General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

gimli2112

Drumpot wrote: »

After last season and with this current score line it really does look like Leicester are fighting hard to take take the much coveted “most spurs team in the league” award. :cool:

not surprising that Spurs would come second in that competition

~Rebel~

Drumpot wrote: »

Which is a shame as dealing with each case individually would actually allow a proper conversation on racism to be had to differentiate what is actually racist from what it actually misguided banter. All red cards are not managed the am we do why would they do the same with racism? It’s not like there is loads of these kind of incidents with players tweeting these things going on all the time at the top level so it wouldn’t be a case of loads of cases.

Mostly I think it's because the FA, and football in general, don't want to be the ones having the conversation. They want society to have the conversation and for them to act on society's accepted behaviours. If they start judging instances of potential racism on a case by case basis that then turns them into a literal authority on what is and isn't racism, which is not a position they want themselves to be in. They're just not in the business of public social policy.

It's not the same as judging red cards, because that's a footballing act in a footballing context - it's their world, and where they feel confident having the control to make judgments. You can't apply the same parameters to judging what language one player uses in referencing skin colour to another player on a public platform. They're out of their element in that conversation.

Drumpot

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Mostly I think it's because the FA, and football in general, don't want to be the ones having the conversation. They want society to have the conversation and for them to act on society's accepted behaviours. If they start judging instances of potential racism on a case by case basis that then turns them into a literal authority on what is and isn't racism, which is not a position they want themselves to be in. They're just not in the business of public social policy.

It's not the same as judging red cards, because that's a footballing act in a footballing context - it's their world, and where they feel confident having the control to make judgments. You can't apply the same parameters to judging what language one player uses in referencing skin colour to another player on a public platform. They're out of their element in that conversation.

I agree that they don’t want to have the conversation, but instead they are half arsing it. They mostly ignore footballs role in racism, sexism, homophobia and general macho bullsh*t that isolates some.

Why can’t it be the same as judging red cards? They have decided the parameters of what can be punished with regards to racism so by that definition they are setting down a marker. They are responsible for what is acceptable in the sport , they do very little to make the sport inclusive, particularly at the top levels.

In short, you are basically confirming that they don’t want to take responsibility for these negative aspects of the sport so they have these lazy penalties to look like they are doing something.

Brilliant win for Fulham.

Shanotheslayer

I wonder where Fulham would be if they could actually score penalties.

They score that one and end up winning!

~Rebel~

Drumpot wrote: »

I agree that they don’t want to have the conversation, but instead they are half arsing it. They mostly ignore footballs role in racism, sexism, homophobia and general macho bullsh*t that isolates some.

Why can’t it be the same as judging red cards? They have decided the parameters of what can be punished with regards to racism so by that definition they are setting down a marker. They are responsible for what is acceptable in the sport , they do very little to make the sport inclusive, particularly at the top levels.

In short, you are basically confirming that they don’t want to take responsibility for these negative aspects of the sport so they have these lazy penalties to look like they are doing something.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying they're doing. But on the other side, who are they to be setting nuanced racial laws for what happens off the field anyway? Why should that be their domain? Like, there are already actual societal laws and punishments for that. So they don't do that. They're not policing racial acts, they're policing the public perception of their brand. Any punishment they give for off field acts falls under "bringing the game into disrepute" rather than any sort of traditional judicial punishment anchored to the offense. And to that end, they have a broad and clear behavioural policy - as a representative of the FA, do not refer or allude to other peoples race or skin colour in your public statements/messages.

it's also worth noting that when an offence occurs on the field, they do take it on a case by case basis and have a full and proper inquest, as we saw with Suarez, and Terry, and Casilla.

thebaz

Deleted User wrote: »

Cavani must know that his social media is followed by people all over the world. And even if he is using what is a term of endearment in Uruguay, he should make fairly sure it can't be construed negatively in other cultures. Or else maybe use a different word that is not based on skin colour. In fairness he may not be a racist, but he evidently he may be fairly thick.

he has apologised and seams a mistake - The game has thankfully moved on so much since the mid-90s , never mind 80s - but footballers are human and make mistakes, not everyone is up to the PC standard of 2020 and yet it still seams ok to abuse James McClean on his culture.

~Rebel~

thebaz wrote: »

he has apologised and seams a mistake - The game has thankfully moved on so much since the mid-90s , never mind 80s - but footballers are human and make mistakes, not everyone is up to the PC standard of 2020 and yet it still seams ok to abuse James McClean on his culture.

True, but if another player were to make a comment to/about McClean, they'd definitely be getting sanctioned for it. And the PL do seem to have made a bit of an effort to support McClean at least. His case is a little bit unique too, as it's not necessarily just a simple anti-Irish thing, it's an anti-his-position-on-British-forces thing. Difficult enough thing to police fans on something so specific, only way to do it really is to pinpoint offenders with bans, or fine away clubs where it happens - that happened this year with Barnsley getting a fine for it, but I'm sure it happens more often than it's dealt with.

Drumpot

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying they're doing. But on the other side, who are they to be setting nuanced racial laws for what happens off the field anyway? Why should that be their domain? Like, there are already actual societal laws and punishments for that. So they don't do that. They're not policing racial acts, they're policing the public perception of their brand. Any punishment they give for off field acts falls under "bringing the game into disrepute" rather than any sort of traditional judicial punishment anchored to the offense. And to that end, they have a broad and clear behavioural policy - as a representative of the FA, do not refer or allude to other peoples race or skin colour in your public statements/messages.

it's also worth noting that when an offence occurs on the field, they do take it on a case by case basis and have a full and proper inquest, as we saw with Suarez, and Terry, and Casilla.

Agreed, this is about the brand, not racism.

thebaz

thebaz wrote: »

he has apologised and seams a mistake - The game has thankfully moved on so much since the mid-90s , never mind 80s - but footballers are human and make mistakes, not everyone is up to the PC standard of 2020 and yet it still seams ok to abuse James McClean on his culture.

He made a mistake and there are consequences. As is standard in all walks of life. If I make a mistake in work and it causes problems, I might be hauled before the boss, if I make a mistake in a car and I bang into another car, I might face a claim. Of course because it's a mistake as opposed to a planned act, the consequences are not severe. Obviously if he was an ardent racist who deliberately used pejorative terms, then he should face criminal sanction.

~Rebel~

Drumpot wrote: »

Agreed, this is about the brand, not racism.

For off-field incidents, absolutely. I don't think they're claiming otherwise though... they have a broad standard of behaviour expected of their representatives in their lives off the football field.

For context, this was the ruling in their own words on the Bernardo Silva case;

"The Manchester City midfielder’s social media activity on 22 September 2019 breached FA Rule E3(1), as it was insulting and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute, and constituted an “Aggravated Breach”, which is defined in FA Rule E3(2), as it included reference, whether expressed or implied, to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin."

Mushy

Some start from west ham, awful defending at play

thebaz

Deleted User wrote: »

He made a mistake and there are consequences. As is standard in all walks of life. If I make a mistake in work and it causes problems, I might be hauled before the boss, if I make a mistake in a car and I bang into another car, I might face a claim. Of course because it's a mistake as opposed to a planned act, the consequences are not severe. Obviously if he was an ardent racist who deliberately used pejorative terms, then he should face criminal sanction.

He said the term had a different meaning in his country -

Manchester United's Edinson Cavani has apologised for a deleted social media post containing a Spanish phrase that is offensive in some contexts.

Doesnt seam like an ardent racist to me. seams a mistake (obviously I dont know him , nor the term he used -

again, I would like the powers to crack down also on the McClean hate too

~Rebel~

thebaz wrote: »

He said the term had a different meaning in his country -

Manchester United's Edinson Cavani has apologised for a deleted social media post containing a Spanish phrase that is offensive in some contexts.

Doesnt seam like an ardent racist to me. seams a mistake (obviously I dont know him , nor the term he used -

again, I would like the powers to crack down also on the McClean hate too

It's been fairly thoroughly explained in here already why a rigid no-tolerance rule would apply across some pretty good conversations.

Much like the zero tolerance policy of name-calling on here, a zero tolerance policy of referencing other peoples race or skin colour in any way in public statements is very clear and simple. Everyone knows (or should know) the rule, and it's easy to abide by. He'll get his light punishment, won't do it again, and it's a further reminder to other players of same.

You're not wrong about McClean, but that's a separate issue entirely. They should be dealing with both. The social media one is an especially simple one, so its not like it hampers them in dealing with other things. Barnsley were fined for abusing McClean earlier this year, so that was a good sign at least with FA taking a stand against a club doing it. Of course we've no idea if it'll help as it wasn't long after that that fans were banned from stadiums, so we just have to wait and see on that front.

martingriff

thebaz wrote: »

He said the term had a different meaning in his country -

Manchester United's Edinson Cavani has apologised for a deleted social media post containing a Spanish phrase that is offensive in some contexts.

Doesnt seam like an ardent racist to me. seams a mistake (obviously I dont know him , nor the term he used -

again, I would like the powers to crack down also on the McClean hate too

I agree but did we not have a case like this and the player got a 8 game ban.

Look I am not saying he is a racist he is not but it is perception and as some has already said it can mean something to others

thebaz

~Rebel~ wrote: »

It's been fairly thoroughly explained in here already why a rigid no-tolerance rule would apply across some pretty good conversations.

fair eneogh , just read the last page or so - back on Football - glad my second team won tonight , like to see Fulham stay up

~Rebel~

Smashing goal from Graelish! Fabulous strike.

Hate to say it, but he really is fun to watch. Hate his head though.

Drumpot

~Rebel~ wrote: »

For off-field incidents, absolutely. I don't think they're claiming otherwise though... they have a broad standard of behaviour expected of their representatives in their lives off the football field.

For context, this was the ruling in their own words on the Bernardo Silva case;

"The Manchester City midfielder’s social media activity on 22 September 2019 breached FA Rule E3(1), as it was insulting and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute, and constituted an “Aggravated Breach”, which is defined in FA Rule E3(2), as it included reference, whether expressed or implied, to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin."

I understand that, but You can’t absolve the FA of their responsibility for the culture within the sport by saying “it’s not easy”. Of course it’s not easy to manage but they’ve done as little as possible over the years to manage racism and homophobia within the game. Players are left forcing the sport to awknowledge the issue while the FA bring in rules to protect its brand but in the name of anti racism!

I’d argue that this sort of lazy rule (that’s under a racist banner) is nearly more damaging to the fight against racism when all it does is penalise a silva or Cavani for being silly. Hell, they haven’t even properly addressed protection of players from head injuries so it’s not like they are progressive at addressing issues in the game. Even shearer said what we are all thinking “that they won’t do anything until a player dies of a head injury”, that doesn’t say much about the FA.

I think You are way too understanding of the gymnastics and cynical strategies the FA are playing when it comes to racism.

yourdeadwright

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Smashing goal from Graelish! Fabulous strike.

Hate to say it, but he really is fun to watch. Hate his head though.

There was a massive deflection on it

Cookiemunster

martingriff wrote: »

I agree but did we not have a case like this and the player got a 8 game ban.

Look I am not saying he is a racist he is not but it is perception and as some has already said it can mean something to others

No we didn't. Its already been shown on this thread that it was a different word that was used in anger that caused that 8 match ban.
Its a completely different situation.The closest to this incident was Silva at Man City.

Shanotheslayer

Some dive by Grealish? Went down holding his wrong knee?

Optimalprimerib

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Some dive by Grealish? Went down holding his wrong knee?

It was a bit latin of him alright.

thebaz

thebaz wrote: »

He said the term had a different meaning in his country -

Manchester United's Edinson Cavani has apologised for a deleted social media post containing a Spanish phrase that is offensive in some contexts.

Doesnt seam like an ardent racist to me. seams a mistake (obviously I dont know him , nor the term he used -

again, I would like the powers to crack down also on the McClean hate too

If any player subjected McClean to abuse, then the FA should crack down on him. I'm not sure that anyone has said otherwise...or indeed that that's happened. But if, say, they referred to him as a "F****n b*****d" I think they should be banned. And saying "but that's fine in East London" or "it was a mistake" would be no defence.

Agent Coulson

The FA banned a player for 8 games for calling Paul McShane a Pikey

The Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been handed an eight-match ban for calling the Republic of Ireland international Paul McShane a “pikey”.

Finley was charged with an aggravated breach of the Football Association’s rules after a League One game against McShane’s Rochdale in January

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/apr/21/accrington-sam-finley-gets-eight-game-ban-for-calling-opponent-pikey#:~:text=The%20Accrington%20Stanley%20midfielder%20Sam,against%20McShane's%20Rochdale%20in%20January.

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

The FA banned a player for games for calling Paul McShane a Pikey

Thanks, hadn't heard that before.

Interesting...and absolutely correct. Even if the player did not know it's pejorative and it's a word that's so commonly used that I've seen people express surprise to be told it's not acceptable. You see it on posts here, though not often now.

This is it

Jaysus that looks harsh.

Edit, oh, what happened his head!?

This is it

Ah Jaysus. The stat before the peno showed 2 from 4 scored, surely Grealish should be taking that?

thebaz

Deleted User wrote: »

If any player subjected McClean to abuse, then the FA should crack down on him. I'm not sure that anyone has said otherwise...or indeed that that's happened. But if, say, they referred to him as a "F****n b*****d" I think they should be banned. And saying "but that's fine in East London" or "it was a mistake" would be no defence.

I was talking more about fan abuse - in the mid 90's I played with a black friend who was regulgly racially abused on field , he could look after himself but we always backed him up - In the early 90s I nearly gave up supporting my team , due to racist abuse from the terrace , my point was things have improved hugely - Everton now seam as good as any other club , but my friend sadly past away 20 years ago.

Widdensushi

6 wrote: »

Absolutely. But these guys are probably told day in day out not to post stuff on their social media profiles that may cause offence. The common man knows you should be careful about what you post and we don't have PR managers. It surely can't be too difficult.

I haven't seen what was posted, initial reaction is that it takes more thought to type something than say it, obviously there is irrefutable proof also, one person said suarez said it so I would think that set the benchmark, especially as that player could have made it up. It

Fitz*

Awful delayed reaction from Grealish. He has a habit of going down extremely easy, or just plain diving. Probably the worst diver in the league IMO, and most frequent. Loves the grass.

https://twitter.com/conor0gorman/status/1333519264142274560?s=19