Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:24 pm  

getdownmonkeyman wrote:

I have actually read that it was De Gea's fault because he dived the wrong way! The annoying thing about that penalty, is that it happens ten plus times a game, with nothing given. In fact, Berbatov did it to Samba at least one more time in the box.

clearly a pen, but it happens every corner in every game, consistency etc

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:39 pm  

I've spent quite a long time reading a lot of that case and I've still not finished reading it all, it's quite odd though. Things like "Evra was a more impressive witness". And completely accepting Evra's lie to a French journalist as a 'figure of speech', yet every slight flaw in the argument of Suarez was viewed as a weakness to his case. Should be intriguing seeing the various holes that will be picked from it. Not an expert in law so I can't be sure of what the club will do after reading that, but I can't see them taking it on the chin.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:45 pm  

Mark wrote:

Flapped at a routine cross that led to the 3rd. Park was bad as well. Blackburn were quite good as well,.

Really? Blackburn are the worst side i've seen come to OT for a long time, they played with one man up front and still scored more than us. 3 shots on target = 3 goals = questions must be asked. Lindergard has started 5 games and not conceided and i'm certian he'd have caught not flapped (if you can call it a flap) at the 3rd goal

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:58 pm  

Roddy B wrote: I've spent quite a long time reading a lot of that case and I've still not finished reading it all, it's quite odd though. Things like "Evra was a more impressive witness". And completely accepting Evra's lie to a French journalist as a 'figure of speech', yet every slight flaw in the argument of Suarez was viewed as a weakness to his case. Should be intriguing seeing the various holes that will be picked from it. Not an expert in law so I can't be sure of what the club will do after reading that, but I can't see them taking it on the chin. not taking it on the chin would apparently be in keeping with a catalogue of PR disasters by the club and all who sail in her http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... sm-verdict But one legal expert suggested that Liverpool would be ill-advised to appeal given the level of detail in the report. Steven Friel, a lawyer for Brown Rudnick who specialise in complex disputes, said: "Paul Goulding QC didn't draft a 115-page document for the love of writing. He did so because he wanted to 'appeal-proof' the decision, and he has done a very good job. Liverpool face an uphill struggle in overturning the decision, and the risks of trying, but failing to do so are huge. Of all the options that are open to him, an appeal should be far down the list."

Roddy B wrote: I've spent quite a long time reading a lot of that case and I've still not finished reading it all, it's quite odd though. Things like "Evra was a more impressive witness". And completely accepting Evra's lie to a French journalist as a 'figure of speech', yet every slight flaw in the argument of Suarez was viewed as a weakness to his case. Should be intriguing seeing the various holes that will be picked from it. Not an expert in law so I can't be sure of what the club will do after reading that, but I can't see them taking it on the chin. not taking it on the chin would apparently be in keeping with a catalogue of PR disasters by the club and all who sail in her http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... sm-verdict But one legal expert suggested that Liverpool would be ill-advised to appeal given the level of detail in the report. Steven Friel, a lawyer for Brown Rudnick who specialise in complex disputes, said: "Paul Goulding QC didn't draft a 115-page document for the love of writing. He did so because he wanted to 'appeal-proof' the decision, and he has done a very good job. Liverpool face an uphill struggle in overturning the decision, and the risks of trying, but failing to do so are huge. Of all the options that are open to him, an appeal should be far down the list."

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:02 pm  

Linguistic experts assessed Suárez's defence but determined that his language on the pitch "would be considered racially offensive" anywhere.

The report continued: "Mr Suárez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an attempt to defuse the situation, and that his employment of the word 'negro' to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:12 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

I've spent quite a long time reading a lot of that case and I've still not finished reading it all, it's quite odd though. Things like "Evra was a more impressive witness". And completely accepting Evra's lie to a French journalist as a 'figure of speech', yet every slight flaw in the argument of Suarez was viewed as a weakness to his case. Should be intriguing seeing the various holes that will be picked from it. Not an expert in law so I can't be sure of what the club will do after reading that, but I can't see them taking it on the chin.

It's not odd that they say which evidence they prefer. It's why witnessess are used.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:34 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

I've spent quite a long time reading a lot of that case and I've still not finished reading it all, it's quite odd though. Things like "Evra was a more impressive witness". And completely accepting Evra's lie to a French journalist as a 'figure of speech', yet every slight flaw in the argument of Suarez was viewed as a weakness to his case. Should be intriguing seeing the various holes that will be picked from it. Not an expert in law so I can't be sure of what the club will do after reading that, but I can't see them taking it on the chin.

I'll tell you what is odd. The fact that you are still defending a racist even after the reasons behind the decision have been released.

The report shows it was even worse than the use of one word and was clearly racist.

I'm appalled but not surprised that you and LFC still take this victim mentality approach to everything. He should be sacked by Liverpool and the 8 games is very lenient. Surely you can see that?

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:54 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I'll tell you what is odd. The fact that you are still defending a racist even after the reasons behind the decision have been released.

The report shows it was even worse than the use of one word and was clearly racist.

I'm appalled but not surprised that you and LFC still take this victim mentality approach to everything. He should be sacked by Liverpool and the 8 games is very lenient. Surely you can see that?

How you jump to your conclusions completely baffles me, it really does. Where do I defend Suarez in that post at all?

The report (up to where I've read) doesn't show anything to convince me that Suarez is guilty. That doesn't mean I'm defending him, it's just my opinion on the report up to where I've read. All I have read so far is Evra's case and Suarez's case, how on earth am I supposed to come to a conclusion from two opposing opinions on something?

My comment about Evra's ten times being accepted as a 'figure of speech', was simply highlighting what I felt was a flaw. How can somebody's lie just be accepted as a figure of speech in an argument where every single thing matters, let alone a clear lie? I'll make my full judgement when I've read the full thing, but just because three men at the FA have found him guilty, doesn't mean he is. Like anything in life, innocent people can be put away for things they haven't done, I've had people close to me take the same treatment so I simply won't accept you trying to put me down for having an opinion different to yours.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:00 pm  

so the 'negrito' thing and its nuances was a load of tosh too?

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:02 pm  

It's quite incredible really. LFC fans seem to think Suarez can only be guilty if he explicitly says he was. Which he has. Yet apparently it's still a witch hunt