John Terry banned for 4 games by FA

[Firemouth]

if we ignore if he was guilty or not.
why was Terry's fine 6x that they handed to Suarez, for the same offence?
even with only a 4 match ban, it seems odd.

personally, I'll bet Rio Ferdinand is rubbing his hands in glee.
i bet he never dreamt his string could have caused so much trouble.

now, though i offer no evidence, and do not state it as fact.
I'm personally convinced that Rio is the driving force behind this whole spat.

 

[ellie1998]

Think back to the OJ Simpson trial folks. He was found 'not-guilty' in criminal court, but he was successfully prosecuted in civil court for "wrongful death" and had to pay out millions in compensation.

A criminal "not-guilty" is not the end. It never has been.

I don't take any notice of American law either I thought we were talking about England here.
You babbling on about American law and vectorz going on about peado's i'm wondering if you two are even aware what the thread is about.

Any chance of staying on thread as you two seem to be wandering quite a bit ?

 

[nara]

I don't take any notice of American law either I thought we were talking about England here.

U.S. Law is based on English Common Law. The details differ but the basic precepts have always been exactly the same.

I also fail to see where I've been wandering, or babbling for that matter.

 

[VectorZ]

If I saw something like that then it wouldn't get to court.

I see you still haven't answered the question.

The FA are not a civil court so they have no right to attempt to be superior to our criminal courts.

For me this is about our legal system saying not guilty (rightly or wrongly) and some jumped up corporate twats from a football association believing they are above the English law system.

Who the hell do the FA think they are that they can supersede English law like this ffs.

You have drawn the bottom of the barrel going for peado when john terry has not been accused of this or was that just for dramatic effect ?

Going by the fact you won't answer then I can only draw the conclusion that you mean you would take matters into your own hand and the sicko wouldn't even get to court, as I don't think your statement could be taken any other way... so no, I'm not scrapping the bottom of the barrel, it's a scenario that could happen (far worse has) and therefore you've just proved the point I was trying to make that on the one hand people are saying the courts are absolute and nobody has the right to overrule them, yet faced with a situation like I mentioned it'd be fine to take matters into their own hands.

You babbling on about American law and vectorz going on about peado's i'm wondering if you two are even aware what the thread is about.

Any chance of staying on thread as you two seem to be wandering quite a bit ?

But of course I'm wrong to disagree with you and you'll probably come up with some excuse but instead why don't you take your head out of your arse and realise that people do have different opinions than you and then you might be able to see the point other people are trying to make instead of accusing them of going OT and not comprehending your own double standards.

Can't wait for your words of wisdom... :tumbleweed:

 

[ojola]

wasnt suarez banned for 8 for the same thing

double standards ... no good.

 

[ojola]

its a fookin disgrace ,, once the courts said no he didnt that should of been the end of it

I beg to disagree... the courts found John Terry not guilty of Racist abuse and of not being racist. but the FA commission ruled that he was guilty of misconduct during Chelsea's Barclays Premier League defeat at QPR on October 23 last year. 2 different things. We need to differentiate between the two charges.

 

[ojola]

What constitutes a misconduct? That is a question we need to be asking the FA and ourselves.

 

[ojola]

These are the rules from FIFA / FA

Sending-Off Offences
A player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

1. is guilty of serious foul play
2. is guilty of violent conduct
3. spits at an opponent or any other person
4. denies an opponent a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
5. denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
6. uses offensive, insulting or abusive language
7. receives a second caution in the same match

 

[ojola]

does number 6 look familiar? Let us not forget that Terry does not deny using some insulting and abusive words. He denies racial abuse. I think the FA are only sticking to the rules that they and all players signed up to in the 1st place. rules that have benefited John Terry and other footballers to the point that we all worship them and they can claim to be gladiators of our time. I see no wrong in the conclusion of the FA

 

[Bronto]

But of course I'm wrong to disagree with you and you'll probably come up with some excuse but instead why don't you take your head out of your arse and realise that people do have different opinions than you and then you might be able to see the point other people are trying to make instead of accusing them of going OT and not comprehending your own double standards.

Can't wait for your words of wisdom... :tumbleweed:

Vector, up until that point you were having a good debate with some valid points worth debating, the above in red is bordering on an insult, please take this as a friendly warning, insulting members, mods or otherwise will not be tolerated

Thanks

 

[ellie1998]

Vector, up until that point you were having a good debate with some valid points worth debating, the above in red is bordering on an insult, please take this as a friendly warning, insulting members, mods or otherwise will not be tolerated

Thanks

It just shows he was losing, can't control himself so instead of logic has to use abuse.
I took it that the debate was finished as he had already given up with sensible debate and started the normal trick of throwing abuse.
Will mention hitler next (godwins law).
:roflmao:

ps bit of difference between a peado and a bit of stick on a football pitch, I believe peadophiles are worse than someone that swears but then we have different morals/standards.

 

[VectorZ]

Vector, up until that point you were having a good debate with some valid points worth debating, the above in red is bordering on an insult, please take this as a friendly warning, insulting members, mods or otherwise will not be tolerated

Thanks

Fair point as it was an insult in the same way I felt insulted by being told I was babbling on and not even aware of what the thread was about - a common theme for Ellie when people disagree

 

[ojola]

Fair point as it was an insult in the same way I felt insulted by being told I was babbling on and not even aware of what the thread was about - a common theme for Ellie when people disagree

Let us remember that on the street there are very many people we would ordinarily not trade words or join words with. At times just by looking at them or by listening to them we can decide not to engage. Online it is quite a little difficult but after seeing guys logic and line of thought u can safely determine their level of thought, at times IQ..... We all have different coping strategies to win arguments, some use logic, others use big words others use abuse while others use violence.

 

[VectorZ]

It just shows he was losing, can't control himself so instead of logic has to use abuse.
I took it that the debate was finished as he had already given up with sensible debate and started the normal trick of throwing abuse.
Will mention hitler next (godwins law).
:roflmao:

Firstly I don't consider thing like this, or you as a contest so obviously I wasn't losing anything (weird) and secondly accusing someone of babbling and not knowing what they're talking about in your usual nonchalant manner isn't confrontational or insulting, but telling someone they've got their head up their arse is? It's hard to know where you stand with your moralistic double standards?!

ps bit of difference between a peado and a bit of stick on a football pitch, I believe peadophiles are worse than someone that swears but then we have different morals/standards.

And yet again you're missing the point... it's not about a peadophile, it's about one the one hand someone saying the courts can't be overruled while in the other saying it's ok because we all have different morals/standards - therefore your morals mean double standards.

 

[smirnoff_rules]

do black guys really care about this ? 2 of my m8's that are think its a joke ,, they dont care abit .. its name calling .. ginger tosser black tosser isnt it the same ?

 

[Bronto]

do black guys really care about this ? 2 of my m8's that are think its a joke ,, they dont care abit .. its name calling .. ginger tosser black tosser isnt it the same ?

What about a ginger black tosser ? thats got to offend lol >> tongue in cheek !

 

[Him Her]

Shoite...

...

 

[speedy1234]

VectorZ i can see what your getting at .. and your right.its not hard realy to see what you meant

 

[VectorZ]

What about a ginger black tosser ? thats got to offend lol >> tongue in cheek !

 

[Him Her]

Wow! The most exciting post of my life - NOT!

Is he guilty? I saw the clips. I don't have much interest in football and considerably less in self-righteous idiots.

The court found him not guilty. The FA? They are as corrupt as a 3rd World country getting financial support from a useless, bankrupt Government.

Had I been in Terry's shoes I would have told England and the FA to fook off too.

Jeez, what a bizarre World we live in