by melonhead »
24 Oct 2012 15:11
Hoop Blah melonhead If there is such anger over Terry's ban why haven't they given any indication of what they think would've been a just sentence and the reasons behind it. I can understand the logic of 4 vs 8 games for the two recent cases, I can't really see the logic behind saying the muliple abuse isn't worse than one outburst.
i think what they want is a clear policy from the FA about how future offences will be dealt with, that is open, and transparent, and consistent, in a way that the suarez/terry cases most certainly werent
this would make sure that it was not possible to look at a future case judgement and be able to think one was deleyed or more lenienty, due to any racism inherrant in the system itself.
i cant see the logic behind the 4-8 game ban at all
if anything i think it could be argued they were the wrong way round, in that suarez had more mitigation in that the word he used is a common part of his national language, and carries few racist connotations from his point of view, plus he admitted it straight away.
and john terry tried tio lie and blag his way throuproceedings to get away with it.
it should be zero tolerance. if you use racist(or homophobic, or sectarian) language on th efield, it should be a 8 match ban(or 4 if prefferred,) for every oneand this should be doubled each time it occurs.
you cant use the exuse that its just descriptive,or that it was just an outburst , that you arent a racist, the words just came out
you cant distinguish like that.
would be like you punching someone in the street, and then asking the police to let you off cos you arent usually a violent person.
the authorities can only judge by your actions.if you punch someone, youre violent, if you use abuse someone racially, youre a racist,
etc
We'll have the agree to disagree on quite a bit of that^^ then (not for the first time!). Repeated use of an insult is worse in my opinion as it, IMO, shows more intent and disregard and I do believe you can throw a race related insult without neccesarily being a racist.
Heat of the moment is no excuse of course, but things are said in the heat of battle or an argument that you don't mean and would regret saying. Repeating those in different instances and willfully doing so is worse as that regret and remorse is obviously not there (IMO).
I just can't help thinking that a lot of the comment and discussion has been counter-productive to the cause.
fair enough, i just think zero tolerance should be the way forward, and that it doesnt matter if you say it once, or ten times, in the heat of the moment, or premeditatively, use it descriptively, or as a genuinely intended insult.
the ban should be the same, as a deterrent, and a message to black players that its to be taken seriously
today the PFA have come up with a series of recommendations to the FA, for how to deal with racism, covering all of the points put by roberts when making his stand.
stronger punishments
consistent punishments
fair and transparent process
acknowlegdement that racism should be gross misconduct, and therefore carry the risk of sacking, just like in any other job
and making sure black managers get at least an interview for managers jobs
seems like it was a totally productive move by roberts, and if the FA take it up, then i hope this will be an end to the threat about a seperate black players union
