BREAKING NEWS - 6 Game ban for FF

[Lombardo]

4 hours ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

The FA are going to find themselves very busy indeed this season.

Afterall they have now set themselves a precedent. 

 

They will be calling 10's of players in on a weekly basis for this breach. 

 

 

Or at least they should, seeing that they are so keen to uphold these rules.

I wonder if they will...

Jeeeeze.....ooops that's me £25k lighter

[Guest mkowl]

Oh and Ross Mccracken from the FA is a Liverpool fan and retweeted a tweet with said racist word in it 

[royalowlisback]

47 minutes ago, Brommers said:

Irrespective of whether he did or didn't do this and the final guilty decision. How can the FA hand out the newly installed 6 game ban? Surely any punishment should be restricted to that available at the time of the offence which was 5 games. Not a massive difference but appears further evidence that they're doing their utmost to fornicate FF and us over.

They banned HIM under the old 5 game ban rule, the extra game was because of the N word that FF allegedly used.

Edited August 1, 2019 by royalowlisback

[Brommers]

17 minutes ago, royalowlisback said:

They banned HIM under the old 5 game ban rule, the extra game was because of the N word that FF allegedly used.

I haven't read the report so can only take your reply on face value. But can't see this being correct. Surely a rule for using discriminatory language would already encompass the N word. My understanding was that previously the maximum ban was 5 games. The updated punishment is now 6. So my point still stands, how can you issue a penalty that wasn't allowed at the time of the offence?

[royalowlisback]

5 minutes ago, Brommers said:

I haven't read the report so can only take your reply on face value. But can't see this being correct. Surely a rule for using discriminatory language would already encompass the N word. My understanding was that previously the maximum ban was 5 games. The updated punishment is now 6. So my point still stands, how can you issue a penalty that wasn't allowed at the time of the offence?

I've just told you why as above.

 

He was banned for 5 games, increased by 1 for the N word. Was in all the papers this morning the reason why.

[BeverleyOwl74]

I got this email this morning.

 

Hi Jonathan

 

Thank you for contacting The Football Association. 

 

Please click the link below where you will be able to review the Regulatory Commission's written reasons detailing why they came to their decision. 

 

http://www.thefa.com/news/2019/jul/30/forestieri-suspended-310719

 

Kind regards,

 

Customer Engagement Team

 

 

[BeverleyOwl74]

I have further responded.  It won't do anything, but felt I needed to say something to them.

 

Dear Sir,

 

I have read the enclosed and still maintain the case against Mr Forestieri is unproven.  Mr Pearce THOUGHT he heard the "n" word.  The word for that in spanish is ***** meaning black.  It would be quite clear if someone had said this.  I find that from the enclosed there is no actual proof that Mr Forestieri said the word and that the charge is trumped up based on hearsay.  I understand wholeheartedly and completely that any kind of racist behaviour is abhorrent and totally wrong but there is no actual proof that Mr Forestieri is guilty of the charge.

 

It is purely based on the supposition that the reaction of Mr Pearce is down to what h THOUGHT he heard.  I am disabled, does this mean that every time someone says a word to me I have to be on my guard that they may call me spaz, cripple, freak etc?  No.  Because I'm a) not that bothered what people call me and b) I'd like to think if someone was going to try and insult me they'd do it in an audible manner to my face.  The fact that comments were said in a heated environment shows that this is not a reliable use of evidence to prosecute anyone.  This is also what was found in a court of law.  You are in effect by meting out this punishment saying that the Football Association is higher than a court of law?  The whole thing is a witch hunt based on a supposition that Mr Forestieri said something that could bring the game into disrepute.  Players swear at each other all the time on the pitch, its common place, and although there are better ways of dealing with arguments the heat of battle does this to players.  I am not saying Mr Pearce was wrong in his reaction based on the supposition of what he THOUGHT he heard.  But the whole thing is COMPLETELY UNPROVEN.  You are basing your entire case on supposition and hearsay in an effort to further punish someone who has already been punished once for the events of July 2017.  To punish Mr Forestieri twice when Jacob Mellis, a Mansfield player who it has been documented was physically violent on the pitch, was completely unpunished is proof of a witch hunt.  One would suggest your authorities and decision making committees learn something called BALANCE.

 

Yours faithfully

Jonathan Adam

[Owl 44]

1 minute ago, BeverleyOwl74 said:

I have further responded.  It won't do anything, but felt I needed to say something to them.

 

Dear Sir,

 

I have read the enclosed and still maintain the case against Mr Forestieri is unproven.  Mr Pearce THOUGHT he heard the "n" word.  The word for that in spanish is ***** meaning black.  It would be quite clear if someone had said this.  I find that from the enclosed there is no actual proof that Mr Forestieri said the word and that the charge is trumped up based on hearsay.  I understand wholeheartedly and completely that any kind of racist behaviour is abhorrent and totally wrong but there is no actual proof that Mr Forestieri is guilty of the charge.

 

It is purely based on the supposition that the reaction of Mr Pearce is down to what h THOUGHT he heard.  I am disabled, does this mean that every time someone says a word to me I have to be on my guard that they may call me spaz, cripple, freak etc?  No.  Because I'm a) not that bothered what people call me and b) I'd like to think if someone was going to try and insult me they'd do it in an audible manner to my face.  The fact that comments were said in a heated environment shows that this is not a reliable use of evidence to prosecute anyone.  This is also what was found in a court of law.  You are in effect by meting out this punishment saying that the Football Association is higher than a court of law?  The whole thing is a witch hunt based on a supposition that Mr Forestieri said something that could bring the game into disrepute.  Players swear at each other all the time on the pitch, its common place, and although there are better ways of dealing with arguments the heat of battle does this to players.  I am not saying Mr Pearce was wrong in his reaction based on the supposition of what he THOUGHT he heard.  But the whole thing is COMPLETELY UNPROVEN.  You are basing your entire case on supposition and hearsay in an effort to further punish someone who has already been punished once for the events of July 2017.  To punish Mr Forestieri twice when Jacob Mellis, a Mansfield player who it has been documented was physically violent on the pitch, was completely unpunished is proof of a witch hunt.  One would suggest your authorities and decision making committees learn something called BALANCE.

 

Yours faithfully

Jonathan Adam

Wonderful... But Mellis was punished. Also got a 3 match ban and a fine - can't remember how much but a lot less than Nando's. 

[BeverleyOwl74]

That's the thing, what Mellis did was common assault!  He wasn't dragged into court.

Edited August 1, 2019 by BeverleyOwl74

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

47 minutes ago, BeverleyOwl74 said:

I got this email this morning.

 

Hi Jonathan

 

Thank you for contacting The Football Association. 

 

Please click the link below where you will be able to review the Regulatory Commission's written reasons detailing why they came to their decision. 

 

http://www.thefa.com/news/2019/jul/30/forestieri-suspended-310719

 

Kind regards,

 

Customer Engagement Team

 

Thanks for posting.

 

Reading through that makes my blood boil, to be honest. 

 

How the FA can decide that Pearce, with his back to Forestieri on a noisy football pitch, couldn't possibly be mistaken in hearing the n-word among a stream of Spanish insults, is utterly bonkers.

 

To be labelled a racist on the 'balance of probabilities' decided in such a cack-handed way must be absolutely galling. If I were Forestieri, I'd seriously consider telling them to stick their 'education programme' up their arse and be done with football in this country.

 

 

[vid80]

Absolute sh1t3. How can he not be found guilty in a court of law, yet be guilty in the eyes of the FA. Complete injustice.

[steelowl]

karma will have its say I hope Mansfield and its chip on the shoulder players  go bust  

[McRightSide]

6 hours ago, Junk Smuggler said:

 

That panel couldn't have more bias in it for a racism case if it tried!

 

Are you suggesting that people with those names are unable to offer an independent judgement because of their likely race?

 

Because that’s...well...racist.

 

 

[Swiss Toni]

4 minutes ago, McRightSide said:

Are you suggesting that people with those names are unable to offer an independent judgement because of their likely race?

 

Because that’s...well...racist.

 

If you say so.

[the mighty wednesday]

5 hours ago, York_Owl said:

I would actually argue that de verga (in "hijo de mil puta, la concha de tu madre, cara de verga, forro") has a very similar sounding ending to the n word. And that when said in a noisy football match by someone speaking spanish to a non spanish speaker with his back turned to him could be mistaken for the n word.

I've just typed it into google translate and listened to the audio.

I am amazed that the panel said that there was no way that any of the words FF used could be mistaken for the n word even if said in an aggressive way. It is so easy to see how easy it would be to mistake verga for the n word in the context of hurling abuse.

FF's representative did not do a good job for him there.

 

[McRightSide]

44 minutes ago, Junk Smuggler said:

 

If you say so.

 

Well you seem to be saying that white people shouldn't be tried by black people on this..

 

so...

 

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by McRightSide

[Bluesteel]

22 hours ago, Hirstys Salopettes said:

 

Not at the disciplinary hearing it would seem ... 

 

Wednesday have had top lawyers on this. 

 

Should have just hired the QCs on here though 

[Swiss Toni]

7 minutes ago, McRightSide said:

 

Well you seem to be saying that white people shouldn't be tried by black people on this..

 

so...

 

 

It's all about balance. I'm sure it would be an item raised in any appeal. 

[Hirstys Salopettes]

9 minutes ago, Bluesteel said:

 

Wednesday have had top lawyers on this. 

 

Should have just hired the QCs on here though 

 

Or just judge performance based on the result of a hardly indefensible case

Edited August 1, 2019 by Hirstys Salopettes

[McRightSide]

4 minutes ago, Junk Smuggler said:

 

It's all about balance. I'm sure it would be an item raised in any appeal. 

 

In an appeal against a charge of racism you think the defendant would make part of his appeal that there are black people on the independent panel?

 

Oh my days. I think you must be smuggling that junk inbetween your ears

 

Do you not see how it’s racist that you’re saying the white person can be independent but the black person cant? Serious question.

Edited August 1, 2019 by McRightSide