|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2012 11:04:19 GMT
So if Terry said to somebody in the crowd the same thing that he said to Ferdinand, then he'd get a ban of two years (or a comparable ban of a fan guilty of racially abusing a player) from all football stadia in the UK?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 28, 2012 11:08:48 GMT
Great question Paul. The answer, of course, is don't be so fucking stupid! He is John Terry so the punishment would obviously be different and less severe than it should be because he wouldn't abuse any supporter in such a way...In such circumstances, John Terry would merely be asking the supporter if this is the abuse that they had accused him of making!
|
|
|
Post by rubyonrails on Sept 28, 2012 11:16:44 GMT
What if John Terry was in the crowd on his day off and abused someone as a fan? Do you honestly think he'd get a 2 year ban? Paul is asking about consistency.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 28, 2012 11:17:34 GMT
So if Terry said to somebody in the crowd the same thing that he said to Ferdinand, then he'd get a ban of two years (or a comparable ban of a fan guilty of racially abusing a player) from all football stadia in the UK? I think, to be fair, if Terry had racially abused someone in the crowd then he would probably have been convicted rather than aquitted in court - there would after all have been plenty in the crowd to act as witnesses - especially as he would most likely have abused an opposition fan! ;D If convicted of racially abusing someone in the crowd I'm pretty sure he'd have got more than a 4 game ban from the court although he would not have got a £220k fine as courts don't fine someone a week's wages or whatever. However, I think he'd probably have, after the conviction, have had his contract torn up by Chelsea after an internal disciplinary hearing.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2012 11:24:36 GMT
Ruby's right, it's the whole (in)consistency of it all that bothers me - it really does smack of one rule for one and another for all the others.
There are Tottenham fans, some who were as young as 14 at the time, currently serving five year banning orders for singing the Sol Campbell song, yet Terry gets away with a four match ban.
There just seems to be a unbelievably large disparity between the two punishments imo.
|
|
|
Post by rubyonrails on Sept 28, 2012 11:35:30 GMT
Ruby's right, it's the whole (in)consistency of it all that bothers me - it really does smack of one rule for one and another for all the others. There are Tottenham fans, some who were as young as 14 at the time, currently serving five year banning orders for singing the Sol Campbell song, yet Terry gets away with a four match ban. There just seems to be a unbelievably large disparity between the two punishments imo. It's an interesting point. If the act of racism and racist abuse is deemed illegal within our society, then why don't we have the same law for every citizen? Surely it should be treated as GBH or ABH? The racism laws should be upheld forcefully and the punishments should be uniform.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Sept 28, 2012 11:53:36 GMT
But context is everything with words.
He did say the words "f*cking black c*nt".
(Somewhat strangely the most offensive word is the only one I CAN type on here!)
But his defence that he was simply repeating back the words Ferdinand had accused him of saying has stood up in court so all you are then left with are those 3 words.
According to FA rules he should not have uttered them but with no proven malice behind them in effect he has received a 4 match ban for swearing.
Actually it sets a dangerous precedent. What if a black player went to a referee and said "that fella just called me a f*cking black c*nt". Potentially he has committed the same offence but you couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't ban him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2012 12:46:00 GMT
i'm with Paul (and just about everybody else to be fair) re: consistency and to me this whole matter just shows (again) what an absolute shambles the FA are,just seems to be a make it up as you go along kind of philosophy with them especially given that one of their own rules for they themselves to follow states that if there if there is a civil or criminal procdeure followed then the FA will stnad by that decision and that will be the over riding decision on the matter, which David Davies also highlighted and was confused as to why the FA then decided to break their own ruling on the matter.for some reason they decided to bend the rules when it came to Terry (presumbaly because of media coverage more than anything else)
it just strikes me more than anything as a big PR campaign to show they are doing something about racism in football but then basically pay lip services to it all with a pathetic ruling and sentence which won't deter anyone.
UEFA,FIFA, the FA...as long as it ends in "FA" then it's corrupt, shambolic and in general a bloody embarassment to the game
|
|