FA charge John Terry

[The Future's Blue]

my sentiments exactly, if you the FA are serious about racism then Ferdinand has to be charged as well, if he does n't then some might accuse him of playing the race card. If we go with the court's decision that Terry did n't intend to use racist language in an insulting manner then what he did (using foul language to wind an opponent and get him booked, sent off, win a FK, pen or just make him play poorly) was just as bad. But was it really surpising that they did it anyway? chelsea were losing 1-0 and down to 9 men, undeservedly from their perspective, whilst they had a new manager under pressure for results and performances and the "derby" element would have added something else.

We know players will try to use dark arts and tricks to get one over on an opponent, Martin Keown would n't use banter he just use to pinch them, Lucio tugged Drogba's injured arm at WC 2010, whilst multi-lingual players can wind people up without the referee knowing what they said, Evra spoke in spanish whilst making commentss about suarez's sister. You can't clean football up from foul language, when it is obvious like Rooney at West ham, players giving it out to supporters and officials ,then punish them. However, I think because of the nature of the game, the high pressure, the high tempo and aggression, I think players swearing at themselves or each other is something that would be too difficult to kick out.

Not being picky but if your debate is based on the highlighted then it is clearly flawed. What the Judge said was that from what he could see of the footage he could not determine what was actually said. In short, he couldn't find him guilty but neither could he find him innocent. Unless I've missed something, of course.

I agree though, Ferdinand should certainly be up on charges for 'Insulting' language, they are both horrid human beings.

 

[bluemike]

I'm confused.
Terry has been cleared by the law of the land. What "evidence" do the FArce have against him that Camelgob Jnr's legal team did not use?

 

[cookster]

I'm confused.
Terry has been cleared by the law of the land. What "evidence" do the FArce have against him that Camelgob Jnr's legal team did not use?

Different charge as I see it, none racial.

Camel gob jr surely should face a charge as well.

 

[Tony101]

Based on what Terry openly admitted to saying in court I'm not sure how he can claim he didn't use "abusive and/or insulting words", unless of course he doesn't actually know what the words "abusive" and "insulting" actually mean! The racist allegation has been included as an "add on" which is born out by the phrase "it is further alleged....", this means I'd imagine that they can still find him guilty and punish him for some elements of what he said whilst not having to find him guilty/punish him for the racist element.

ferdinand should be done as well as he insulted terry. im sorry but to ban players for insulting each other would mean teams would have 3-4 players banned every week. players always swear at each other, specially when one mistimes a tackles. there's always words being exchanged,. If you gonna ban players for that then football has gone mad.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

my sentiments exactly, if you the FA are serious about racism then Ferdinand has to be charged as well, if he does n't then some might accuse him of playing the race card. If we go with the court's decision that Terry did n't intend to use racist language in an insulting manner then what he did (using foul language to wind an opponent and get him booked, sent off, win a FK, pen or just make him play poorly) was just as bad. But was it really surpising that they did it anyway? chelsea were losing 1-0 and down to 9 men, undeservedly from their perspective, whilst they had a new manager under pressure for results and performances and the "derby" element would have added something else.

We know players will try to use dark arts and tricks to get one over on an opponent, Martin Keown would n't use banter he just use to pinch them, Lucio tugged Drogba's injured arm at WC 2010, whilst multi-lingual players can wind people up without the referee knowing what they said, Evra spoke in spanish whilst making commentss about suarez's sister. You can't clean football up from foul language, when it is obvious like Rooney at West ham, players giving it out to supporters and officials ,then punish them. However, I think because of the nature of the game, the high pressure, the high tempo and aggression, I think players swearing at themselves or each other is something that would be too difficult to kick out.

Not being picky but if your debate is based on the highlighted then it is clearly flawed. What the Judge said was that from what he could see of the footage he could not determine what was actually said. In short, he couldn't find him guilty but neither could he find him innocent. Unless I've missed something, of course.

I agree though, Ferdinand should certainly be up on charges for 'Insulting' language, they are both horrid human beings.

The highlighted point, was meant to qualify that if the situation described was true, i.e JT "no I did not call you a black ****" was the context of the words used then JT was n't being racist; then Anton behaved just as badly as him, otherwise if JT was using racist language to de-mean or degrade him then it is obviously not six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Your point, is being picky and need not have been made, JT was presumed innocent prior to the trial and he should be after his aquittal, once JT put his words in context (whether he was telling the truth or it was a lie made up after the event) there was little anybody could do to secure a conviction. I personally think that he did n't do it anyway (I'm no fan of JT, I don't hate or dislike him either as he is not worth the effort, so I suppose I am indifferent to him), racism is stupid and ignorant, but I don't think that JT is that much of a tool to openly use overt racist language in front of a number of black team mates and black opposition players.He could of caused a mass brawl, caused dressing room unrest, lost personal income etc.

I don't think that the FA can go down the racism charge route unless there is evidence to suggest he intended to use racist language in an insulting manner, for instance in the Suarez case, he argued cultural differences, but it is irrelevant whether the word "negro" or whatever he used is offensive on its own because he is reported to have said "I don't speak to blacks" that alone was enough to find him guilty, as he must of intended to insult and offend Evra. Unless there is sufficient evidence to prove that JT used racist language outside of the context he says he did then you have to go on the assumption that he genuinely believed that Anton had accused him of calling him a black ****, and so was responding in what he described as offense at such an accusation. Whilst it is probably irrelevant if Anton actually did accuse him, JT mis-hearing him and believing an accusation was made would have the same effect.

 

[DaveTheYid]

This is John Terry's defence.

He admits he used the "Racist Words".

But what he says is that he used the Racist Words as he asked Anton whether he thought he had used those "racist words".

Why would you even risk repeating those words on a pitch If you believe they were racist.

It's blatantly obvious, Suarez has been made a scapegoat, The FA released Terry's details today to avoid publicity but they let Suarez hanging.

FA are protecting JT because he is english.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

This is John Terry's defence.

He admits he used the "Racist Words".

But what he says is that he used the Racist Words as he asked Anton whether he thought he had used those "racist words".

Why would you even risk repeating those words on a pitch If you believe they were racist.

It's blatantly obvious, Suarez has been made a scapegoat, The FA released Terry's details today to avoid publicity but they let Suarez hanging.

FA are protecting JT because he is english.

I think he may have felt he needed to respond to prevent an escalation, potential clash or was as he put is outraged and so may have responded without thought on whether somebody might accuse him of doing it by refusing he did, maybe he felt he should assert that he did n't say them to Anton in order to stop any potential conflict. If he did use those words to insult Anton, would n't he have said it so that he heard him. Maybe Anton was told by a legal team or somebody that he should deny hearing JT deny what he said so it appears that it was n't a reply to an accusation rather just an insult, is it possible that Anton has a previous greivance with JT (they have known eachother for a long time as they were both in West ham's accademy) and because of a disliking of JT ignored any informed knowledge that JT appeared not guilty and seeked to damage his reputation because of a personal dislike.

The suarez situation is different, he does n't have a good grasp of english culture and what is acceptable whilst he was also used racist language more than once and it was response to a comment made about his sister, which was to insult and provoke offence, so the use of "negro" can be taken to be an insult when used in the context of a comeback insult, also suarez was perhaps naive, apart from Evra who witnessed him say it, whilst it was in spanish and besides them and the goalkeepers how many spanish speakers were playing in that game, was it even recorded on TV? Should he have just tried to contextualise it by lying that a situation like JT-Anton occured or just have denied it and said that Evra was aggreived at an insulting response to the sister comment that did n't involve racism but made a malicious and false accusasation to damage suarez's public image.

Maybe it is because Suarez was n't aware of how something is perceived as racially offensive or just how serious racism is treated, in different cultures things that might be offensive are perfectly acceptable;for instance in Brazil, Asians are described as an ethnic group as yellow and Santos players made slit eyes in reference to asians in an advert, however both are offensive in the UK.
It might not excuse him of blame, but it perhaps explains why he was un-prepared to defend himself and so received a harsh punishment for what the panel may have believing that he was trying to hide behind cultural differences. JT has a London background so is well aware of the context of which words that may be racially offensive can and can not be used, so is better placed for constructing a story (playing devil's advocate here, I think he told the truth) that may result in a not guilty verdict rather than a frivilous and mis-handled defence that is more likely to cause offence and result in a harsher punishment.

 

[Gultgult]

If he played 4 the RAGS nothin would b said It's only heat of the moment shit we all say at times and don't mean rek sum1 at the old farts club( f.a.) has it in 4 him

 

[kennycar]

The way I look at it, (admittedly I'm no expert and probably wrong but this is my opinion) when he was put before a court of law, he was being tried as a citizen. And in the grand scheme of racial attacks, this was offensive but hardly the crime of the century if I'm honest. I in no way condone racism but a lot worse goes on, it was a snap racist insult which wasn't actually loud enough for the offended party to hear. It wasn't persistent racist bullying for example. Disgusting but not necessarily a crime worth punishing.

And the judge gave the impression of saying "I'm only about 70% sure you said what you did and even so, probably not worth a criminal sentence anyway". Now being tried by the FA you have certain responsibilities as a role model that have to be taken into account and they're not branding him for life with a criminal record, so 70% sure is probably enough to give him a short ban.

Just my two penneth though.

 

[MadchesterCity]

a horrible man and dirty player, scum bag that will get off lightly