Holgate Racially Abused By Firmino - The Guardian

[Lanolin]

Is it? Nothing out of the FA, for all we know there may not even be an open case. They may have put the refs report straight into the shredder.

No I was talking about Rodriguez, not Firmino.

 

[Lanolin]

No, I have it right. The FA statement on Rodriguez was that he used both abusive and racist language (and/or). The racism was one part of the charge, the other for insulting language abuse.

Call someone a son of a whore under the refs nose and in full view of the camera's (and all the pundits picked it up and commented on it), then you are going to be charged. And that is just for insulting language; he also (like Rodriguez, I believe) has another charge to answer on top of that.

No, that's what I just tried to clear up for you.

The 'and/or' comes between abusive and insulting, not between abusive/insulting and racist. Assuming that the person writing it has a decent grasp of the English language, this means that in layman's terms the charge is that he 'used words of a racist nature which were abusive and/or insulting', not that he 'used words which were abusive and insulting and/or racist'.

 

[Dabluez]

No, I have it right. The FA statement on Rodriguez was that he used both abusive and racist language (and/or). The racism was one part of the charge, the other for insulting language abuse.

Call someone a son of a whore under the refs nose and in full view of the camera's (and all the pundits picked it up and commented on it), then you are going to be charged. And that is just for insulting language; he also (like Rodriguez, I believe) has another charge to answer on top of that.

The FA statement said.

'It is alleged he used abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race.'

The and/or bit is about whether the words were abusive/and or insulting. That is the ambiguous bit.

The bit that isn't open to interpretation is that there was a reference to ethnic origin, colour or race.

Players use abusive and or insulting words to each other all the time. In cricket for example it's called sledging. It crosses the line when ethnic origin, colour or race are brought in to it.

 

[davek]

The precedent of this would be impossible to manage. You would have to apply the same to anyone using the words "Pr*ck, MotherF8Cker, D8ck, Kn*b the list goes on) - every match would be trawled for footage by the fans of the team they play next week.

Ref put in his report that an allegation was made;

“The FA can confirm that referee Bobby Madley was made aware of an allegation during the Liverpool versus Everton game at Anfield last night and has subsequently reported this to The FA, which will now begin making enquiries into the matter.”

this is what the FA are/have investigated. Rightly or wrongly, they would be stupid to touch the "Son of a Wh*re"

Rules of the Football Association: E CONDUCT-GENERAL BEHAVIOUR

3 (1)

"A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."

Firmino - bang to rights. Just a question whether he receives a charge and longer ban on his racism.

 

[davek]

No, that's what I just tried to clear up for you.

The 'and/or' comes between abusive and insulting, not between abusive/insulting and racist. Assuming that the person writing it has a decent grasp of the English language, this means that in layman's terms the charge is that he 'used words of a racist nature which were abusive and/or insulting', not that he 'used words which were abusive and insulting and/or racist'.

(again from above)

Rules of the Football Association: E CONDUCT-GENERAL BEHAVIOUR

3 (1)

"A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."


No arguments. No ifs or buts. No textual ambiguity.

Insults and improper and abusive language are punished under the rules of the game.

 

[davek]

The FA statement said.

'It is alleged he used abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race.'

The and/or bit is about whether the words were abusive/and or insulting. That is the ambiguous bit.

The bit that isn't open to interpretation is that there was a reference to ethnic origin, colour or race.

Players use abusive and or insulting words to each other all the time. In cricket for example it's called sledging. It crosses the line when ethnic origin, colour or race are brought in to it.

(again again...)

Rules of the Football Association: E CONDUCT-GENERAL BEHAVIOUR

3 (1)

"A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."


"Puta" = guilty.

Go straight to the charge and ban; and add those games to the racism charge he'll face too.

 

[Big Fat Sam]

Insults and improper and abusive language are punished under the rules of the game.

Where the FA has a will to get around that, you can be damn sure they'll find a way to get around it. Hence how Firmino has been allowed to continue playing (and shining for them) all of this time.

 

[Lanolin]

(again from above)

Rules of the Football Association: E CONDUCT-GENERAL BEHAVIOUR

3 (1)

"A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."


No arguments. No ifs or buts. No textual ambiguity.

Insults and improper and abusive language are punished under the rules of the game.

I didn't say it wasn't in the rules of the game, I said it's not what he's been charged with...

 

[Saint Domingo]

(again again...)

Rules of the Football Association: E CONDUCT-GENERAL BEHAVIOUR

3 (1)

"A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."


"Puta" = guilty.

Go straight to the charge and ban; and add those games to the racism charge he'll face too.

That lot would fall foul of this section of the rules most weeks. No confidence that anything will be held up by the FA.

 

[davek]

Where the FA has a will to get around that, you can be damn sure they'll find a way to get around it. Hence how Firmino has been allowed to continue playing (and shining for them) all of this time.

So far...

 

[davek]

I didn't say it wasn't in the rules of the game, I said it's not what he's been charged with...

He's accused not charged; and how do you know what he's been accused of?

 

[davek]

That lot would fall foul of this section of the rules most weeks. No confidence that anything will be held up by the FA.

Whole raft of charges and following bans each season on the count of insulting and abusive language.

The FA cant just ignore this instance of it.

 

[Saint Domingo]

Whole raft of charges and following bans each season on the count of insulting and abusive language.

The FA cant just ignore this instance of it.

They can and they will. Klopp called the integrity of the officials into question in the league derby and against Spurs and escaped without punishment both times. Other managers have been punished for similar. The FA always have a special dispensation if required. Bong Rodriguez occurred later than it and has passed through the system. Holgate Firmino has been swept under the carpet.

 

[Lanolin]

No, I have it right. The FA statement on Rodriguez was that he used both abusive and racist language (and/or). The racism was one part of the charge, the other for insulting language abuse.

Call someone a son of a whore under the refs nose and in full view of the camera's (and all the pundits picked it up and commented on it), then you are going to be charged. And that is just for insulting language; he also (like Rodriguez, I believe) has another charge to answer on top of that.

He's accused not charged; and how do you know what he's been accused of?

Dave, you're better than this. By all means run rings round occasional visitors to the site and tie yourself up in knots arguing with people who can't keep up with you, but don't try and tell me that you didn't know we were talking about Rodriguez being charged because you did, and the quotes prove it. Pick your battles David.

 

[davek]

They can and they will. Klopp called the integrity of the officials into question in the league derby and against Spurs and escaped without punishment both times. Other managers have been punished for similar. The FA always have a special dispensation if required. Bong Rodriguez occurred later than it and has passed through the system. Holgate Firmino has been swept under the carpet.

It's not been reported on yet. It may not be a charge. It should be.

But the point is that - in contradiction to a few on here who believe there is no charge to answer - the grounds are there to charge Firmino just on what we DO know right now.