YEAH!!! YIPPEE!!! Okay Mo...I know, I know...we jes disagree

[GazX]

well many a foul a player genuinely believes he has a chance to win the ball and ends up fouling the opposition; there is intent to deny a goal-scoring opportunity by genuinely trying to win the ball even when the ball carrier has you almost beaten...

anyway, by your reasoning this means that the majority of footballers are cheaters. So why pick on Suarez one?

That correct yes. How many tiimes you see a ball roll out of play for a corner/throw in and a player WHO KNOWS the ball last come off him, still appeal fpr the throwing, corner. Another example of lie & cheat which has become the nature of todays modern player to the point they and we scarcely recognise it as for what it actually is which is cheating to gain that advantage.

[GazX]

Okay - I am right in saying then that your definition of cheating is therefore:

"FOOTBALL CHEAT: any player or member of a team who deliberately breaks the laws of the game or attempts to deceive the referee or officials into giving his team an advantage over his opponent."

So what else is it if it not cheating. You dont agree it is?
See my last answer to P.R.

[GazX]

Gaz - you are living in a fantasy world if you think that the "message to the youth" is part of any football establishment's thinking. Do me a favor and explain:

1. Is there a difference between an infraction and deception?
2. Is the example I gave about basketball cheating?
3. Are there "degrees" of cheating?

Then why have such initiatives such as the kick racism out of football at all if its not also to encourage the youth to reject racism or change their thinking when it comes to race/racism?

[Gamma]

I don't know or care if he is the most hated footballer on the forum or anywhere and I respect your opinion. What I know is that I personally hold hum in utter disdain.

[Paul Marin]

I don't know or care if he is the most hated footballer on the forum or anywhere and I respect your opinion. What I know is that I personally hold hum in utter disdain.

...but are you being fair? That's the issue. You call him a racist - on what grounds? Evra's word? You think he's a cheat - okay - that's based on your own definition of cheat, but then, why single him out when by that definition (as I understand it) virtually every baller on the planet is a cheat? Fairness (and not your right to your "feelings") is the question.

[Gamma]

everything combined including his last statement of a premeditated handball.

regarding being racist on the basis of the "because you are black" retort and the "blackie blackie blackie". if it would calm your nerves to say he used racist language so be it ..... but given the circumstances and the exchange, suh me see it. the FA statement that he is not racist is their business.

on that basis, i am comfortable with my decision, is it fair to him? hell yeah, it is based on his own actions.

[Paul Marin]

So what else is it if it not cheating. You dont agree it is?
See my last answer to P.R.

My own definition is different. I don't consider a "professional foul" like Bibi did against Chelsea "cheating" but rather application of tactics as necessary to win. In other words, the player makes the choice to live with the consequences of the foul (e.g. red card if last man back AND penalty) or possibly let a goal score...that could just as well be a good move or a bad move. You see this as cheating, I see this as tactics, not unlike in basketball.

However, heinous fouls where injury can take place for spite or pure evil (like Roy Keane's on Haland) or deception, like Rivaldo, Maradona or Henry's infractions are unquestionably cheating. On that we agree.

[Peter R]

The "because you are black" response Suarez denied... it was reported that he said " porque eres negro" ("because you are black"), Suarez says that he said "
por qué negro" ( why ? black)... and that he never said " blackie blackie blackie... that was Evra... Suarez only admitted using the word once ... the inquiry "found" otherwise on SUBJECTIVE evidence...

In light of the lack of OBJECTIVE evidence we will each believe what we want to to suit our feeling towards the player...

BTW Any thoughts on Evra's use of "concha de tu hermana" and (allegedly as it is not clear what word he used) " sudaca" (spick) ?

[Gamma]

on a slightly different note, if you are playing pick up ball and a man either deliberately handle the ball and denies it or the ball clearly hits him before going out and he denies it .... what do you think of such a person?

what do you think of a person in such a game where the ball makes contact with his hand and before anyone on the other team calss it (whether they saw it or not) he stops play and points out the hand ball?

[Paul Marin]

Then why have such initiatives such as the kick racism out of football at all if its not also to encourage the youth to reject racism or change their thinking when it comes to race/racism?

How far has the kick it out campaign taken football? Are there any pictures of black men on the walls of UEFA headquarters yet (every board member is white) or any real change in club team management? There are less than 5 black managers in England, less in Spain, France, Italy and Germany. The point I'm making is that we shouldn't "drink the koolaid" they spoon feed us. These are programs they put in to pay lip service. For example, there is no concrete goal in the Kick it Out Campaign that says "By such and such a date, we aim to have proportional representation of managers, players etc. across all levels of football both on the field and in management".

[Gamma]

if evra said that then that is as racist ..... the sister thing is offensive and is reminisent of the zidane materazzi incident. on the question of subjective evidence, in my book suarez' history as a cheat (anything to win as his subsequent statements hae confirmed), allows me not to accept him as a credible witness. he also lied to dalglish and the liverpool staff that he would shake evra's hand.

i suppose i would have been more lenient on suarez if him did bax dung evra fi dat comment.

[Peter R]

He did say "concha de tu hermana" and he did call him "south american" but the word(s) he used for the latter is not clear. He clearly did not literally say "south american". Speculation is that it was "sudaca", pejorative in Spain to identify south american immigrants... and contextually much worse than using the word "negro" as a south american would use it. Suarez did not accuse him of abuse on that count BTW so I guess it was not an issue in the board's eyes. They probably accepted the translation "south american" at face value.

Anyway, I accept your reasons for thinking Suarez is what you think he is... I think we can agree to disagree. Is "anything to win" your interpretation or did he say that? He was honest in saying he would handle a ball again and I don't blame him. I agree he should have shaken Evra's hand... that was stupid of him but he is still young and hopefully he will learn. We shall see.

My rhetorical question is why didn't the FA also castigate Evra for his part in the incident? had he gotten even a one match ban for his behaviour and what he said, he was no angel in the matter, I wouldn't be as "upset" by the punishment that was meted out to Suarez.

[Paul Marin]

if evra said that then that is as racist ..... the sister thing is offensive and is reminisent of the zidane materazzi incident. on the question of subjective evidence, in my book suarez' history as a cheat (anything to win as his subsequent statements hae confirmed), allows me not to accept him as a credible witness. he also lied to dalglish and the liverpool staff that he would shake evra's hand.

i suppose i would have been more lenient on suarez if him did bax dung evra fi dat comment.

Evra has been labeled a liar by the French FA and the English FA branded him an "unreliable witness" in the Chelsea groundskeeper affair yet you take his word over Suarez's as being more credible? Why the double standard. The fact of the matter is that Evra started the altercation by telling the man bout him sista and calling him an offensive term. But no one seems to want to hear that part of the story or are you now saying that Evra is also a racist?

[Paul Marin]

on a slightly different note, if you are playing pick up ball and a man either deliberately handle the ball and denies it or the ball clearly hits him before going out and he denies it .... what do you think of such a person?

what do you think of a person in such a game where the ball makes contact with his hand and before anyone on the other team calss it (whether they saw it or not) he stops play and points out the hand ball?

Case 1 - man denies the handball regardless of whether it is deliberate or not - TIEF. The key is in the denial as that action is an attempt to deceive.

Case 2 - man stops playing after handling the ball (he alone knowing) it - if he stops because he handled it unintentionally, then he needs to read the rule book - it only counts if it was intentional so he should have kept playing. If it was deliberate and he stopped play when no one saw it, then very sporting of him but he runs the risk of the referee shouting play on with no time for his team to regroup. If that's the case, he's an idiot and should have at least kicked the ball out of play.

The key in all of this to me is deception and intent as the defining factors. If the player INTENDS to DECEIVE then him tief. Getting away with it is an entirely different matter.

[GazX]

How far has the kick it out campaign taken football? Are there any pictures of black men on the walls of UEFA headquarters yet (every board member is white) or any real change in club team management? There are less than 5 black managers in England, less in Spain, France, Italy and Germany. The point I'm making is that we shouldn't "drink the koolaid" they spoon feed us. These are programs they put in to pay lip service. For example, there is no concrete goal in the Kick it Out Campaign that says "By such and such a date, we aim to have proportional representation of managers, players etc. across all levels of football both on the field and in management".

So its a complete waste of time aiming such programmes at the youth is what yr saying.
And does this lip service to such programmes also extend to all football clubs including Liverpool FC to which success is the most important thing?