from someone of learned status, (i.e. don't bring no article written by Jangle) that labels any player "a cheat" where deception is not part of the equation and I'll stand corrected.