itt liverpool not winning things; sandbox i love football

That Wigan equaliser was greeted by the sort of cheer you get when a ballboy slips over.

arsenal within 3 of spurs as it stands

the run in to st. toteringham's day begins

chelololsea

Oof. By the end of that game I was quite relieved with the point. Swansea looked very good, way better than Norwich last week.

they are a lot better, lambert must be something special cuz that team is full of dreck (is holt/morison even midtable champo level?)

tottenham played pretty much their first xi again which is going to cost them in injuries/exhaustion again in the spring

Chelsea made Villa look good, which is damn near impossible. Chelsea is extremely slow in the back - I think even Dunne and Collins outpace them, which is incredibly sad.

so the suarez judgement is out

The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he just called me a fucking black".

Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders. Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just blackhaired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que, negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during the match.

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

liverpool fans will have some coruscating opinions about that but right now they're holding a candlelit vigil for shrivelled troll jay spearing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sfp3X_E2gY

Mr Dalglish does not speak Spanish, other than what he called "restaurant Spanish".

that fa report is a stone cold classic

"There is no word that means "Nigger" in Spanish and I was
not aware of this word until the allegations made by Mr Evra."

I'd have sent Cabaye and Spearing off.

I predict big things for the author of that report. 2012 is going to be a big year for him/her.

Mr Dalglish does not speak Spanish, other than what he called "restaurant Spanish"

Didn't he get the Rangers European super-scout role in the 90s because he could get by in a number of European languages? I also seem to recall the jokes at the times were all about him doing not much else other than playing golf in Spain while he had the job and when was he going to visit some other countries (or watch some football matches).

340. Mr Suarez plays with black players in the Uruguay national team and has no problems
with them. When they are on international duty, the families are together. When Mr
Suarez was in South Africa for the 2010 World Cup, he became involved in a charity in
conjunction with the black Cameroon goalkeeper, Carlos Kameni, and Andres Iniesta, the
Spain and Barcelona player. Each of them was filmed meeting a young South African who
played football as part of a project with young black and white children to encourage
solidarity and stamp out racism. The central theme of the film, which the Commission
watched, is that the colour of a person's skin does not matter, they can all play together as
a team. It shows Mr Suarez meeting one of the young footballers. The DVD of the film is
advertised on Mr Suarez's Facebook page, via which it can be bought with all the money
going to help the charity.

353. On occasions, Mr Suarez has used the word "negro" to address people with black skin
without any intention to offend and in a way that would be seen as inoffensive in
Uruguay. He is familiar with this use of the word from his upbringing in Uruguay. He
said he uses it in this way when speaking to other black players in England, such as when
he says "Just pass the ball, negro" to Glen Johnson.

I liked Mr Greaney invited the Commission to attach no weight to paragraph 8 of Hernandez's statement, which largely contained a statement of his opinion on the use of the Spanish language (on the basis that a witness may generally only give evidence of facts, not opinion unless he is called as an expert, here in the Spanish language, which Hernandez was not).

Only read the conclusions but it boils down to:

• one man's word against another
• Evra came across well
• Suarez didn't so much; some of his evidence was self-contradictory
• he's no racist; but that wasn't the charge
• on the actual charge, he's bang to rights
• eight games might be too harsh

The charge brought is that Mr Suarez used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Mr Evra contrary to Rule E3(1), and that this breach of Rule E3(1) included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race within the meaning of Rule E3(2) ("the Charge").

Tevez is being carted into the transfer window in infamy – at worst, boarded up like some gibbering, drooling freak for a distant, barbarian circus; at best, offered as a disappeared masterpiece to a private collector who doesn't ask questions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/article6283511.ece

blatantly ending up at anzhi

tottenham played pretty much their first xi again which is going to cost them in injuries/exhaustion again in the spring

I worry about that, but otoh that first xi has only really been fighting on one front all season. Interested to see what Redknapp does in the FA Cup, got a feeling we're either bombing out in the third round or winning it.

Just read the whole report. If there is an appeal, I can't see Liverpool's conduct since the verdict (the Suarez t-shirts, the official statement, etc) helping - if anything the punishment could be extended. This bit is damning:
356. Mr Suarez's pinching of Mr Evra's skin was not an attempt to defuse the situation. On the
contrary, it was an attempt to aggravate Mr Evra and to inflame the situation. Mr Suarez's
admitted use of the word "negro" when speaking to Mr Evra was not conciliatory and
friendly. It was unfriendly and was used as part of Mr Suarez's attempt to wind up Mr
Evra. The whole tenor of the exchanges was confrontational and argumentative. Adopting
the words used by the Spanish language experts, Mr Suarez did not use "negro" with any
sense of rapport or in an attempt to create such rapport.
357. Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he
sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of
what happened. Even Mr McCormick accepted in his closing submissions that the
pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To
suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these
topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the
reliability of his evidence.
358. Mr Suarez's account of his admitted use of the word "negro" changed several times. He
seemed unsure of when the admitted use took place and what triggered it. His account
seemed to change in an attempt to fit in with the video evidence.

The weirdest bit, I thought, was that both Dalglish and Comolli said to the ref after the match that Suarez had said "because you are black" and Dirk Kuyt also confirmed Suarez had told him the same thing in a separate conversation carried out in Dutch. "According to Mr Suarez, Mr Comolli misheard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish and Mr Kuyt misheard what Mr Suarez said in Dutch." The findings of the commission that the defence only used the word "concilliatory" after it was presented to them as one of the potential language modifiers smacks of lawyers who know their client is likely to be found guilty but are looking to win on technicalities.

To be honest, the whole thing reads a bit like an attempt at coaching and damage limitation after the game by Comolli - which then went wrong because, as is often the case with a not-entirely-true sequence of events, it's hard to all agree on exactly what story you're all going to use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEwLkCRziD8

TheLFCZone

What the hell is that?

It seems that Rooney was dropped yesterday for having broken a curfew and gone drinking. Twat.

Nice work by motd, playing ferguson's interview ("you see those in the box every day not being given. That sums up the referee's performance today") over the clearest possible footage of Berbatov hauling down Samba.

btw there's a difference in legal-speak between credibility and reliability. Credibility is whether you're telling the truth or not; reliability is whether or not you're accurate. Suarez is mostly found wanting on reliability, not credibility. They sound the same but they're not quite - it's normal for witnesses to be unreliable on certain points because of bad memory, time lag, things happening fast, been drinking, etc. Lack of credibility is much worse, but even then iirc he's incredible about explanations more than facts.

Also the comments about standard of proof are interesting. They're working to 'balance of probabilities' i.e. on the evidence before them Suarez was more likely than not to have done it. The CPS work to a different test - they have to consider there to be a realistic prospect of proof beyond reasonable doubt before they can prosecute. We don't know what evidence they have against Terry, but as it passed the tougher CPS test it's got to be very likely that, when he's charged by the FA, it would comfortably pass the 'balance of probabilities' test.

Was there a statement/explanation from the police about Suarez not being charged?

Not that I'm aware of. I don't think there was even a complaint made to them. And reading the FA report, there's no way he'd've been convicted - this was a marginal call in which they essentially had to choose one or other and preferred Evra's version - an actual criminal trial isn't like that, you have to get over the 'beyond reasonable doubt' hurdle and anything short of that means not guilty.

Also the charge would've been different. The FA's 'insults with reference to colour' is weaker than 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress which was racially aggravated' like Terry's been charged with.

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/EMP-6274166.jpg

Is Scharner some kind of hipster or something?

― Number None, Wednesday, December 21, 2011 11:34 PM (1 week ago)

I feel like we never really got the bottom of this. A cursory GIS yields not very much. Bad mistake for the goal completing a bad day for our Williamsburg-dwelling, tweed-wearing hero.

Need a gif of Hodgson's Head Banging to go alongside the Face Rub. #HodgsonForEngland

Not that I'm aware of. I don't think there was even a complaint made to them.

I don't know why, but that does seem to be the rule that gets cited. I can't imagine that's how they decide whether to get involved in gunfights or unclaimed dead bodies, right enough.

City laying siege is something to behold

Good lord.

Woohoo!

That was a beauty

Clearly offside!

half a step, but yeah.

Well-taken by the lad tbf.

keeps the league interesting

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!