If there's any doubt that Halsey is crap...

[Gamma]

karl, if as a ref you gave a player a penalty and later found it that it was a simulation (and that it was not an isolated incident), would it or would it not come into your reckoning in respect of the same player in a subsequently similar situation?

[Karl]

karl, if as a ref you gave a player a penalty and later found it that it was a simulation (and that it was not an isolated incident), would it or would it not come into your reckoning in respect of the same player in a subsequently similar situation?

I know it is easy for the spectator to think it plays a factor...but as per myself, if it did it would have to be not on a conscious level but a subconscious one.

You just had to be 'cold' and call the decisions as you saw them. If you did not - then you would be a tief! -- not being fair to the game...no getting around that.

After matches there is at least some discussion on how the match was handled - What possibe explanation could that ref give for a decision such as the last Suarez non-call - "I did not see the play"?

It happens that plays are missed and some when as per positioning you are right on top of the play...but that article's suggestion(s)????? Does not sound like football refereeing to me.

[Paul Marin]

funny fi true, as i was responding to the article you posted.

never saw the norwich game.

(unu too selective)

[Gamma]

ok ... thank you. on a sub-conscious level is good enough. it is human nature. we are told as children about the boy who cried "wolf" time and again.

i must say a ref would be a FOOL to continually fall for the repeated simulations of a cheater.

[Karl]

ok ... thank you. on a sub-conscious level is good enough. it is human nature. we are told as children about the boy who cried "wolf" time and again.

i must say a ref would be a FOOL to continually fall for the repeated simulations of a cheater.

Are we talking about that Saurez incident? Where the opponent tried to run through Saurez's back?

I do not know about you...but anyone should have seen and anyone can visualize a player with ball infront of him being mauled from behind (i.e. opponent trying to go through the man with the ball). ...that perspective had me wondering on the lack of award of a penalty.

btw - 'simulations'?
It is not a situation when I was a ref where it was a 'halt game and penalise'. I am still not understanding the reasoning behind this 'new' policy.

It was 'no foul, game goes on'. Now it is 'no foul', player goes down (dives?), stop game, penalise. What is the point?!

First if the ref 'saw' foul - he must rule as per the rules! ...so why is it now no foul, stop game, penalise player whyo was not fouled?

The point is if a player throws himself/herself to the ground and the ref sees foul it is awarded as such. It was always so. The ref can only award as he/she sees it! What does this 'new set of actions' accomplish besides a few innocent players being penalised when inadvertently falling (leg gives way, slip, slight touch that causes a fall, etc.) and the ref thinks (sees) it as no foul having been committed? ...does it stop other players from throwing selves to ground?

[Gamma]

i speaking about suarez' penchant for diving generally. as i said before i did not see the norwich game but i can understand where refs will be unwilling to give suarez the benefit of any doubt.

[Karl]

OK!

[Paul Marin]

i speaking about suarez' penchant for diving generally. as i said before i did not see the norwich game but i can understand where refs will be unwilling to give suarez the benefit of any doubt.

Since he's been in the prem, where have you seen Suarez dive and the call go FOR him? Never. Secondly, where have you seen Suarez dive and the call go AGAINST him? Always! Thirdly, where have you seen Suarez fouled in the box and the call go FOR him? Never. I don't know this for sure, but I believe the tally of 4 yellows against him for diving over the past 2 seasons shows only 2 were justified.

Next, look at Bale, Young, Rooney, Wellbeck...are you telling me that they are any better in the diving gig than Saint Suarez? Had he been British and not been in that altercation with "that ***** you know who", things would be very different.

At some point, facts have to drive the discussion. His reputation should have ZERO bearing on the ref making the proper call. You all have to get over Ghana - look at this video - any thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuWD-...e=results_main

[Gamma]

Ghana?!!! You are relegated to apologist at worst or blind fan at best!

[Paul Marin]

Ghana?!!! You are relegated to apologist at worst or blind fan at best!

Nope. Just honest. You still don't tell me if you agree wid the video enuh... And as I said, Suarez is not the only one that guilty of diving...Rooney and all a dem man dweet. Me did want Ghana win to' but me woulda do the said thing as Suarez...and if me was playing manu** unu woulda tink seh mi deh inna a swimming pool the 'mount a dive me wouda do...all belly flop woulda come een.

[Gamma]

i saw the replay on a news report and i do think it could (should) have been given as a penalty.

btw i hope you can see the incongruity in this .... Me did want Ghana win to' but me woulda do the said thing as Suarez.. but then yuh claim to have suffered from racism but yet sympathise wid di man dem using racist language ... so there is some consistency in the inconsistency

[Paul Marin]

i saw the replay on a news report and i do think it could (should) have been given as a penalty.

btw i hope you can see the incongruity in this .... Me did want Ghana win to' but me woulda do the said thing as Suarez.. but then yuh claim to have suffered from racism but yet sympathise wid di man dem using racist language ... so there is some consistency in the inconsistency

Now you set me off!!! You are introducing several different arguments.

1. Wanting Ghana to win is inconsistent with empathy for the handball - Why is it inconsistent that while I wanted Ghana to win, I can understand why Suarez did what he did? I wanted Liverpool to win against Manu**, but I understand why Slurgie took off Nani and put on Scholes. Your conclusion makes no sense.

2. I claim to suffer racism. That's no claim...that is fact. Daily for about 4 years. To the point where I would take different routes walking home to avoid it. The only fights I have been in are over people calling me racial names.

3. Sympathise with people who use racist language.

3.1 First of all let's make a SUPER BRIGHT LINE in differentiating between WORDS and RACISM. If I say "Give it to the chiney man..." is that racist? I have used the word Chiney thousands of times without any racial intent. Racism is an inherent form of bigotry against another person simply on the grounds of race. To substantiate racism you need to understand the context of how the word was used and in my opinion, it is an offense that should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the case in the English courts.

3.2 Secondly, who have I "sympathised" with that has used "racist language"? JT? Frimpong? Rio? Hmmm...only one left in recent times is Suarez yet you make it seem like I defend all of them, which is sh*t. I did not say anything about the Suarez case until I read the report. It showed how they operate and exposed them as a sham outfit. I told you before that they made FINDINGS OF FACT that were subtantiated only by Evra's testimony. You and I both know that is garbage. And to be clear - Suarez did not use "racist language". I agree that Evra said he did, and the FA agreed with him, but I read their report and they are over reaching...waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over reaching. They have no facts to back up their conclusions - NONE! Evra's word is all they are going on.

3.3 Third: Racism is ugly and disgusting, whether by a black, white, brown, red or a yellow man; so disgusting that if you are going to call someone a racist, you better damn be sure. Same like calling a man a rapist, child molester or pedophile. There is nothing I have seen in the Suarez affair to make me think Suarez acted racially. That said, Frimpong called a fan a YID, a derogtory term for Jew. Do I think Frimpong is racist? - No. I think he used the word because it is a word some Spurs fans use to describe themselves (e.g. Kopite), so why should I think he is racist? Same goes for Suarez - he and Evra were speaking in Spanish so that is the standard their dialogue had to be evaluated by. So I can't see how anyone can say Suarez is racist if Frimpong isn't. Both used words in a context that doesn't rise to the bar of calling them racist.

I haven't read the report on JT, so I will wait to see that, but it doesn't reduce my suspicions of the FA and their 99.5% conviction rate. That's why I asked you those questions on evidence, I wanted to be educated while reading it. That's far more than I can say for 99.5% of this board who swallow the crap they are spoon fed.

And believe you me...if there is one player (other than Evra) that you will not see me give any sympathy is JT; his prior actions have shown that he is indeed a reprobate, but I don't know if he is a racist. My only indication of his innocence was that I read a report where he said "I didn't call you a b-c...you f-ing knobhead"...and if that is what they charged him on, then I can't see how you could call him racist, but he still may have violated the rule. I will have to read the report first.

And you do have to get over Ghana. They were offside anyway.

PM

[Gamma]

Me did want Ghana win to' but me woulda do the said thing as Suarez? my bad that is VERY consistent!!!

I see you condoning at the very least, the use of racist language moreso when offence is taken to it. we would not have been having this conversation if ferdinand and evra did not take offence. context is important. you make it sound like evra and suarez were discussing the best place to get lox and cream cheese and evra just tek of on a tangent! they were exchanging heated words!!!

if you call a man "chiney" and he is offended ESPECIALLY in a context when they were NOT having tea and crumpets together in civilised way i.e. it was intended to be disparaging .... that is indefensible in my book.

if the person is not offended then it is a non-issue!

ghana? what about ghana? suarez used racist language in that game too? i wasn't aware ... 1st half or 2nd half?

[Peter R]

Me did want Ghana win to' but me woulda do the said thing as Suarez? my bad that is VERY consistent!!!

I see you condoning at the very least, the use of racist language moreso when offence is taken to it. we would not have been having this conversation if ferdinand and evra did not take offence. context is important. you make it sound like evra and suarez were discussing the best place to get lox and cream cheese and evra just tek of on a tangent! they were exchanging heated words!!!

if you call a man "chiney" and he is offended ESPECIALLY in a context when they were NOT having tea and crumpets together in civilised way i.e. it was intended to be disparaging .... that is indefensible in my book.

if the person is not offended then it is a non-issue!

ghana? what about ghana? suarez used racist language in that game too? i wasn't aware ... 1st half or 2nd half?

By your reasoning I could call a man a "chiney" with the intent to abuse him racially but if he took no offense I'm off the hook? and not a racist? but if I used the term and my intent was in no way racist (whether we were having tea and crumpets or not) but he took offense then I'm racist?

In the latter case I would say the language was offensive but not necessarily racist while in the former the language was racist but not necessarily offensive.

So the racist can escape any sanction while the non-racist gets pilloried?hmmmm something just doesn't compute.

The best thing we can do is to avoid referring to a man's ethnicity to avoid being accused of racism... which has led to the sometimes crippling effect of politically correct language on our ability to communicate effectively. But there would seem to be no alternative.

[Gamma]

here comes the cavalry ......

simply put, if you use it with the intent of being offensive and he does not take any offence then yes you are off the hook, who is going to complain?

if you use it not to cause offence and he complains, then your response is not that "i did nothing wrong!" you apologise because it was not your intention to be offensive...you might still get sanctioned for using offensive language because you did.

oh and yes i agree with your conclusion, avoid such language altogether and run no risk ...