aazak
Player Valuation: £20m
lol reading Dune at the momenttoo much money in the game for them to not be. Man U must remain relevant for the spice to flow...and the spice must flow
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
lol reading Dune at the momenttoo much money in the game for them to not be. Man U must remain relevant for the spice to flow...and the spice must flow
Take the accuser at their word...surely nothing could go wrong there. Im sure the term "witch hunt" has a completely unrelated meaning that has nothing to do with taking accusers word as the truth.Assuming the ref takes the victim at their word - And he should, then there are a number of potential actions to take:
- Send the accused off
- Call a halt to the game and meet with management, captains, etc (after they’ve discussed with their respective teams) to decide how best to continue
Everyone involved in the game needs to see that there are legitimate consequences for racist behaviour. In the event the game was called off and an agreement to continue couldn’t be reached, there should be an outcome given that is punitive towards the team for which the offender plays - Be that awarding the result the other way, points deduction, etc, I don’t know; I’m just spitballing.
The cynic in you is right to an extent, of course, any such rule change is open to potential abuse but that can’t be a reason not to proceed. Perhaps implement player mics or enhanced recording in all areas of the pitch so that disputes can be resolved reasonably definitively but in the first instance the accuser must ALWAYS be taken at their word.
Maybe we should have this happen a single time before we worry about itTake the accuser at their word...surely nothing could go wrong there. Im sure the term "witch hunt" has a completely unrelated meaning that has nothing to do with taking accusers word as the truth.
Racism is bad, but perhaps the presumption of innocence in the absence of proof is not such a stupid idea and should not be lightly thrown away.
That is essentially the same as saying that Salah screams out in pain and goes to ground...hmm I didnt see a foul but I should probably take salah at his word. I mean, he wouldn't lie to gain an advantage would he?
Take the accuser at their word...surely nothing could go wrong there. Im sure the term "witch hunt" has a completely unrelated meaning that has nothing to do with taking accusers word as the truth.
Racism is bad, but perhaps the presumption of innocence in the absence of proof is not such a stupid idea and should not be lightly thrown away.
That is essentially the same as saying that Salah screams out in pain and goes to ground...hmm I didnt see a foul but I should probably take salah at his word. I mean, he wouldn't lie to gain an advantage would he?
Take the accuser at their word...surely nothing could go wrong there. Im sure the term "witch hunt" has a completely unrelated meaning that has nothing to do with taking accusers word as the truth.
Racism is bad, but perhaps the presumption of innocence in the absence of proof is not such a stupid idea and should not be lightly thrown away.
That is essentially the same as saying that Salah screams out in pain and goes to ground...hmm I didnt see a foul but I should probably take salah at his word. I mean, he wouldn't lie to gain an advantage would he?
Yep spot on. Innocent until proven guilty is a very important concept.
It is very weird to me that you're so obsessed with potential miscarriages of justice to refuse strict action being taken, meanwhile footballers are subject to racial abuse on the regular. Its not rare. Its not hard to imagine it really happening.
Here we go again with the mad hypotheticals.Take the accuser at their word...surely nothing could go wrong there. Im sure the term "witch hunt" has a completely unrelated meaning that has nothing to do with taking accusers word as the truth.
Racism is bad, but perhaps the presumption of innocence in the absence of proof is not such a stupid idea and should not be lightly thrown away.
That is essentially the same as saying that Salah screams out in pain and goes to ground...hmm I didnt see a foul but I should probably take salah at his word. I mean, he wouldn't lie to gain an advantage would he?
Then you, sir, are an enormous part of the problem.'course it is, doesn't mean every allegation should result in instant belief.
I've asked a few times now - what should have happened to Juan Cala. Sent off? Banned from football? Based on the say-so of one other player?
Let me put it this way, if that did happen, if I were Juan Cala I'd be preparing one hell of a lawsuit.
I'm always against a 'believe the victim' approach. I'm very much 'believe the evidence'. There's too much desire for instant gratification over due process. I've asked a few times what else could they have done there, I don't think there's been an answer apart from "Valencia should have abandoned the game". If they did that, the burden of proof is on them, and I don't think they could have done that.
Then you, sir, are an enormous part of the problem.
When there is a one player’s word against another, the actions taken will benefit one party. No action = Believing the accused; action such as I’ve suggested = believing the accuser.
Racist players won’t typically give the ref enough “proof” because they’ll say their vile things on the quiet, knowing as they do that racism is bad.